SOCHI, July 4 (RIA Novosti)
Russia and NATO cannot agree on the establishment of a so-called sectoral missile defense system in Europe, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said on Monday.
Russia and NATO agreed to cooperate on the so-called European missile defense system at the Lisbon Summit in November 2010. NATO insists there should be two independent systems that exchange information, while Russia favors a joint system with full-scale interoperability.
Under a proposal put forward by President Dmitry Medvedev, Russia would reportedly be responsible for shooting down missiles aimed at NATO members but passing through Russia's airspace or sector, with NATO members committing to protect Russia in a similar fashion.
"It won't be a big secret to say that agreement will not be reached on a sectoral approach," Lavrov said during the NATO-Russia Council meeting in Russia's Black Sea resort city of Sochi.
The minister explained that the NATO countries justified their position on the proposal as part of their commitments in the framework of NATO.
"Our partners from NATO say they have mutual defense obligations under Article 5 of the Washington Treaty, and this obligation can not be delegated to anyone," Lavrov said.
The fifth article of the NATO's founding treaty commits signatories to provide immediate assistance to other members of the alliance in the event of armed attack.
Lavrov added that despite the differences, Russia would work to develop its ties with the North Atlantic alliance.
"NATO poses no threat to us," he said. "NATO is our partner; we want our partnership to become strategic, as agreed in Lisbon. We will do everything to move toward this, but will certainly not gloss over the problems, sometimes very serious ones, that are present in our relations."
Alliance Secretary General Anders Fog Rasmussen struck a similar tone following the Sochi talks, saying NATO wanted to cooperate with Russia on the anti-missile shield issue but that much remained to be resolved.
"Many key issues still need to be addressed. We never said we would agree on missile defense overnight, or even in a few months," Rasmusen said.
"We are determined to keep up the dialogue and to keep up the work. And we are making progress in matching our visions of the missile defense project."
Add to blog
You may place this material on your blog by copying the link.
- avatar_singhRussia has only herself to blame for her delusion that nato coudlbe anythign but her real enemy.02:49, 05/07/2011what are the rusians alwayts drkinging ?theyhave no sense of proptortion. they donto see what has happend in past and donto take lesson from it.
england for whose service nato was created has alwys been after russian wealth and land-and russian isntead of thinking how to annihilate england fromt he face of earth is hobnobiing with her enemy.
NATO is an organisation created to maintain the pwoer of england throughamericna arms to bully germany and europeans and to keep russia down all for beenfit of england and usa got sukced into it through british agents in usd media and politics and business.that is what isonalist means one who is not willing to sacrifice for the beenfit of england.
it is not neocons who are for perpetual war it is the english race so called British who are instigating the perpetual war of course the English are too coward and weak to fight on their own so they have arranged a charade called NATO to do their dirty work.
Decisions in nato are made not in berlin or Belgium but only in London and some british agents’ place in washington. NATO WAS CREATED TO KEEP THE INFLUNCE OF WEAKNED BRITISH BASTARDS TO KEEP EUROPEANS DOWN (ESPECIALLY GEMRNS AND FRENCH) AND KEEP RUSSIAN THREATEND. IT WAS NOT CREATED TO counter Russia; it was created to give
- avatar_singh(no title)03:30, 05/07/2011Afghanistan and Pakistan are merely stepping stones on the road to "taking out" or dismembering the only power on earth which can be a competitor to the US, China. And the US ruling class is deadly serious about this. Its main propaganda weapon will be human rights, in the form of free speech, ethnic rights and, yes believe it or not, trade union rights (!). If one has any doubts about it, the latest example is in today's NYT: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/09/world/asia/09ch...
. USA and britian have used other countries to fight each other and comes in for the final kill--Germany, Japan, Russia ect.
- zviada(no title)07:04, 05/07/2011If NATO is not a threat for Russia, then why Russia is afraid of Georgia joining to the alliance?
Any anti-ISIL operation in Iraq cannot be effective unless the Islamic State is attacked in Syria. But the final statement of the Paris Conference did not mention Syria as a precaution against disunity in the coalition and with due regard for the Russian position. Professor of the Chair of Modern East Department of History, Political Science and Law in RSUH