Good evening, esteemed colleagues.

I would like to comment on the NATO Council statement adopted today at the level of foreign ministers. I think that I will surprise few of you if I say that the statement is biased and prejudiced, primarily because it contains not a single word about how all this began, why all this began, who started aggressive actions and who armed Georgia and the Georgian leadership, and who consistently, during the last year and even more, blocked our insistent suggestion that Georgia conclude a legally binding agreement with South Ossetia and Abkhazia on the inadmissibility of the use of force.

In fact, the North Atlantic Alliance has taken Mr. Mikhail Saakashvili under its protection, and the lexicon of certain alliance members is really astounding. I have heard that the US Secretary of State, Madame Condoleezza Rice, declared today that the objective of Russia’s actions was to undermine Georgian democracy – as if there had not been any of the numerous facts of absence of genuine democracy in Georgia during the last year, as if there had been no report of experts of the Council of Europe on how grossly Georgia was violating its obligations to this organization, and as if there had been no report of the Georgian human rights ombudsman. Report which the Georgian parliament under the pressure of the administration of President Saakashvili, contrary to the laws of Georgia, refused to hear because it had turned out to be devastating where the real human rights and democracy situation in Georgia is concerned. And as if there had been no decision of the Georgian leadership, shortly after the start of its aggressive action in South Ossetia, to shut down all Russian TV channels relayed in Georgia and to shut off access to the Russian internet. Only one source of Russian-language information was left – the RTVi channel, which for having dared to put into its grid my interviews to Ekho Moskvy radio station and to the TV channel Vesti 24 was today also shut down. So apparently you can judge for yourself the state of Georgian democracy and who is undermining it.

As for today’s statement of the NATO Council, it is clear that an attempt is being made there to present the Georgian-South Ossetian and Georgian-Abkhaz conflicts as a conflict between Georgia and Russia while ignoring the history, facts and the entire chain of events since the first president of independent Georgia, Zviad Gamsakhurdia, proclaimed the aim of his policy to be “Georgia for Georgians,” starting aggressive actions against the South Ossetians and the Abkhaz after this and abolishing their autonomy. You know the rest of it.

The Russian peacekeepers, who had all these years tried to maintain the very fragile peace that had been won to no small degree thanks to our intervention and which rested on the agreements concluded by Georgia with South Ossetia and Abkhazia, were treacherously attacked by their own Georgian colleagues serving with them in a peacekeeping battalion in South Ossetia. So it appears to me that NATO is trying to make a victim of an aggressor and whitewash a criminal regime, save a collapsing regime and is taking a path to the rearmament of the current leaders in Georgia, although, probably, everybody has been able to see what arming the aggressor leads to. It is clear that the Georgian leadership has not been buying arms for defense, but for the continuation of its attempts to solve the problem of the territorial integrity of Georgia by force.

For justice’s sake I shall note that in the document approved today in Brussels there is support of the six principles for settlement that were proposed by Presidents Dmitry Medvedev and Nicolas Sarkozy at their meeting in Moscow on August 12. But how NATO assesses this accord also causes questions. All the claims are being addressed to us as if these principles do not contain the obligation of the Georgian leadership to immediately return all its troops to their places of permanent deployment. The fact that Mr. Saakashvili signed a modified version of the agreement which the parties had been invited to sign, that attempts have been made to interpret to the parties the content of this document in every way possible and that attempts to get approved a UN Security Council resolution which would support the six principles in their initial form are being blocked – all of this indicates that it is not NATO countries telling Mr. Saakashvili what he should do to meet high NATO standards; it’s Mr. Saakashvili telling advanced democracies such as NATO countries what they should do to satisfy his ambitions.

Of course, it is simply amazing to hear said that if the Bucharest summit had granted a membership action plan (MAP) to Georgia, it would all have been different. I did not even understand what it was all about. Apparently those who are voicing such thoughts believe that given the MAP Georgia could have bombed the peaceful city of Tskhinval more effectively. In general, my impression is that the MAP and this entire policy of drawing Georgia into NATO are not so that Georgia should meet NATO standards; it’s just anti-Russian policy, supporting an aggressive regime in Georgia. This is our assessment.

At the same time we have, of course, taken note of the hints made at the press conference of the NATO Secretary General, Mr. Jaap de Hoop Scheffer, about what consequences the present situation is going to have for relations between Russia and NATO. To be sure, there will be consequences. I agree, however paradoxical it may sound, with Mr. De Hoop Scheffer that continuing with “business as usual” is very unlikely. We said so even a week ago, when without waiting for any meetings at the level of foreign ministers NATO’s representatives had come up with absolutely biased assessments. I think that we will draw appropriate conclusions.

Question: After the NATO statement which speaks of the possibility of making changes to the work of the Russia-NATO Council, what future do you envision for this Council?

Foreign Minister Lavrov: I do not think that the Russia-NATO Council was created for the purpose of educating Russia in terms of how it should behave with the Georgian leadership.

The Russia-NATO Council was created to help solve truly large-scale problems having a direct bearing on the maintenance of stability and security in Europe and the Euro-Atlantic Region. We think that all these problems remain urgent and that they can only be tackled by uniting efforts and everything depends on our partners here. The principle that operates in the Russia-NATO Council is “one country – one vote.” This is not a structure in which NATO as an organization stands in opposition to Russia. We all participate in the work of this body in our national capacity exactly. And the fact that Mr. De Hoop Scheffer uttered the phrase about keeping the door open – this we will certainly take into consideration. At the same time we will also take into account his statement that so long as Russia occupies Georgia, the Russia-NATO Council will not convene at any level. To be sure, a substitution of notions takes place here: Russia neither occupies nor intends to occupy anybody and we have no plans to annex anybody’s territory.

By efforts of our peacekeepers we fulfill the functions that were laid upon us in line with the agreements signed by the conflicting parties, including Georgia. If the agreements are grossly violated by one of the parties, the peacekeepers must stop any such violations. Which has been done and which will be carried through.

Our forces which were sent into the region in support of the Russian peacekeepers will be withdrawn. The withdrawal has already begun, it is continuing. And in parallel with this a security zone is being set up in full accordance with the Moscow six-principle agreement. And when the peacekeepers take up positions on the outer limits of the security zone, all those forces introduced in support of the peacekeepers will return to their places of deployment.

Question: When is the withdrawal of Russian troops to their initial positions planned?

Foreign Minister Lavrov: Everything will be done in accordance with the six principles presupposing, first and foremost, the return of Georgian forces to their places of permanent deployment – to the barracks. This so far hasn’t occurred. There are instances every day when our troops in some or other part of the security zone detain Georgian detachments that have still not returned to their barracks. Nonetheless, the withdrawal has begun. It will be commensurated with how effectively Georgia fulfills its obligations to return its troops to their places of permanent deployment and with how the places of stationing of peacekeeping forces are created in the security zone. I think that it will take just three or four days.