We have discussed the full spectrum of our bilateral ties: trade and economic relations, with emphasis on energy; ties involving military-technical cooperation, and humanitarian links, including their religious aspect, given the important role that Orthodoxy plays in the life of the Russians and the Syrians alike. We have agreed to cooperate further under all the bilateral accords in the stage of realization. The principal signal that the presidents have sent to all agencies of Russia and Syria is the need to speed up the fulfillment of these accords.

As to regional problems, the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, at the core of all problems in the Middle East and beyond, particularly in the context of the relations among civilizations, undoubtedly ranked high in the agenda.

We welcomed the tendencies which have become manifest in Palestinian-Israeli relations recently; first of all, the continuation of direct talks between Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and President Mahmoud Abbas of the Palestinian National Authority, their determination to arrive at concrete agreements. This is undoubtedly a complicated process, it has not yet been crowned with even interim success, but the fact that it is continuing instills hope for consistent and ongoing advance towards concrete results. The lingering absence of Palestinian unity is a problem in this path. However, both the President of Russia and the President of Syria spoke out firmly in support of the efforts being made with Egyptian mediation and support from Russia and other states to find a compromise between Fatah and Hamas. Particular options that could help restore the Palestinians' unity also were discussed.

The Syrian side informed us of its intention to continue indirect contacts with Israel with a view to normalizing Syrian-Israeli relations. In this connection the Syrians highly assessed our position on this issue. They expect that at the stage when both Israel and Syria are able to move to concrete, direct talks, Russia together with a number of other sponsors could play an important role in ensuring success.

The situation in Iraq was discussed where, as the Presidents agreed, a shift to real interethnic dialogue in order to establish interethnic consensus and reconciliation and ensure a development of events which will enable the Iraqis to take their fate into their own hands remains key to settlement. An integral part of this process is placing some time limit on the presence of foreign troops on the territory of Iraq as soon as possible.

Both Russia and Syria share the necessity of an exclusively political peaceful resolution of the situation surrounding the nuclear program of Iran. They exchanged assessments of the proposals that the European countries, Russia, China and the United States had transmitted to the Iranian side. The common view boils down to acknowledging that it is necessary on the basis of these proposals to try and arrive at the start of negotiations.

Syria and we already have a whole array of contracts signed, and they are being successfully carried out. We are prepared, which the President of Russia has today reaffirmed, to consider the Syrian side's proposals regarding purchases of new types of weapons. Our position is clear, which Dmitry Medvedev has today explicitly reconfirmed – we will be prepared to supply Syria with weapons that, in the first place, bear a defensive character and which in no way upset the regional balance of power.

The Russian fleet is currently making regular voyages into the World Ocean and the Mediterranean Sea. This is an area where, to obtain real-time information, it is extremely important to arrange to objectively monitor whether international waters are not used by terrorists or by those trying to smuggle weapons of mass destruction or their components. The Russian fleet has begun on a regular basis to be sent on tours of duty to the Mediterranean Sea and to the World Ocean as a whole and will continue to perform its relevant mission in the future as well. Where required by practical necessity we use – and will continue to do so – ports of friendly states for the purpose of logistic support of our fleet's work in the World Ocean.

I have heard that NATO has adopted a statement containing threats that unless Russia does this and that, the North Atlantic Alliance will look at how much it is interested in cooperation with Russia. I can only say that Russia needs mutual cooperation no more than NATO does. I think that our NATO partners need our support in their Afghanistan operation even more, especially as the fate of the North Atlantic Alliance is indeed being decided in Afghanistan – whether it can fulfill the goals which have been put forward in its transformation or not. That Russia's assistance is critical for NATO is confirmed by the fact that already after the well-known NATO Council meeting at ministerial level, where a rather sharply worded, if devoid of any specificity document was adopted, key alliance members would approach us and whisper in our ears: "I hope you will not stop cooperating with NATO on Afghanistan." Here's for you an illustration of who is interested in what. We are not going to slam the door, but NATO, we are told, keeps the door for cooperation with Russia open, while threatening that at any second it might be slammed. Here, I will repeat, everything does not depend on us, but on those taking decisions on the priorities of the North Atlantic Alliance leaders in their foreign policy and strategic line in the world. If these priorities lead towards blind support for the bankrupt Saakashvili regime and if the price they are ready to pay for this includes a break in relations with Russia, then that will not be our choice.

South Ossetia and Abkhazia more than once approached the Russian side with a request for the recognition of their independence. Now these requests are being resumed. We are perfectly well aware of the feelings of the Abkhaz and South Ossetian peoples, who have over the last 15 years been subjected with a varying degree of intensity to the chauvinistic pressure from Georgia.

We very patiently and responsibly strove all these years to fulfill our functions as mediators and peacekeepers. If somebody has called into question the territorial integrity of Georgia and essentially dealt a serious blow to it, it is the present leader of that country – Mikhail Nikolayevich Saakashvili – who, as I've already had an opportunity to say, only two and a half years ago, answering the question whether he would use force, vowed and swore that he never would do that because, in his own words, blood was remembered not for decades, but for centuries – that was why he would use solely peaceful methods to settle his relations with the peoples whom he considered a part of the Georgian state.

Still, he once again used force against them. There had been such attempts, particularly three years ago, but this time the scale and cynicism of what he perpetrated, of course, exceed all bounds. So that it is Mikhail Nikolayevich Saakashvili who will bear responsibility for how the situation is going to evolve further.

The basing agreements that are in place and have been ratified by the parliaments of the two countries, as has been stated more than once, impose no restrictions on the movement of the Black Sea Fleet, of its ships from Sevastopol to any areas and back whatsoever. These basic agreements state that on a number of matters the sides will be prepared to conclude additional, more specific arrangements to govern this or that aspect of the presence of the Black Sea Fleet of the Russian Federation on the territory of Ukraine. So now, among these matters the Russian side, not the Ukrainian I stress, had repeatedly suggested discussing also the rule on Black Sea Fleet movement. The Ukrainian side had consistently refused to do that. In October last year, I guess, Russian negotiators handed over to their Ukrainian colleagues a package of supplemental draft accords, on this matter as well. And the fact that the Ukrainians had for almost a year been merely silent and suddenly in the course of the events around South Ossetia declared that they would be deciding these matters unilaterally is a violation of the basing agreements. At the same time they pretend that Russia never presented any proposals on that score. You know this evokes, using diplomatic language, bewilderment, to say the least. But you must know what is behind this diplomatic phrase.

Russia is fully compliant with the six principles that were agreed by Presidents Medvedev and Sarkozy in Moscow on August 12 and which, by the way, were the day before yesterday endorsed at the OSCE. In these principles, it is stated that Russian peacekeeping forces will implement additional security measures. Those measures provide for the preservation and specification of the boundaries of the security zone around South Ossetia. This work is being carried out. President Medvedev told his counterparts about this during the recent telephone calls. It will be over tomorrow. Also tomorrow in line with the plans of our peacekeeping forces about eight posts will be set up on the outer limit of the security zone. At each of these posts a contingent of peacekeepers will be deployed on such a basis that their total number in the zone is about five hundred, no more than that. All the other units and formations of the armed forces of the Russian Federation that were sent into the region to reinforce the Russian peacekeeping force will be pulled back into South Ossetia – this concerns peacekeeping troops – and to the territory of the Russian Federation – this concerns all the rest. The pullout, by the way, began several days ago. Everybody knows this very well. But as in a bad detective story, some of our western partners refuse to cognize that and are trying to present matters so as if we do not comply with our obligations under the six-principle agreement.

I do not even want to go into the details of the manipulation that occurred and continues to occur with the text of these six principles. To begin with, the agreement set forth on paper by Presidents Medvedev and Sarkozy was, at first, during President Sarkozy's visit to Tbilisi, modified by Mikhail Saakashvili. Then the same agreement was, while being discussed in the UN Security Council where we wanted to get it approved, so prepared that Georgia was essentially being absolved of all its obligations, and so on. They had worked on this paper very creatively. We are categorically against this.

What worth is at least this example when the six principles approved by Medvedev and Sarkozy state that the Georgian army, Georgian armed forces must return to their places of permanent deployment; that is, the barracks. In this document the term "permanent" is used. But when in the Security Council the discussion started on this point, attempts were made to rewrite the resolution endorsing these six principles, the text of these principles, and replace the phrase "permanent deployment" with a phrase "to their usual bases." "Usual" is not a legal term. "Usual" can also mean the positions which the Georgian army held as it was preparing aggression against South Ossetia and a similar operation against Abkhazia. Such details reveal, in general, the diplomatic unscrupulousness of some of our partners, but we, naturally, see all these games. We are calmly, without hysteria seeking a very simple decision which would endorse the principles as approved on August 12 in Moscow, without any changes. The first result in this work was achieved at the OSCE, precisely where this occurred. Now in response to these attempts to twist the situation – all in all, the so called sleight of hand had taken place in the Security Council in this case – we have suggested, first, blocking them and, secondly, presented our own very simple resolution which approves and endorses the six Moscow principles and calls on all the parties to comply with them.