Russian envoy Oleg Malginov doubts Deveselu defensive system, regrets low bilateral relations

11

In an interview granted to Agrepres, the Ambassador of the Russian Federation in Bucharest Oleg Malginov laments on the bilateral relations between Russia and Romania, as they are ‘not as high as before’ – ‘we don’t have contacts.’

‘But we have quite active working relations. I have contacts with the authorities of Romania of all the spheres, with the Foreign Ministry, with the Administration, with the Executive, with representatives of the civil society and others. I know that Romanian Embassy in Moscow is also actively working with our authorities, so we have a good and stable exchange of information, messages, signals, because it is very important to know in detail the position of each country. Now the diplomats are working,’ the Russian Ambassador says.

Speaking about the missile shield in Deveselu, the ambassador said: “We have been discussing this issue with the Romanian authorities for quite some time rather frankly. We understand that Romania is a part of collective efforts in this regard. We have a different approach to this issue than Bucharest does. You see, I have heard many times, we have heard many times that this is a purely defensive system. Ok, note of it is taken, let’s say. But 40 years ago, the politicians and the military planners of that time did realize that there is a strong connection between offensive and defensive weapons. And two treaties were concluded between the Soviet Union and the United States. One is on the limitation of offensive, of strategic missiles, and the other one its inalienable part, I mean they are absolutely interrelated, is on the anti-missile defence. This link was established, was agreed upon. Later on this link was destroyed by the decision of Washington to get out of the Treaty on anti-missile defence and to develop these so-called anti-missile shields. While discussing the question of strategic armaments, it is not possible to say: This weapon is only defensive and that one is only offensive. When we speak about the strategy, about the components of the balance of the military forces, we speak about the military potential. I would say this is not about forces, but about potentials. And anti-missile defence is a part of potential, which includes everything, offensive and defensive. Therefore, we consider this as a challenge and as a threat, because the military potential of the countries is increased to the detriment of the potential of the Russian Federation. The agreements to cut down the nuclear missiles and other disarmament documents were based on the presumption that our military potential is more or less balanced and equal. And by diminishing the potential we go simultaneously in parallel. When one side is creating an anti-missile shield, its potential is going higher and the potential of the other side is less. So this is a discrepancy. This is what we discussed. I hope that the authorities, the officials who say that this is a defensive system believe in it. But we have a different opinion. And I am here to bring this point of view also to authorities to say that we cannot agree.”

- Advertisement -

Comments are closed.

This website uses cookies to improve your experience. We'll assume you're ok with this, but you can opt-out if you wish. Accept Read More