OREANDA-NEWS. May 22, 2009. DMITRY MEDVEDEV: Ladies and gentlemen, representatives of the media,

I would like to begin by summing up the results of the Russia-EU summit that has just ended. First of all, I think that the choice of venue, so far from central Europe, created a unique and special atmosphere that our European friends will remember, I hope. I think that this atmosphere helped us to discuss openly and constructively all of the different areas of Russian-European cooperation: issues on which we share one and the same position, and issues on which our views differ. At any rate, I think that we will continue to choose different regions as venues for our summits. I think that this is a very productive practice and I hope it will continue. Russia is a big country and has even more remote and hard-to-reach corners.   

We discussed all the current issues on the global agenda today. We began with the financial crisis over dinner last night, discussed the measures our countries are taking. It seems to us quite evident that, unfortunately, no one has a full understanding of exactly how this crisis will develop. This would be an achievement worthy of the highest prizes. At the moment, we are forced to respond to circumstances as they arise. But we have nonetheless produced some results over these last months. There have been the consultations between Russia and the European Union and of course the results of the G-20 summit of the world’s biggest economies. In any event, this work will continue.  

We had an extensive discussion on energy security issues, including the Russian Federation’s recent proposal to establish a new legal foundation for international cooperation. It seemed to me that our European colleagues show interest in these ideas. I hope that we will continue our discussions in this area. This is clearly in the European continent’s interests. 

We took a close look at the regular issues on our agenda such as implementing the roadmaps approved back in 2005. We see progress in this area as the main mechanism for cooperation between the Russian Federation and the European Union. I am referring to the four common European spaces: the common economic space; freedom, security and justice; external, that is, international security; and science, education and culture. We want to continue the work in this area and broaden as much as possible our constructive cooperation on all of these issues.  

We also discussed our strategic dialogue. Of course, we looked at the issue of the new basic agreement that is to replace the current Russia-European Union Partnership and Cooperation Agreement. Overall, despite the brief delay we had along the way, we are happy with the pace at which things are progressing now. In itself, the work on this agreement facilitates rapprochement between our positions on various important current issues, and we hope that we will continue to make headway. We hope that the work on settling and approving the main conditions will go ahead smoothly and will take into account our countries’ interests. 

Existing cooperation mechanisms were another important and productive subject of discussion. We think that these mechanisms have proved their worth overall, both during quiet periods and crisis moments. I think that the European Union accomplished much during the crisis period in the Caucasus last August. The EU showed that it has sufficient means at its disposal for responding to crises that arise. But there is never any complete guarantee against future crises of this kind, and in our view, if we want to prevent such crises we need to put in place the legal foundations for anti-crisis action. The new European security treaty would give us just such a foundation.   

We exchanged views on current international issues, in particular on the unresolved conflict situations in Europe. I am referring of course to Cyprus, Kosovo, the security problems in the Caucasus, and the situation with Georgia, South Ossetia and Abkhazia. We discussed developments in the situation in Moldova, and also looked at the Middle East, the Iranian nuclear programme, and the situation in Afghanistan and Pakistan. This was a frank and constructive discussion. We all have an interest in these issues and on many points we share close positions, something I think is very positive, and also very important for resolving these various problems. We do have our differences on some issues, of course, but this does not stop us from continuing our discussions and looking for constructive ways to settle our differences.

Overall, I want to say that we have no doubt as to the strategic nature of the partnership between Russia and the European Union. We think that this kind of partnership enables us to respond to the most complex challenges and resolve even the most complex problems, including the financial and economic crisis. We will continue to work together to develop our economic relations, fight international terrorism and trans-border crime, and address other threats to humanity’s development. Overall therefore, I want to say that I am happy with the results of our work today.

QUESTION: Ceska Televize. You discussed energy security. Russia has repeatedly warned, even today, of a possible new crisis in gas supplies via Ukraine and potential risk of disruption of supplies to Europe.

President Medvedev, do you think this situation is serious, and what specific assurances can you give Europe that this kind of crisis will not take place again and that there will be no disruption of supplies?

DMITRY MEDVEDEV: Energy security is one of our key cooperation areas, as I and my colleagues have just said. We discussed the question of building a modern system for guaranteeing energy security. Russia has made its proposal known and it was the subject of a very constructive discussion today that I followed with interest. Overall, I am happy with the discussion that took place because I think we looked precisely at the legal mechanisms that we could use to better regulate energy cooperation issues, and spoke about the need for discussion and analysis of the ideas Russia has put forward.

I made it clear to our colleagues and can state once more now that Russia is not a party to the Energy Charter and does not intend to become a party to it in its present version. Russia is not a party to the Energy Charter Treaty and will not implement it and we have given international notification of this fact. But this does not mean that we think everything in it is harmful. This is not the case. The Energy Charter involved serious work, serious talks, and a large number of countries have signed and ratified it. It should not be discarded, but rather, should be used as a base for developing more effective energy-sector instruments, including either a separate new agreement on procedures we agree on, or a new version of the Energy Charter, but based on provisions that have been agreed separately with Russia, because as I said, Russia has not ratified and will not ratify the current version of these documents.

To answer the second point you raised, the Russian Federation has given no specific assurances and has no plans to do so. What would be the point? We have no problems on our side. We have no problems with gas supplies or with fulfilling our obligations. Assurances should be given by those who have to pay for the gas. On this matter too there are possibilities for ensuring normal work together.

I spoke with our partners about this situation and proposed that we analyse once again the situation with gas supplies to Ukraine. At the moment, a sizeable amount of gas – around 19.5 billion cubic metres – is to be delivered to Ukraine’s underground reservoirs. These supplies represent a value of more than \\$4 billion. If Ukraine has this money, that is excellent. But we have doubts about Ukraine’s ability to pay. On this point you are right.  

What do partners do in such situation? They help each other out. We are ready to lend Ukraine a helping hand, but we would like to see other countries with an interest in reliable and secure energy cooperation, perhaps the European Union too, take a big share in this work.   

What we are talking about, in other words, is loans. Let’s work together to organise syndicated loans to Ukraine. This should not be Russia’s task alone. After all, it is not Russia that is having trouble paying its debts.

QUESTION: Rossia Television Channel. To what extent has energy become a contentious issue at these sorts of talks, and is a compromise possible? To what extent can the proposals Russia recently made in Helsinki consolidate the approach to the subject? 

DMITRY MEDVEDEV: Energy is not a contentious subject. On the contrary, it is something that can unite us, something that binds together the Russian Federation and the European Union countries. It is our common business and it is something that guarantees a comfortable life for millions of Europeans. Energy is therefore not a problem but an advantage. But it is important of course to ensure that our energy cooperation develops in civilised form. We saw at the start of the year what can happen when energy relations take a different turn. We have our own view on this problem and I will not go back to this matter right now. I just want to state the obvious and say that it is preferable to trade at market prices, sign international contracts, and it is not a bad thing to pay up on those contracts from time to time. No one has yet abolished these principles of contractual law. 

As for the future, as I see it, the way forward would be to draw up a comprehensive legal framework for energy cooperation. We all agree on the need for this. I was pleased to hear what our partner, Mr Barroso, had to say on this subject. We will continue to work on giving a legal foundation to our energy sector cooperation. I am confident that we can achieve this. We must make an effort to prevent crises and problems from arising, and this should be precisely the objective of future energy agreements, because the current agreements, whatever view we take of them, do not resolve these issues. 

Incidentally, Ukraine is a party to the Energy Charter and the Energy Charter Treaty, but what good has this done? They have acted as they pleased and ignored the Energy Charter and the Energy Charter Treaty. Clearly, other instruments, including in the areas of liability and arbitration, are needed so as to avoid constantly having to resort to political resolution. We will not forget what things were like in January. Mr Barroso and I also spoke then on the phone. We really would not want to go through this kind of situation again. 

QUESTION: Mr Medvedev, did your European colleagues try to convince you today that Russia should feel no cause for concern about the EU’s Eastern Partnership? And did they succeed in convincing you? 

DMITRY MEDVEDEV: I will try to be brief. They did try to convince me, but they did not completely succeed. Why not? I think that, unlike energy or any other disputes, partnerships of all kinds are always a good thing. We consider the European Union our partner, and the European Union considers us its partner, and we both want to develop this partnership, give it new substance, new possibilities and so on. But as far as the Eastern Partnership is concerned, it is not yet very clear to us what shapes this partnership will take. Certainly, we know that this partnership is about economic development and creating various new opportunities for a number of Eastern European countries. But to be frank, what concerns us is that some countries view this partnership as a partnership against Russia. I am not referring to the EU leadership and our partners here today, of course. I am referring to other countries. But we would not like this partnership to turn into a partnership against Russia. Life gives us all kinds of examples, after all. We have a partnership with NATO, for example, but despite the relations we have developed, this partnership proved its weaknesses when put to the test, and attempts to restore relations between Russia and NATO now are encountering considerable difficulties.   

There is no direct link or correlation here with the Eastern Partnership. It is simply that I would not like to see this partnership lead to consolidation between countries with anti-Russian attitudes and other European countries. If the partnership manages to avoid this and really does promote normal economic cooperation, so much the better, and we would have no objection and would wish such a partnership every success. But as I said, there are a few points on which we have our doubts.