RUSSIA AGREES WITH UNJUSTIFIED COMPROMISES;

Quote: NATO eastward expansion and the possible entrance of Ukraine into the alliance worries the Russian authorities. Defense and foreign ministers of Russia spoke about this topic after the summit in Bucharest in a harsh way. It was stated clearly that NATO eastward expansion was not in the interests of Russia and our country would respond to such actions adequately and not necessarily with military methods alone. Meanwhile, it seems that Moscow does not abandon the hopes that Kiev will revise its plans of possible membership in NATO. This aspect and other problems of the Russian-Ukrainian relations (border demarcation, status of the Kerch Strait, trading economic cooperation, Black Sea Fleet, Russian language etc) was in the focus of attention of Russian and Ukrainian foreign ministers Sergei Lavrov and Vladimir Ogryzko during their meeting in Moscow last week.
Despite the hot rhetoric in relations between Moscow and Kiev after the summit in Bucharest, as well as the actions of nationalists in Ukrainian parliament demanding early withdrawal of the Russian Black Sea Fleet from the Crimea, before the beginning of negotiations both foreign ministers announced that there were no problems in bilateral relations that could not be solved in a diplomatic way. Problems of the Russian-Ukrainian relations were discussed for about three hours. However, no certain results were achieved. Along with this, there is an impression that Moscow has evidently made some concessions. For example, against the background of the harshness towards a possible membership of Ukraine in NATO demonstrated by Russia previously, the Russian Foreign Minister decided to compromise and agreed to discuss the topic of entrance of Ukraine into the alliance further. Commenting on the NATO problems discussed during the meeting with Ogryzko, Lavrov said that in the future, the parties would conduct additional consultations dedicated to this topic.
Lavrov said, "At the consultations our experts will be prepared to outline the Russian concerns in detail to the maximum extent and to try to make Ukrainian authorities hear these concerns and to take them into account in practical actions." Thus, Moscow demonstrates a stance that the issue of possible eastward expansion of NATO is settled already and it is concerned only about taking Russia's interests into account in this. Ogryzko promised that these interests would be taken into account and that membership of Ukraine in NATO "does not threaten" Moscow with anything. According to him, this was the main goal of the dialogue.
In the past, Gorbachev was given assurances that after breaking the Berlin Wall and reunion of the two German states, NATO would not expand and would not threaten Moscow too. However, this did not happen.
Observers also noticed the fact that in Moscow, the Ukrainian Foreign Minister acted actively and defended his interests firmly. A day after the negotiations in Moscow, it became known that in the course of negotiations Kiev imposed on Moscow discussion of a memorandum on withdrawal of military units of the Russian Black Sea Fleet from their permanent bases on the territory of Ukraine until May 28 of 2017. Kiev actually hinted to Moscow that after that time Russia would have no chances to leave its fleet in Crimea. So far, there has been no reaction of the Russian party to this memorandum but officials of the Ukrainian Foreign Ministry are convinced that consultations with the Russian Foreign Ministry about this document may begin already in July of 2008.
Incidentally, while the Russian-Ukrainian negotiations were going on in Moscow, in Sevastopol, Ukrainian nationalists picketed the headquarters of the Black Sea Fleet demanding early withdrawal of the Russian fleet from the territory of the Ukraine. Such demands fit the plans of the incumbent Ukrainian authorities aimed at accelerated entrance into NATO because the Ukraine will hardly be admitted to the alliance if a foreign fleet is based on its territory.
During the meeting of the foreign ministers, the Ukrainian party also manifested harshness with regard to other issues, for example, during the discussion of the maritime borders in the Azov and Black seas and the status of the Azov Sea.
The Ukrainian Foreign Minister announced, "We proceed from a very simple truth: the state border should be drawn in the Kerch Strait. After that will be the issue of establishing a corporation that will work on the issues related to activities of this channel." Meanwhile, Russia does not consider the Kerch Strait to be a channel. Lavrov says that "such terms as "channel" and "corporation" can be taken as a hint at privatization of the Kerch Strait. It turns out that we are offered to pay for the passage of ships through the Kerch Strait." Officials of the Russian Foreign Ministry say that this should not be.
Commenting on the situation regarding the Kerch Strait, Lavrov announced that "We advocate that, like in case of the Azov Sea waterways, the decision be based on the principles coordinated in the agreement of the presidents fixed in the document of 2003. For us it is fundamental to have our waterway in the Kerch Strait to ensure unopposed sailing in Russian waters for Russian ships from the Black Sea to the Azov Sea. This is a mandatory condition for the provision of our security."
Meanwhile, there are grounds to presume that Ukraine will hinder the discussion of the issue of the Kerch Strait deliberately. It has a sufficiently strong argument for this that is not discussed in public but is present during discussions a priori. This is the existence of significant oil and gas reserves in the Kerch Strait. American company Vanco is currently doing geological exploration of the seabed of 12,960 square kilometers in the Kerch Strait in a unilateral manner according to an order of Kiev. Vanco promises that if the geological exploration is successful, the hydrocarbon reserves will fully guarantee energy independence of Ukraine. According to forecasts, reserves of the seabed in the Kerch Strait are estimated at approximately 300 billion cubic meters of gas and 136 million tons of oil. At any rate, are these reserves fully Ukrainian?
The Russian Foreign Ministry reported that the stance of Ukraine with regard to regulation of the issues related to the Kerch Strait is the following: between the former Soviet republics of Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic and the Ukraine was a kind of administrative border in the Kerch Strait. Russia said that in the Soviet Union no administrative borders were drawn between the union republics on inland sea waters. Hence, there were no legitimate documents of union or republican level fixing the separating line in waters of the Azov Sea and the Kerch Strait. Hence, Russia cannot recognize the so-called "line of guarding of the state border" established by the Ukrainian party in 1999 in a unilateral way in these waters. Moscow proceeds from the provision of the treaty on cooperation in use of the Azov Sea and Kerch Strait of 2003 saying that these waterways are historically inland waters of Russia and the Ukraine. If these are inland waters of the two countries they should divide the natural resources equally.

http://www6.lexisnexis.com/publisher/EndUser?Action=UserDisplayFullDocument&orgId=574&topicId=100007539&docId=l:778671756&start=31

.