Kapralov: Good day, ladies and gentlemen. Thank you for respondingto the invitation to come to this briefing. We have invited you inorder to draw your attention to the statement of the President of the RussianFederation which was published yesterday on issues of strategic arms reductionand the strengthening of strategic stability.

The statement speaks for itself and I need hardly recapitulate it here.We would just like to single out some points in this statement.

First of all, the statement of the Russian President sends a signalboth to the present and the future leadership of the United States, tothe new administration whoever will come to power in the US. It is alsoa signal to the rest of the world community indicating that Russia is preparedto move consistently and resolutely towards reduction of nuclear weapons.

We call for movement along that path without delay, and this is whatwe would like to emphasize. We believe the dialogue should not be interruptedon these issues which are vital for international security and strategicstability and for ensuring confidence about the intentions and actionsof each other. The Russian Federation maintains such a dialogue with theUS administration at all levels as well as with the teams of the contendersfor presidency in the United States. Of course, we are proceedingwithin the limits of the law, of what is allowable. But such contactsexist and nobody makes a secret of them. They have a working character.

In putting forward a new initiative of our readiness for still moredrastic cuts of strategic nuclear weapons the President naturally proceededfrom the national interests of Russia. But he also took into account thewidespread feeling in the world in favor of nuclear disarmament.He also took into account the statements that we hear from prominent politicalfigures in the US on that score.

We have mentioned strategic stability. We would like to draw yourattention to the fact that Russia consistently comes out for the preservationand strengthening of strategic stability. This topic was reflectedin the recent speech delivered by the President of the Russian Federationat the UN Millennium Summit in New York and in the speech of the RussianForeign Minister there much of which was devoted to the preservation andstrengthening of strategic stability.

Considering the numerous crisis situations in the world today we believethat the preservation and strengthening of strategic stability would merelyhelp to resolve these conflict situations and will not distract attentionfrom these tasks.

I want to stress that the position set forth in the statement of PresidentPutin is aimed at cooperation. It is by no means confrontational in character.It takes into account what has been achieved in the field of arms controland disarmament, including strategic weapons. We are encouraged by thereaction from the United States, the first reaction that reached us tothese proposals. As you know, a State Department spokesman said that theUnited States shares Russia's interest in further reducing strategic nuclearweapons and intends to pursue the process while addressing the problemsof new missile threats.

We have maintained and do maintain contacts with the Americans bothon the political and expert levels. During the past year severalmeetings of experts were held to discuss the problems of strategic weaponsand ABM and the maintenance of strategic stability as a whole.

For several months beginning from June President Putin and PresidentClinton issued statements on strategic stability. And the lateststatement of September 6 issued in New York maps out a concrete programof cooperation in this field.

This Russian initiative was not timed for the presidential election.We did not expect the process of election of the US President to drag out,it was difficult to foresee. So, I think you will believe us thatthe President's statement expresses the fundamental policy of Russia aimedat reducing armaments and reflects out profound interests. This initiativewas of course prepared long before it was announced. Once again, it isa signal and a position that will enable the new US leadership, withoutany delay and given the political will, to move together with us towardsstill more radical cuts of strategic offensive weapons.

That would do for starters. And if you have any questions, wewould be glad to answer them. Thank you.

Moderator: Your questions, please. When you ask your questions,identify yourself and where you are from. Thank you.

Q: Kyodo Tsushin. Some time before President Putin madehis statement, Russian media quoted General Yakovlev as saying that Russiawas prepared to agree with amendments to the ABM Treaty. Are hisremarks part of President Putin's initiative or is this a separate story?

Kapralov: Thank you for your question. Using your terminology,I would say that this is a totally separate story. In our country eitherthe President himself or the Foreign Minister speaks on behalf of the President.The President made his statement yesterday. All other statements shouldbe considered as statements by the people who make them.

Q: Does this mean that General Yakovlev's remarks express hisown point of view, or an official one?

Kapralov: These are remarks made by General Yakovlev, not bythe President. Today we are talking about the President's statement.If you compare the President's statement with the statement made by GeneralYakovlev, you will see that they do not always coincide. This iswhy we strongly advise you to focus on the President's statement.

Q: Associated Press. Does what you said about General Yakovlev'sstatement reflect some disagreements between the Foreign Ministry and theDefense Ministry and the General Staff over arms cuts? And what is yourpersonal assessment of General Yakovlev's statement?

Kapralov: There are no disagreements between the Foreign Ministryand the Defense Ministry and other ministries over the limitation and reductionof strategic offensive weapons and nuclear weapons in general. Wehave a single position. This is a concerted position and it has beenstated by our President.

As for the statements made by various officials, they have to be assessedby their contents. I would not like to comment on General Yakovlev's statementbecause General Yakovlev expresses the point of view of a person who iswell familiar with military equipment and weapons. You know his officialposition. He is in charge of the Strategic Rocket Forces.

But I would like to say once again that the official position of theRussian Federation has been stated by the President in his statement.

There have been many cases when various knowledgeable people and specialistsexpress differing points of view. But you have to take them as differingpoints of view.

You have the official position. It is expressed in the statementof the President of the Russian Federation. There are no disagreementsin principle because the President's statement and what General Yakovlevsaid concern radical cuts in strategic offensive weapons.

General Yakovlev expressed his view on how this could be done. But thereare many other views on this issue that could be cited. I would like tostress that for more than a year Russia and America have been discussing,at the level of experts and in great detail, various aspects of futuretalks on START-3 and missile defense.

The teams of both countries involved representatives of all interestedministries and agencies, including the Defense Ministry, Foreign Intelligence,the Atomic Energy Ministry. The US team involved people from many otheragencies. So, we exchanged views both at the official and unofficiallevels. The search is underway, but this does not mean that we proceedfrom a position that differs from the position we have announced earlier.

If you want, I can repeat it. This position is announced in the President'sstatement. We call for radical cuts. This goal must be achieved inconditions of preserving and strengthening the 1972 ABM Treaty. This isour position. It's quite clear and definite.

Q: Reuters. President Putin said yesterday that he wantedto have an additional discussion with the American side on missile defense.Can Yakovlev's statement be considered as the next step in the talks betweenthe two countries?

Kapralov: I cannot hear you. Can you repeat your question, please?

Q: President said yesterday that he wanted the two countriesto further their dialogue on missile defense. I am just wonderingif you think that Yakovlev's statement can be considered as part of preparationsfor the next step in the ABM talks?

Kapralov: Thank you for your question. I can only quotea report we have received from Ulan Bator, containing the President's comments.

The President of Russia has put forth disarmament initiatives specially-- I am quoting -- in order to emphasize that despite all internal politicalprocesses in the US, our contacts on this important topic have not beendisrupted. We maintain positive contact with the US and I hope that thenecessary attention will be paid to this topic at the meeting with PresidentClinton in Brunei. The nature of Russian disarmament proposals is suchthat no one should doubt Russia's determination to reduce the risk of large-scaleconflicts. I hope very much for a positive response.

This is what the President said. At least that's what media reportscarried. I want to say once again that our position with regard to theABM Treaty is expressed in the President's statement. It should not surpriseyou. It's not a surprise because this is the position that the Presidenthas consistently stated at all summits with the US President in the lastmonths, it is the position that our officials are stating at all levelsof our official contacts. I repeat, the President, the Prime Ministerand the Foreign Minister.

As to various opinions, comments, statements on the subjects made bythe United States, its representatives to substantiate the plans to deploya national ABM system, their claims that this problem can be solved, wealso have a detailed position and throughout the year we have repeatedlyand in detail discussed it with American leaders at all levels, rangingfrom experts right up to the top.

I would like to repeat that our position on the ABM Treaty is not aconfrontational one. We resolutely come out for the preservationof the ABM Treaty in its present form. If you read this treaty, forinstance, its Article 1, you will see that this treaty cannot exist inany form except for its present one. The only ban in this treaty,and the crux of this treaty, is that it bans the development of a nationalABM Treaty. To use the language of the treaty, it bans the deploymentof an anti-missile defense of the territory of a country.

Now judge for yourselves. If somebody proposes to replace theban on this with a permission to develop such a national system, how shouldthis be called: an adjustment of the treaty or an absolutely new one? Consideringthat the entire purpose of the treaty is to ban national ABM systems.

Yes, the Americans are right when they say that it is not a holy cowand changes in the text have been made. Yes, changes have been made. Initially,the treaty allowed for two areas for the deployment of ABM systems.Not a national ABM system but two very limited areas. Later on, againon the proposal of the American side, we agreed that the sides should limitto one area each. Each country had only one area in which to deployan ABM system. For us this was around the capital city while theAmericans decided on the area where their ICBMs are deployed.

Now the Americans have mothballed everything there. This is first.Secondly, when we come out for the preservation and strengthening of thetreaty, the ABM Treaty, we come out for the basis, for the preservationof the basis on which during the past thirty years strategic offensiveweapons have been successfully reduced. After all, as you remember, quitesubstantial reductions have been accomplished. This is the only basis thatallows for a further advance along this road.

An erosion of the treaty, a dismantling of the treaty will create atotally new situation that will not make it possible to further reducethese armaments. Even according to our law on the ratification ofthe START-1 and START-2 treaties the implementation of START-1 and START-2in the future... we ratified START-2 but the United States has not yetratified it. Well, our law makes implementation of these treatiesconditional on the preservation of the ABM Treaty.

For the second year in succession most countries vote in the UnitedNations General Assembly in support of the preservation of the 1972 ABMTreaty in its present form. The First Committee recently adopted a resolutionto this effect. Seventy nine countries, including Russia, voted forthis and there were only three votes against -- the United States, Micronesiaand Israel.

A rather strange situation. The United States is a party to the treaty,it continues to say that it comes out for the strengthening of this treatyand at the same time it opposes the resolution that supports the treaty.

Our position on the ABM Treaty is a clear one. It is a well- consideredone. Both technically and politically we cannot take any other stand. ButI would like to draw your attention also to the following. When we opposeproposals to dismantle the treaty we at the same time offer a constructivealternative. And this constructive alternative can be traced in all ourstatements, in all the actions of the Russian side in the past years.

What do we have in mind? The United States, in any case, whencoming out for the design and deployment of a national ABM system, pointsto a threat posed by some countries which are now called countries thatcause concern. We convincingly demonstrate that at present there is nosuch a threat and that in the near future there will be no such a threat.As to a more distant future, we offer a broad program of cooperation designedto remove the concerns that the United States names as the reasons or pretextsfor the development of its national ABM system.

In particular, we are making the emphasis on diplomatic and politicalmethods. The main cause named by the United States in support ofthe deployment of its national ABM system was the missile programs in NorthKorea, in the Democratic People's Republic of Korea. As you know,in the course of his visit to the DPRK, in the course of his talks withthe North Korean leadership President Putin received assurances and promisesthat this problem could be solved on certain conditions.

Our example was followed by the Americans, something that really gratifiesus. Contacts were established, Secretary of State Albright who receivedeven more far-reaching assurances that the DPRK was ready to stop its missileprograms. She was told that the DPRK did not intend to threaten theUnited States of America. As you see, this work on the political levelthat we are urging is effective. As I said, this gives us reasonto be pleased.

We have even more concrete and more far-reaching proposals to set upa global system to monitor the non-proliferation of missiles and missiletechnologies.

Recently, when in New York, when addressing the United Nations MillenniumSummit, President Putin came out with a new initiative on the non-militarizationof outer space. We are now working very vigorously on the preparationof an international conference, tentatively in Moscow next spring, at whichvirtually all prominent specialists and experts working in space-relatedareas could study in great detail the question of how to avoid a new armsrace in outer space, how to avoid the creation of attack systems that couldconduct warfare in outer space, how to avoid the creation of ground-basedsystems that could destroy targets in outer space and how to proceed togetherto make sure that outer space becomes an arena of wide-scale peaceful cooperation,what should be done to promote peaceful cooperation in outer space. Ifother countries exhibit the required degree of interest and we believethat such an interest should objectively exist we hope that the conferencewill be useful in practical terms and will not just be a political event.

So, you see that our position and I should say the line pursued by Russiabeginning from the top level down is a consistent position, I highly understandableand substantiated position and we will actively pursue it in the future.

Q: There is a view among experts that Russia can simply not affordto maintain the current ceilings of warheads which accounts for its desireto see the deepest possible cuts of nuclear weapons and for the hypotheticalpossibility that Russia will eventually make concessions in the negotiationswith the Americans. What is your assessment of these claims?

Kapralov: I may be a little impolite, but we have a saying thateveryone understands things in proportion to how he is spoiled. Our economicposition is certainly not better than that in the United States.It is a fact we hope that the measures being taken by our government willensure sustained growth and the situation will be changing.

At the same time I would like to point out that nuclear forces is annot an expensive armed service and in principle less money could be spenton maintaining them than on some other defense purposes. As for therace in the context of creating a national missile defense from the outsetout experts said that we would not respond in kind to the deployment ofa national missile defense in the United States. It would be stupidon our part. There are many more other means for neutralizing a nationalmissile defense system and for penetrating it.

It is another question that we are not interested in that. AndI would like to get this point across to you. Russia is not interestedin spending money on it. We have the means for penetrating a nationalmissile defense, means that nobody else probably has. And in thatrespect some quarters envy us and would like to cooperate on this withus. And the constructive part of our position consists in this, that weare offering cooperation on missile defense, but not strategic missiledefense.

If anyone feels a threat from ballistic missiles, non-strategic missiles,and if you talk about Europe, for example, Europe is not under threat fromstrategic missiles, we are prepared to cooperate in developing theatermissile defense systems as Mr. Putin made clear during his visits to Italyand Germany. We have corresponding technologies and in principle we arecapable of responding to the deployment of national missile defense. Itis another question that we do not need to do it.

Our goals are quite different. The goals of our society and ourgovernment are to improve the well-being and the living standards of thepeople, to reorganize our economy and to implement political reform. So,we would not like to be distracted. If you look at all the initiativesthat are coming from our leadership, they are very consistent. Weare against the strategic arms race, we are in favor of reductions of strategicweapons. We are against a new arms race in outer space. This is also ourinitiative.

And another initiative launched by President Putin at Millennium Summit-- by the way, specialists have yet to come to appreciate it fully -- andthat initiative has to do with the creation of a new nuclear energy cycle.These are forward looking ideas that may provide the basis for nuclearenergy for decades ahead. We are not talking about banning anythingor dismantling anything now. We are talking about the developmentof a basically new fuel cycle that would address in a radical way all theproblems of nuclear non-proliferation and the environment because spentfuel would be re-entering the natural environment with an even smallerradiation level than originally.

All these initiatives are aimed at promoting thoroughly peaceful sectorsand removing assets that we have to spend on defense. Unfortunately, atpresent we have to make sure that our defense capability is adequate.So, our response is very simple. These claims are relevant, they are propositions,but they are not correct if one pursues them to the logical end.We are capable of responding to the building of a national missile defenseand we are capable of maintaining our strategic forces and other forcesat a level that would ensure our defense capability.

We are also doing it being mindful of the reaction of other countriesto the plans and development of the national missile defense in the UnitedStates. You know that some countries are just as resolutely opposedto these plans as we are. They include China and I am sure you arenot underestimating the importance of that great power. And they includeFrance which voted together with us in support of the ABM Treaty, in defenseof the ABM Treaty. As you know France is a NATO member and a close allyof the United States.

So, this problem has many aspects to it. It has both political and technicalaspects, but we are deeply convinced that we are right. We are notusing our position on ABM for confrontation, we are not using it in orderto get some political dividends. But we are defending the prospects ofour own peaceful development. We are telling our Western partners and otherpartners, do not force us to follow a different way of development.We seek peaceful development and democratic development and this is theaim of our initiative and our arms limitation policy.

Any attempts to divert us from this path will meet with resolute rejectionwhich is what we are doing now.

Q: Kyodo Tsushin. Yuri Semyonovich, Mr. Bush has said thathe intends to further cut nuclear arsenals unilaterally without negotiations.Although it is unclear whether or not he will become the next president,what do you think of his idea? And does Russia at present proceedfrom the need to maintain the negotiating process with the US and to maintainnuclear parity?

Kapralov: Thank you, you have asked several questions there.We have been consistently and firmly speaking in favor of maintaining negotiations.We do not make any conditions, except -- no, this is not a condition.We just state that objective strategic offensive weapons can be reducedonly if the ABM Treaty is preserved and strengthened. This is a realityagainst which you can have no reasonable arguments.

As for the position of presidential candidate, governor Bush, we knowhis position. We want to wait for the elections to be completed inthe US in accordance with the Constitution and for the future presidentof the United States to be determined so that he could act in this capacity,because these are questions that are too serious to discuss hypothetically.There must be no assumptions. We must proceed from clear and realisticpositions.

As regards Russia, such a position has already been stated. This iswhat makes this statement so valuable, because the future US President,no matter who moves into the White House, be it governor Bush or incumbentvice president Gore, he will know where Russia stands and what it seeksto achieve. Therefore, he will be able to determine his own position.

What kind of position this will be will become clear later because weknow that sometimes positions are announced and then they may change orbe amended. There may be different disarmament processes. We knowan example of unilateral cuts in non-strategic nuclear weapons. Youknow these initiatives, they date back to the beginning of the 1990s. Theywere put forth by the Soviet Union and then furthered by the Russian leadership.And there were US initiatives. These were very serious cuts, and they weremade on a reciprocal basis but without any agreement. These were unilateralinitiatives.

Nevertheless, the experience of the last decades indicates that if thereis sufficient political will, given the complexity and importance of thisproblem, of course, it would be better to reach a consensus. Becauseeven now, if you attentively read the statements made by the American sideand political circles, you'll see that they raise questions of verification.This is too serious a sphere to be based just on declarations. So, thereare problems of verification and reduction time frame. This raises a wholenumber of questions pertaining to the maintenance of relations in the strategicfield.

In addition to the tip of an iceberg we can, there is a whole numberof questions that specialists have to take into account. I have no latestdata for the last years, but I remember that 20 years ago there were morethan 3,000 false alarms from early warning systems in the US in one year.This might have been a flock of geese detected by a radar, and the radaralerted the operator that something was flying and it was not clear whatexactly was flying. All these strategic systems are real things and realweapons which are created not to play with.

These are very serious questions and we want them to be considered seriously.The Russian leadership, as you can see from our President's statement madeyesterday, has enough political will to solve these questions. Andwe urge all others to do the same.

Q: As regards parity, what do you think about this?

Kapralov: You know, we proceeded and proceed from the understandingthat there must be parity. How things will evolve in the future --as you know, there are many aspects to the strategic situation. Ican give you one example.

Sometimes we hear calls for reducing tactical nuclear weapons.We say let's do it. But if you look at tactical weapons, all of Russia'stactical weapons are concentrated on Russian soil. Our tactical weaponscannot reach the US. The United States has withdrawn part of theirtactical weapons to its soil from Europe within the framework of the processI had mentioned above. But part of them remains there. But these warheads,if they are used, God forbid, will differ little from strategic ones. Thisis why, US tactical weapons deployed in Europe are part of the balancewe must take into account.

Therefore, whether or not there will be parity, this is a complex picture.The negotiating process is called upon to reach an understanding in thelong run and see how we can satisfy each other so that each side couldbe absolutely confident that it can feel secure.

Q: Norwegian TV. President Clinton is a lame duck becausehe does not even know whether his vice president won elections or not.What positive, constructive response can President Putin expect in sucha situation when he has a farewell meeting with Clinton in Brunei?

Kapralov: Apparently President Putin knows best what kind ofresponse he can expect from President Clinton. I would not like toargue with you, and I know this "lame duck" expression, but I would notcall President Clinton that. The reason is very simple. PresidentClinton has been ruling a great power for eight years. A lot hasbeen achieved in the US, although we do not always agree with the US. Forexample, we have disagreements over missile defense. But we are realistsand we see how the US develops.

The US has achieved obvious progress in the economy and other fields.This is why I would have a respectful attitude for President Putin previously,at present and afterwards, sorry, I mean President Clinton. You see, PresidentClinton continues as a president now. When he will have to leavehis post in accordance with the Constitution of the United States becausehe cannot stand for reelection I am sure he is going to remain an influentialmember of the political establishment of the United States, a person whowill continue to exert influence on the forming of US policies.

There are examples of former presidents taking an active part in theforeign policy actions of the United States. You know that PresidentCarter was sent to North Korea with missions. Other presidents have alsotaken part in similar missions. That is why our attitude of respectto President Clinton is not going to vanish suddenly simply because heis going to vacate his office in accordance with the Constitution and acquireanother quality. That is why we hope that President Clinton willshow proper interest in this initiative, will demonstrate a positive reactionto it.

Q: Of course, Clinton will be pleased to hear your words.But can he serve as something more than a mailbox for Putin's messages?

Kapralov: The issue of mailboxes does not arise. The statementwas made publicly, it is intended for all, everybody heard it. But, I repeat,I think we should not so drastically change our attitude to people whohold some post and then normally, in accordance with existing legislationand procedures, leave this post. I think I will express the attitude ofmany people, if you want, our official position that our respect for PresidentClinton was, is and will continue. We assess his actions...We assess him by his actions. In the course of his presidency wehad quite an active cooperation, including in the field of arms reduction.We did not always agree on everything but still we appreciate what hasbeen accomplished. And we are hoping for a continuation of this process.

I will give you the following example. At a recent meeting with AssistantSecretary of State Holum, in the course of these expert meetings that aresometimes reported, well, Mr. Holum told us in a friendly manner: don'tthink that President Clinton's decision not to adopt now a decision onthe deployment of a national ABM system was taken under the pressure ofRussia. And we told him very sincerely: we are not thinking along suchlines at all, we believe that President Clinton took this decision proceedingfrom his wisdom and not proceeding from any pressure put on him or proceedingfrom somebody's actions.

I repeat, our attitude to President Clinton is an attitude of respect.President Putin will now be meeting with him. They will be discussingthe entire range of questions. Not only questions pertaining to strategicstability. I believe they will discuss economic matters as well. Whateverthe case, it is a fact that meetings are continuing, our interaction iscontinuing.

And yesterday's statement, I repeat, was made with a view to a continuationof the dialogue.

Filatov: I would like to add a couple of words. Judgingby your question, you must be having some doubts about our ability to effectivelycooperate with the United States during this period of transition.

Well, first of all, we proceed from the assumption that the presentUnited States administration, that President Clinton will be fulfillingtheir duties right till next January 20. Unless, God forbid, the constitutionalcrisis becomes a procrastinated one. But we hope everything is goingto be resolved. Well, our fundamental line in Russian-American relations,and this fundamental line is received with understanding and support inWashington, is to work with maximum effectiveness during this period aswell. To work pragmatically, effectively and with results. The possibilitiesfor this exist.

On the other hand, the possibilities of an interruption of this dialogueare few. If only because the issues that we have on the agenda ofour bilateral dialogue, be it strategic stability, START, ABM, the MiddleEast and so on, are such that they do not permit us to make any pause inour
dialogue or to have reservations in our mutual relations in respectof ducks or other animals. This is an approach that life itself rules out.Such is our fundamental line, it is supported in Washington. Incidentally,it is also supported by those who are now aspiring for the post of presidentof the United States.

Moderator: Any more questions? I thank everybody.