top of page

21 янв. 2008 г.







DRAFT 22/01/2008


In their Opening Statements, H.E. Ambassador Alexander ALEXEEV (Ambassador at

Large of the Russian Federation) and IGA Jacques BONGRAND (RTB Chairman), the

Co-Chairmen of the Working Platform, reminded the Working Platform that the goal of

the meeting was to make further concrete steps, and in particular to discuss the

implementation of the Recommendations of the NATO-Russian Study on Defence R&T

Cooperation. They emphasized that the meeting should focus on achieving practical

solutions, on the specification of the steps to be taken and the associated milestones and

on identifying the priorities. The objective would be to ensure that in one year from now,

real progress will have been made.


The Working Platform approved the Agenda for the meeting. The participants list is at




3.1.1. Concerning the implementation of the Recommendations of the Study on

Defence R&T Cooperation (Phase 1), Ambassador ALEXEEV said that the

Russian Federation is working towards the implementation of national

structures to promote better defence R&T cooperation with NATO. The

Presidential Commission for Cooperation with NATO has met on 2

October 2007 with Russian defence R&T experts, and has decided (see


 To create an Interagency Coordination Group (ICG) for the cooperation

with the RTO, in which all defence R&T stakeholders in the Russian

Federation are represented (the Ministry of Defence, the Ministry of

Industry and Energy, the Russian Academy of Sciences, etc);

 To nominate a National Coordinator for defence R&T cooperation with

the RTO;

 To nominate Representatives of the Russian Federation to the IST,

AVT, HFM and SET Panels.

3.1.2. Ambassador ALEXEEV emphasised that the Russian Federation expects

that the RTO will, likewise, identify points of contact and will specify the

structures and means through which the cooperation will take place.

Important means for the communication and information exchange between

the RTO and the Russian Federation will be email and websites (NRC

website, RTO website).


3.1.3. The Working Platform agreed that the document produced by the Russian

Federation concerning the above mentioned measures (at ANNEX 2)

reflects the measures and arrangements undertaken by the Russian

Federation to implement the Recommendations of the Study Team.

3.1.4. The Working Platform agreed that the RTO will develop a similar

document which will provide all details necessary for improving the

practical cooperation between NATO and the Russian Federation.

ACTION ITEM 1: The RTA Executive Partner Activities to produce a document

which specifies points of contact for the relevant RTO structures

(Panels/Group, RTA, RTO activities to which Russian experts

are contributing), communication means (including web

addresses), relevant procedures, etc.

3.1.5. Ambassador ALEXEEV said that the Presidential Commission on

Cooperation with NATO had decided to address the Study’s

recommendation concerning the language problem by requiring Russian

experts to follow one-month English language training courses. The

development of glossaries and dictionaries in order to promote a unified

terminology would be an issue for further discussion. Several such

glossaries already exist (on chemical issues, missile defence, etc). Such

glossaries can make the contacts and the cooperation between NATO and

Russian experts more effective.

3.1.6. Dr. Greg SCHNEIDER (RTA Director) presented a briefing (at ANNEX 3)

to clarify the role and responsibilities of National Representatives to the

RTO Panels/Group, in which he said that according to the RTO Operating

Procedures, Panel/Group Representatives:

 Should be chosen by their government from government, industry or


 Are expected to have a high degree of technical affinity relevant to the

fields of interest of the Panel as indicated in the Panel/Group’s Terms of


 Should have an awareness of current technology issues and military

needs in their area of expertise;

 Should be supported from their national budget;

 Are expected to have a substantial level of national authority and, in

particular, be able to arrange for the resourcing of national experts to

RTO Technical Teams;

 Should be able to enter into commitments in Panel meetings that they

will be able to implement nationally;

 Should attend the Joint Panel-Partner Sessions and be able to discuss

potential Russian cooperation with the RTO in the Panel’s field of


3.1.8 Several NATO/RTO Representatives emphasized the need for the Russian

Representatives to the RTO Panels/Group to effectively interface and

coordinate with key national defence authorities. In this regard, Dr.

POKORNY (TNO, the Netherlands, and Study Team Leader of the NATO-


Russian Study on Defence R&T Cooperation) inquired about the

involvement of the Ministry of Defence of the Russian Federation in the

linkage with the RTO Panels. Ambassador ALEXEEV answered that the

Ministry of Defence itself does not conduct R&T, but is a customer, as are

other entities like the Russian Academy of Sciences. He explained that the

principal entity responsible for defence R&T in the Russian Federation is

the Ministry of Industry and Energy.


3.2.1. The RTB Chairman presented a briefing on the implementation of the

recommendations to the RTO of the NATO-Russian Study Team (at

ANNEX 4), in which he said about the background of the Working

Platform meeting that:

 The NATO-Russia Council serves as the principal structure and venue

for advancing the relationship between NATO and Russia;

 The RTO Partnership Policy forms the basis for defence R&T

cooperation with the Russian Federation;

 RTO PfP Partnership procedures apply to Russian relations with RTO:

- Based on the annual RTO Euro-Atlantic Partnership Work

Programme (RTO EAPWP), Russia defines its defence R&T

cooperation priorities;

- For better coordination and efficiency, Russian participation in Joint

Panel-Partner Sessions is recommended.

 Cooperative activities are sought in agreed Priority Areas that reflect

joint NATO and Russian interests, especially in the field of Defense

against Terrorism;

 These activities are included in the RTO EAPWP and are open to

participation by PfP partners.

3.2.2 The RTB Chairman, addressing the implementation of the

Recommendations to the RTO, said that:

 The RTB will develop a Guidance Document on NATO-Russian

cooperation, which will:

- Identify opportunities for co-operation;

- Specify the RTO goals and priorities for co-operation with Russia.

 The Guidance Document will be developed under RTB authority, in a

dialogue with the Russian Federation, and its preparation will be

initiated within an RTB subgroup following the present meeting;

 The objectives of the Guidance Document are:

- To enhance the RTB’s awareness and knowledge of defence R&T in

the Russian Federation;

- To better disseminate the RTB goals and priorities across the RTO

and to help the RTO Panels/Group to connect more effectively with

the high potential for NATO-Russia cooperation;

- To facilitate the dialogue with the Russian Federation.


3.2.3. The RTB Chairman also addressed some of the other Recommendations of

the Study Team, and explained that:

 The RTO Panels/Group have been encouraged to nominate “mentors”

for new representatives from Russia and other Partner nations and to

consider other measures that will facilitate the integration of Partners'


 The RTO will consider organising activities in Russia on a regular basis.

3.2.4. The RTA Director presented a short briefing on the Recommendations of

the Study about the measures to be implemented by the RTO in order to

improve the dissemination of meeting announcements and other forms of

information exchange (at ANNEX 5), in which he said that:

 Partner-oriented pages had already been included on the RTO web site,

which will contain all information that is relevant for Partner nation

authorities and experts who are interested in participating in RTO

activities. These pages can be accessed through a password which has

already been made available to the Russian Federation;

 The creation of a Russian version of RTO website faces several


- Principal objections, because it is RTA policy to make the RTO

website only available in the English language;

- Practical objections, because the information on the RTO website

may change on a weekly basis and it would be impractical to have to

translate all these changes into Russian.

 It will be feasible to include static information on the RTO on the NRC

website with link to RTO website, and this will be done as soon as


ACTION ITEM 2: The RTA Executive Partner Activities to coordinate with the

RTA and the Mission of the Russian Federation to NATO on the

inclusion of static information on the RTO on the NRC website.

3.2.5 The Working Platform briefly discussed the distribution of RTO meeting

announcements, and it became clear that:

 In the past, RTO meeting announcements had sometimes arrived too

late for the Russian authorities to be able to identify experts or to make

funding available for their participation. There had also sometimes been

some confusion because it had not always been clearly indicated on the

meeting announcements whether the activity in question was open to

Partner participation or not;

 For the Russian authorities, a meeting announcement was not the same

as an invitation to attend. Written invitations are sometimes necessary in

order to obtain approval to attend from higher authorities.





4.1.1. The RTA Director presented a briefing in which he gave an overview of

2008 RTO Panels/Group activities which are open to Partner participation,

and in which the Russian Federation is invited to participate (at ANNEX 6).

4.1.2. Professor Bob MADAHAR (IST Panel) presented a briefing (made

available on CD Rom during the meeting) in which he explained the SET

Panel mode of operation and areas of work, which include:

 Information Warfare and Assurance;

 Information and Knowledge Management;

 Communications and Networks and Architectures

 Enabling Technologies.

He encouraged the Russian Federation to nominate experts in existing IST

RTO Task Groups (RTGs), and specifically recommended three IST events

taking place in 2008 for Russian participation:

 Symposium on “Military Communication – Tactical Communications in

Network Centric Operations” (IST-083), taking place in conjunction

with the IST Panel Business Meeting in Prague, Czech Republic on 21-

22 April 2008;

 Workshop on “Trust and Confidence in Autonomous Systems” (IST-

072), taking place in Canada or USA, date TBD;

 Symposium on “Information Assurance for Emerging and Future

NATO Systems” (IST-076), taking place in conjunction with the IST

Panel Business meeting in Slovenia in the Fall of 2008.

4.1.3. LTC Francois LESCREVE (HFM Panel) gave a brief overview of the HFM

Panel mode of operation and areas of work, which include:

 Operational Medicine;

 Human Protection;

 Human Systems Integration

 Operational Readiness (addresses psychosocial and cultural factors).

4.1.2. Dr. Stian LØVOLD (SET Panel) explained that the SET Panel addresses a

very wide range of sensors (i.e., optical, radio frequency (RF), navigation,

acoustic, seismic, magnetic, inertial and chemical), and that the Panel has

three main focus groups:

 Electro-optics;

 Radio frequency;

 Multi-Sensors and Electronics.

He said, furthermore, that the SET Panel had been extremely pleased by the

excellent contributions by experts from the Russian Federation to the SET

Specialists’ Meeting on ”Prediction and Detection of Improvised Explosive

Devices (IED)” (SET-117), which had been held in Toledo (Spain) on 7-8

May 2007. He added that in order to become more effectively engaged in


the work of the SET Panel, it would be a good start for the Russian

Federation to participate in two upcoming events in 2008:

 SET-125 Symposium on “Sensors and Technology for Defence Against

Terrorism”, which will be held Mannheim (Germany) on 22-25 April


 SET-129 Specialists’ Meeting on “Terahertz Wave Technology for

Standoff Detection of Explosives and other Military and Security

Applications”, which will be held in Bucharest (Romania) on 19-20

May 2008.

ACTION ITEM 3: The Russian National Coordinator and the Russian Panel

Representatives to consider active participation in selected

activities in the 2008 RTO Panels/Group Partnership Work



4.2.1 Several Representatives from NATO/RTO and from the Russian Federation

presented briefings on potential future joint activities in the agreed Areas

for Cooperation. Subsequently, a breakout session was held in which

bilateral discussions between NATO and Russian experts were conducted.

The experts identified opportunities for practical cooperation in ongoing

and future RTO activities, and developed ideas for proposals for new future

activities. In a number of cases, commitments were made concerning the

development of draft Technical Activity Proposals (TAPs) for Exploratory

Teams (ETs) with the aim of developing future RTGs. The draft TAPs will

be proposed to the relevant Spring 2008 RTO Panel meetings and if

sufficient NATO nations are interested, the ETs will develop proposals for

Technical Activities in 2009 which will be submitted to the Fall 2008 Panel

meetings. After the breakout session, brief oral reports were provided by

the participants on the outcome of the bilateral discussions.

Non Lethal Weapons

4.2.2. Dr. Nikolay OBEZIYAEV (Russian Co-Director of the Seminar on “Non

Lethal Technologies for Defence against Terrorism: Human Effects”)

presented on a proposal for “Computer-Aided Simulation of Critical Crowd

Behaviour (at ANNEX 7), which aims at the development of a

mathematical model and corresponding software for the prediction of

crowd behaviour in critical situations. The proposed model would be

necessary for the selection of adequate means and forces, including non-

lethal weapons, to counteract illegal activities.

4.2.3. Several Representatives from NATO/RTO, including Dr. Michael

MURPHY (NATO/RTO Co-Director of the Seminar on “Non Lethal

Technologies for Defence against Terrorism: Human Effects”) expressed

interest in Dr. OBEZIYAEV’s proposal, and it was agreed that the draft

TAP would be made available to the HFM Panel for its consideration.


ACTION ITEM 4: The RTA Executive Partner Activities to make the draft

TAP of Dr. OBEZIYAEV on “Computer-Aided Simulation of

Critical Crowd Behavior” available to LTC LESCREVE, Dr.

MURPHY and the HFM Panel Executive for further

consideration by the HFM Panel .

Chemical and Biological Defence

4.2.4. Dr. John WADE (HFM Panel) gave a short description of HFM Panel

Symposium (HFM-149) on “Defence against the Effects of Chemical Toxic

Hazards: Toxicology, Diagnosis, and Medical Countermeasures” and

explained that this was the culmination of the work of two RTGs that had

been studying the topic for close to 10 years. He said that although there

had been robust PfP and MD participation in the Symposium, there had

been no participants from the Russian Federation and that he found this

unfortunate. He also mentioned three new ETs that were being established

by the HFM Panel: (1) on “State of the Art in Research on Medical

Countermeasures against Biological Agents” (ET-091), (2) on “Non-

medical Chemical Defence” (ET-093), and (3) on “Operational Toxic

Hazards” (ET-094). He said that, while these ETs would not be open to

Partners, they may lead to future RTGs which might be open and that he

would keep the Russian HFM Representative informed of their status.

ACTION ITEM 5: Dr. WADE to keep the Russian National Coordinator informed

about the status of HFM/ET-091, HFM/ET-093 and HFM/ET-


4.2.5 In the breakout session, Ambassador ALEXEEV, Dr. WADE and Dr.

POKORNY discussed areas that the Russian Federation might consider for

cooperation in the HFM Panel Human Protection/CB arena:

 Medical Countermeasures against Organophosphate Poisons and


 Chemical/Biological Agent Characteristics for Detection and


 New / Novel Antimicrobials or Non-specific Immune Stimulants;

 Improvement of physical and mental fitness and other means to

stimulate the body’s immune system as preventive measures;

 Development of a pharmacokinetic model to predict the transport and

consequences of (toxic) agents in the human body and to predict of the

number of wounded people (instead of number of people being killed).

4.2.6 Ambassador ALEXEEV agreed to identify the appropriate research

establishments and experts in the Russian Federation with the aim of

starting deliberations with the HFM Panel on potential concrete joint

projects and activities in the CB areas that had been discussed.

4.2.7 Dr. WADE emphasised that that, given the sensitivity of these issues,

focusing on “dual-use” applications in these areas would probably be the

easiest way to proceed.


ACTION ITEM 6: Ambassador ALEXEEV to identify Russian Points of Contact

for discussions on cooperation in the areas of Human Protection

and CB Defence with the HFM Panel.

Social sciences and human factors contributing to DAT

4.2.8 Professor Valery KRASNOV (Russian HFM Panel Representative), who

could not attend the current meeting, participated in the meeting of

HFM/ET-079 on “Social Sciences Support to Military Personnel Engaged

in Counter-Insurgency and Counter-Terrorism Operations” at NATO HQ

on 3-4 September 2007. This ET recommended to the HFM Panel to hold a

Workshop under the same title in St. Petersburg on 18-19 June 2009. The

HFM Panel agreed, during its Fall 2007 Panel Business Meeting, to submit

this proposal for RTB approval in the Spring of 2008.

IT for monitoring and decision making in critical emergency situations

4.2.9 Dr. Marina KHOKHLOVA (Company “Cefey” and Russian IST Panel

Representative) briefed the Working Platform on a proposal for a joint

study under the IST Panel on the use of Information Technology (IT) in

critical emergency situations (at ANNEX 8 1 ). In the briefing, the following

elements were discussed:

 Emergency and Crisis Management

 Transformation of systems for military and civil applications

 Information and Communications Systems and technologies for unified

expeditionary forces

 Evolution of technical systems

 Architecture models

 Open technologies

 Management of distributed dynamic systems

 Software development cycle, Evolutionary computing (graph theoretic


 Service Oriented Architecture (SOA)

 Web Science.

She expressed the view that there is a strong interrelation between various

types of emergencies and crises, such as humanitarian and ecological

emergencies and terrorist attacks. IT should be able to resolve

communication and other problems in such emergency situations, and

should be interoperable in order to able to be effective across

interdepartmental and even international boundaries and borders.

4.2.10 Professor Bob MADAHAR (IST Panel) said that he was very happy with

the involvement of the Russian Federation in the IST Panel and that he

thought that network development would be one of the major opportunities

ahead. The main points and recommendations discussed between Dr.

KHOKHLOVA and Professor MADAHAR were as follows:

 The RTO technical Panels are not an appropriate environment for

business development. They offer a valuable technical networking and

1 An English version of Dr. KHOKHLOVA’s briefing would be appreciated by the NATO/RTO side.


collaboration opportunities and allow nations to share technical

developments and understanding. Nations participate in activities where

they are willing to share and pool information openly and freely so as to

leverage most effectively. Defence industries also participate with this

clearly in mind and any business development may result indirectly

from the networks and relationships that are established. Commercial

organisations may find it difficult to participate in such an environment

because of IPR concerns. This may limit any mutual value participants

may gain from the co-operation.

 Because it is the nations who agree on participation to activities, the

national Representatives are predominantly from MoDs or MoD-

sponsored research organisations, and are supported by others (e.g.

industry, other government departments). This has been found to be

essential as the national Representative needs to be aware of national

defence activities, have a defence R&T network that can be used for

support, so as to determine whether there is any value in their nation

participating in an activity or not.

 In view of the above, it was agreed that Dr. KHOKHLOVA’s business

interests would be separated from her representation of the Russian

Federation in the IST Panel.

 The following technical areas for potential collaboration were


 Architectures. There are a number of national developments on

defence architectures where technical co-operation may be of potential

value - if only to address issues of interoperability. Other aspects are

service oriented concepts and the Russian work on alternative


 Evolutionary Programming. Current software development

approaches may not be appropriate for the future as systems become

more dynamic, more complex, have greater autonomy and intelligence,

are self-organising, healing, repairing etc. There may be value in

understanding the Russian hypergraphics techniques and new

approaches to software development cycles and comparing these with

developments in other nations on graph theoretic methods and bio-

mimetic techniques;

 Through Life Capability Management / System Whole Life

Cycles / Immortal Systems. Considering the life times of defence

equipment and the rapid progress of technology, better methods,

techniques and tools for managing the whole life cycle of systems and

capability from ‘cradle to grave’ is needed. There may be value in

sharing the approached adopted by nations and by the Russian

Federation in dealing with this complex area.

Professor MADAHAR said that these topics deserved to be further

discussed between Dr. KHOKHLOVA and IST Panel members, and that

the best way forward would be for Dr. KHOKHLOVA to develop draft

TAPs that could be addressed by the IST Panel during its Spring 2008

Panel Business meeting. He offered to support Dr. KHOKHLOVA in this


process and to contact IST Panel members, in parallel, in order to ask them

to consider these topics and to identify any potential areas for cooperation.

However, he added that the range of the issues covered by Dr.

KHOKHLOVA’s proposal is so wide that it would deserve to be addressed

in an inter-panel context (AVT, HFM and IST Panels). He said that he

could imagine a cross-Panel Symposium dealing with several of the issues

she had brought up.

ACTION ITEM 7: Dr. KHOKHLOVA to develop, with the support of Professor

MADAHAR, draft TAPs for SET Exploratory Teams, based on

the topics brought up by Dr. KHOKHLOVA, with a view to

discuss these at the Spring 2008 IST Panel Business meeting.

ACTION ITEM 8: Professor MADAHAR to contact IST Panel members on the

topics brought up by Dr. KHOKHLOVA and to request inputs

concerning potential areas for cooperation.

Aircraft security issues

4.2.9. Dr. SUKHOLITKO (Company “Russian Systems” and Representative of

the Russian Federation in the AVT Panel) gave a short overview of the

R&D his Company is carrying out for the Ministry of Defence of the

Russian Federation.

4.2.10. Dr. Dennis IVANOV (Company “Russian Systems”) briefed the Working

Platform on a proposal for a study under the AVT and/or HFM Panels on

Active Security Systems (ASS) (at ANNEX 9). ASS is based on

monitoring aircraft and pilot behaviour, as well as pilot performance and

functional state measures, and will be able to take over control of the

aircraft in the case of emergency situations. He mentioned that ASS could

also be employed in different contexts, such as individual health monitoring

and psychophysiologically-supported training, and for the evaluation of

functional reserves of human operators. The proposal on ASS has earlier

been presented to the HFM Panel (at the Fall 2006 HFM Panel Business

Meeting in Biarritz, France), and Dr. IVANOV is looking forward to an

opportunity to discuss it further with AVT and HFM Panel members.

4.2.11. LTC Francois LESCREVE (HFM Panel) said that he had spoken with Dr.

IVANOV about the ASS proposal, and that he thought that it was a very

interesting, but complex and broad project. He suggested that the proposal

could be refined and that interesting elements could be identified and

evaluated in order to develop a proposal that would be manageable for an

RTG under the HFM Panel. He said that, for example, it might be

interesting to discuss a study which would address the question under

which conditions a system can be allowed to overrule the human operator.

He proposed to continue the discussion with Dr. IVANOV in order to

assess if a draft TAP for an HFM ET on a specific aspect of the ASS

proposal could be developed, which could be proposed to the Spring 2008

HFM Panel meeting. He said that this issue was also very relevant for the

IST-072 Workshop on “Trust and Confidence in Autonomous Systems”,

and Dr. IVANOV agreed to participate in this Workshop.


4.2.12. Dr. IVANOV said that he agreed with LTC LESCREVE that the ideas he

had brought forward are very broad, and that they may relate to the

expertise areas of the HFM, IST and AVT Panels. He pledged that he

would work with LTC LESCREVE to develop more specific proposals.

ACTION ITEM 9: LTC LESCREVE and Dr. IVANOV to continue their discussion

on the possibility of developing a draft TAP for an HFM

Exploratory Team on a specific aspect of the ASS proposal,

which could be proposed to the Spring 2008 HFM Panel


Critical infrastructure protection

4.2.15. Dr. Vladimir EREMIN (Company “NefteGazAeroKosmos”) briefed the

Working Platform on a proposal on surveillance of infrastructures that are

critical to energy distribution and supply, in particular in large remote areas

and in extreme environments. The exploitation of military unmanned

systems is one of the drivers for adaptation of platforms to provide modular

systems configured for the required operational function. Key elements in

the briefing were:

 Autonomous Systems (e.g. UAVs)

 3-D models of objects and structures

 Surveillance systems (sensor mix, configuration, sites, optimisation)

 Information Collation, management and exploitation

 Rapid transformation of platforms to be able to undertake different roles

and functions

It was agreed that a summary of the proposal would be provided by Dr.

EREMIN for consideration by the AVT, HFM IST and SET Panels.

4.2.16. Dr. Stian LØVOLD (SET Panel) said that the proposal of Dr. EREMIN was

interesting, but that the SET Panel was primarily interested in military


ACTION ITEM 10: Dr. EREMIN to provide a summary of his proposal on the

use of UAVs for critical infrastructure protection to the RTA

Executive Partner Activities, who will distribute the summary

among the AVT, HFM, IST and SET Panel Executives for

further consideration by these Panels.

Improvised explosives detection (IED)

4.2.17 In the breakout session, there had been a discussion between Dr. Alexander

NIKOLAEV (Federal Service for Military-Technocal Cooperation of the

Russian Federation) and Dr. LØVOLD on state-of-the-art and new

techniques to improve the detection and recognition of IEDs, such as

 Nano-sec neutron analysis

 Next generation microwave systems

 THz technologies for imaging.

Dr. LØVOLD said that he believed that it would potentially be of great

interest for NATO to further cooperate with the Russian Federation on these

topics, but that they are complicated and that the scope goes beyond the

SET Panel. Concrete sensor systems are only a part of the proposals, and


many more Panels are involved. He proposed to discuss this matter at the

inter-panel level in the RTO in order to assess how the integration in the

different Panels can be realised.

ACTION ITEM 11: Dr. LØVOLD to investigate in the SET Panel and at the

inter-panel level if, and how, cooperation with the Russian

Federation in the area of IED can be realised, and to keep Dr.

NIKOLAEV updated on the matter.


5.1 The participants made the following remarks on their evaluation of the Working

Platform meeting and on the way ahead.

5.1.1 Dr. Peter COLLINS (RTB member for Great Britain) said that he was

encouraged by the discussions. He emphasised that Russia should not be

disheartened by NATO’s complexity. All NATO nations have different

structures for managing defence R&T, and these complexities are not

uncommon in NATO nations cooperating in the RTO. We need specific,

practical work in the Panels. One of the advantages of cooperation through

the RTO is the networking: it leads to individual and bilateral engagements.

5.1.2 Dr. POKORNY said that we have to be practical and to select topics of a

non-sensitive nature. The main objective for the time to come would be to

learn to know each other better.

5.1.3 Dr. KHOKHLOVA thanked the Working Platform for its interest in her

proposal. She pledged that she would work with the IST Panel members to

develop more specific proposals, and that she likes the idea of inter-panel

dialogue. Finally she wished Professor Ann MILLER (IST Panel) a quick


5.1.4 Dr. O. GOGUNOV (Department for International Cooperation of the

Russian Academy of Sciences) said that this had been his first participation

in an RTO activity, and that the presentation by the RTA Director had been

very informative.

5.1.5 Dr. NIKOLAEV (Federal Service for Military-Technical Cooperation of

the Russian Federation) said that this had been a fruitful meeting, and that

his office will address the relevant issues in order to achieve better

coordination, and will develop the necessary documents for coordination

and cooperation with NATO/RTO. One of the problems his office will be

working on is the development of an agreement on the limits to information

circulation limits related to Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) in the context

of defence R&T cooperation.

5.1.6 Professor MADAHAR said that consideration should be given to the

organisation of a cross-Panel Symposium/Workshop on Defence Against

Terrorism (DAT) in 2009 in an east European country. This would bring in

a number of technical threads related to the security agenda. This should be

raised at the IST, HFM, SET Panel meetings and through cross-Panel

discussions determine a lead Panel and engage with the Russian

Representatives to the Panels.


ACTION ITEM 12: Professor MADAHAR to communicate with the IST Panel

Chairman about his suggestion to discuss a proposal for a

cross-Panel Symposium/Workshop on DAT at the

forthcoming Inter Panel Meeting (IPM).

5.1.7 The RTA Director thanked Ambassador ALEXEEV for his personal

involvement and hard work. He expressed the hope that the fact that this

high-level NATO delegation had travelled to Moscow would send a

message to the Russian Federation that this issue is important for NATO.

Concerning IPR, the RTA Director reminded the Working Platform that it

is worthwhile to take a closer look at the philosophy behind the work of the

RTO. The RTO is a network based on voluntary contributions. All involved

are free to bring to the table what their nations wish. There are several

topics that are not addressed by the RTO because nations do not want to

share information on these topics.


6.1 Ambassador ALEXEEV emphasised that defence R&T cooperation between

NATO/RTO and the Russian Federation is a serious and important matter, and

that we have to continue to work hard to improve the cooperation. The Russian

Federation will continue the dialogue with NATO/RTO on how to improve the

communication systems in order to be able to better inform the scientists in the

Russian Federation.

Ambassador ALEXEEV reiterated that the results of the Working Platform

meeting will be reflected in the following documents:

 A document which specifies points of contact for the relevant RTO

structures and activities (Panels/Group, RTA, RTO activities to which

Russian experts are contributing), communication means (including web

addresses), relevant procedures, etc.;

 A document listing the possible fields and topics for cooperation, as well as

the proposals for new activities, based on the outcome of the bilateral

discussions among the Russian experts and the Panel Representatives. He

proposes to have this document available by the 1 st of February 2008. This

document will be examined closely and the Russian Federation will use it

develop a Work Program for 2008-2010 (list at ANNEX 10).

 The Minutes of the Working Platform meeting.

6.2 The RTB Chairman said that the ideas brought forward at the meeting show

potential and a will to cooperate. He emphasised that the following lines will be


 NATO procedures are complex and not always obvious. Time is needed to

explain what we are doing and to develop a practical common view on the

way ahead;

 The implementation of the ideas that have been brought forward during the

Working Platform meeting should, as much as possible, be embedded in the

regular RTO work process. There is a need to be efficient and to use existing

structures and processes to move forward. New structures are not needed.


With this Working Platform meeting, a big step forward has been made. The

next steps will be made within the RTO Panels.

 The RTO will keep a close eye on the process. The RTB Guidance for the

Panels/Group will be developed and the progress will be monitored. The

RTO will develop a document with basic information on activities, priorities,

POC, etc., as agreed.

6.3 The Working Platform agreed to allow for a one-year cycle of Panel Business

meetings in order to implement the proposed activities, and to revisit the

progress made and examine the results at the next Working Platform meeting.

6.4 The Working Platform agreed that the next meeting will take place in November

2008, in a NATO country (either at NATO HQ or at the RTA in Paris).

bottom of page