21 янв. 2008 г.
NATO-RUSSIAN WORKING PLATFORM
ON DEFENCE R&T CO-OPERATION
MEETING IN MOSCOW, 13-14 NOVEMBER 2007
1. OPENING STATEMENTS BY THE CO-CHAIRMEN
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.
2. APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA
The Working Platform approved the Agenda for the meeting. The participants list is at
3. IMPLEMENTATION OF THE STUDY RECOMMENDATIONS
o RUSSIAN FEDERATION
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
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
- 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
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. OPPORTUNITIES FOR COOPERATION
4.1 RTO PANEL/GROUP ACTIVITIES RECOMMENDED FOR RUSSIAN
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
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:
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:
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
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. AREAS FOR COOPERATION
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
Evolution of technical systems
Management of distributed dynamic systems
Software development cycle, Evolutionary computing (graph theoretic
Service Oriented Architecture (SOA)
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-
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
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
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
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. WAY AHEAD
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
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
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).