Joe O'Reilly (Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I welcome the ambassador and thank him for his address. I am a firm believer in dialogue and talking to each other. I served alongside Deputy Cowen at the Council of Europe for a period and he will know this to be the case. When there has been a disputation at the Council of Europe, I have always argued that we should have dialogue rather than freezing out the membership of any country. It is important that we sit and talk. For that reason, it is great the ambassador is here and we welcome him. Of course, dialogue has to be frank to have any value but I welcome the ambassador and thank him for his attendance.

We welcome the decision to move the planned military exercises outside Ireland's exclusive economic zone. However, recent reports suggest that the new location for those exercises is situated over sub-sea communications cables between the US and Europe. Can the ambassador give us some more information about the new location and what factors played a part in selecting it? Perhaps the ambassador could give us assurances that these will be exercises and no more.

Does the ambassador agree, as many reports have suggested, that these military exercises off the Irish coast are intended to send a message of intimidation not just to Ireland but also to NATO? I would like him to comment on that.

In light of the recent escalation in rhetoric, is Russia committed to a peaceful resolution of the current security situation with Ukraine and the West? Could the ambassador give us a reassurance on that point? We would be putting the very same question to the US and NATO. We want a de-escalation.

Does the ambassador believe that independent and sovereign countries should be able to decide for themselves what organisations and alliances they wish to join? Does he agree that it only becomes an issue or problematic if there is a particular threat to the neighbouring country? Should sovereign countries be free to join organisations until that point? What immediate measures will it take for there to be a de-escalation of tension? I gather Russia is now responding for a second time to America. What does the ambassador think would be enough for de-escalation?

My next question relates to Belarus, a matter of great concern to many people in this country, as the ambassador will be aware. He will also be aware of arbitrary arrests and long prison sentences in Belarus for very little activity, including just participating in protests, etc. The justice system in Belarus has broken down. There is a dictatorship there. I hope the ambassador will disassociate himself from that. I hope he will say that Russia is not in support of what is happening in Belarus. I would like to hear that Russia is clearly against it. That does not preclude good neighbourliness but nobody could support what is happening in Belarus.

I again welcome the ambassador. This is an important dialogue.