No. For example, there was a Soviet-Italian treaty of friendship, non-aggression, and neutrality of 1933 which was technically still in force in August 1939. Still, I don't remember anybody talking about Soviet-Italian alliance. Not to add that "alliance and neutrality" is an oxymoron somehow.
"According to the chief of press service and information of the Ministry of Defense Aleksandr Drobyshevsky, quoted by Interfax, this article shouldn't be considered as an official point of view of the Ministry".What was quoted was posted on an official government site and thus consitutes an official opinion.
I believe, "an official opinion" which is not an official opinion according to officials is also an oxymoron
Not to add that the article was promptly removed from the website after the scandal broke out.
Note that "pact" is different from secret protocols. The statement of 1989 mentioned above condemned protocols but not the pact itself. In regard to the non-aggression treaty it was said that its content didn't contradict to the international law, but it was ineffective as a means to prevent Hitler's attack on Soviet Union. I'm agree that the recent statement demonstrate much change in assessment of the treaty's effect and effectiveness of Soviet policy as whole compared with 1989.
I don't think that condemnation of the protocols automatically means that the pre-war policy of Poland, Britain or France should be considered beyond any criticism. At least the statement of 1989 didn't imply anything like this.