NATO ALLIES GIVE GEORGIA CONSTRUCTIVE CRITICISM IN

S E C R E T USNATO 000609 SIPDIS NOFORN SIPDIS E.O. 12958: DECL: 10/16/2016 TAGS: NATO PREL PGOV PINR GG SUBJECT: NATO ALLIES GIVE GEORGIA CONSTRUCTIVE CRITICISM IN HANDLING OF RUSSIAN SPY CASE REF: A. TBILISI 2626 ¶B. TBILISI 2601 ¶C. MOSCOW 1489 AND PREVIOUS Classified By: Deputy Chief of Mission Richard G. Olson for reasons 1.4 (b) and (d). ¶1. (C) SUMMARY. NATO Allies expressed support for Georgia's territorial integrity during an October 13 briefing by Deputy Foreign Minister Kutelia on the arrest and expulsion of alleged Russian spies, but most also expressed disappointment in Georgia's handling of the case. Allies advised Georgia to act more responsibly now that it has obtained Intensified Dialogue (ID) and show greater restraint and predictability in the face of Russian provocations. In his briefing, Kutelia said the public arrest and expulsion of the Russian officers were not linked to NATO's decision to grant ID and had been conducted publicly in order to create a "psychological deterrent" to Georgians from cooperating with Russian intelligence. The U.S. affirmed its hope that Georgia would continue to move closer to NATO and continue its democratic reforms, but noted that ID brings with it greater responsibility and need for transparency with NATO Allies. END SUMMARY GEORGIA: PUBLIC ARRESTS NECESSARY TO PREVENT ATTACKS, DETER FURTHER SPYING ¶2. (C) Georgian Deputy Foreign Minister Batu Kutelia briefed NATO's Political Committee on October 13, providing a broad history of Georgia's relations with Russia, which he said deteriorated long before the spying arrests as Georgia moved closer to the West and successfully implemented reforms. He said that the September 27 arrests had no connection to NATO's September 18 decision to grant ID to Georgia, but rather the timing was determined by information that the spy ring was planning attacks to undermine the October 5 local elections in Georgia. The arrests, legal proceedings, and expulsion were conducted publicly because Georgia wanted to create a "psychological deterrent" to prevent Georgians from cooperating with Russian intelligence agencies and to prevent future Russian operations. ¶3. (C) Kutelia said the spying incident reinforced the Georgian government's impression that Russian peacekeepers in Abkhazia and South Ossetia could not be impartial since some Russian peacekeepers in South Ossetia were working with the spy ring (as were some Russians located in Armenia connected with ongoing CFE compliance operations). He stressed Georgia had been restrained in the face of numerous Russian provocations, including economic embargoes and attacks on Georgian helicopters by South Ossetians from areas under the control of Russian peacekeepers. ¶4. (S/NF) The Georgians earlier in the day briefed Allied counter-intelligence experts on the evidence they collected against the arrested Russians and the methods employed by the Russians and did not repeat that information in the briefing to the Political Committee. ALLIES COUNSEL RESTRAINT, TRANSPARENCY ¶5. (C) In response, the U.S. affirmed its hopes Georgia would continue to move closer to NATO and continue its democratic reforms, but noted that ID brings with it greater responsibility and the need for transparency with NATO Allies. Comments from other Allies were unified in praising Georgia's reform progress and reaffirming support for Georgia's territorial integrity. Almost all criticized Russia's heavy handed response, but expressed disappointment in Georgia's handling of the spy case and advised it not allow itself to be drawn by Russian provocations. Most stressed that ID comes with responsibilities to act calmly and transparently. ¶6. (C) In a comment that typified many, Czech Deputy Chief of Mission Jan Michal said he understood Georgian anger at Russian actions, but did not approve of Georgia's response. While Georgia had been right to arrest the officers, it had been wrong to detain them and begin public legal proceeding against them. He advised Georgia not to respond to Russian provocations, but show restraint. The Dutch and Spanish representatives went further in their criticism of Georgia and suggested Georgia had violated an understanding reached with NATO before the granting of ID that it would act responsibly and not inflame tensions in its region. ¶7. (C) Poland, Latvia, and Romania supported Georgian actions and were critical of Russia. France stressed NATO was not a party to this conflict between Georgia and Russia and that ID entails a commitment to peaceful resolution of conflicts. Germany noted that Chancellor Merkel had discussed Georgia extensively during her October 10 meeting with Russian President Putin (nfi) and that EU troika Ambassadors had delivered a demarche in Moscow on October 13 calling for a de-escalation of tensions with Georgia and the lifting of economic sanctions. OLSON