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