UKRAINE: U.S.-RUSSIAN MISSILE DEFENSE DISCUSSION:

C O N F I D E N T I A L KYIV 001560 SIPDIS SIPDIS DEPT ALSO FOR EUR/UMB AND EUR/PRA E.O. 12958: DECL: 06/27/2017 TAGS: MARR MCAP PARM OPRC PREL RS AZ US UP SUBJECT: UKRAINE: U.S.-RUSSIAN MISSILE DEFENSE DISCUSSION: INFORMATION PASSED DURING NON-PRO TALKS REF: A. STATE 87909 ¶B. KYIV 1459 Classified By: Deputy Political Counselor George Kent for reasons 1.4(b ,d) ¶1. (U) EUR/PRA Director and head of delegation to the U.S.-Ukraine non-proliferation Working Group (NPWG) talks Anita Friedt delivered ref A's notification June 26 to Ukrainian MFA Arms Control and Military-Technical Cooperation Department Director General Volodymyr Belashov on the margins of NPWG meeting. EUR/PRA official Lisa Benthien and poloff (notetaker) sat in; MFA Arms Control Department Counselor Oleksandr Bondarenko joined Belashov. ¶2. (C) Belashov said, in addition to discussing missile defense with the U.S., the GOU had consulted with the governments of Russia, the Czech Republic, Poland, France, and Germany. The MFA had collected information and, along with the Ministry of Defense and the National Space Agency of Ukraine (NSAU),provided input to the Ukrainian National Security and Defense Council (NSDC) for an NSDC review of U.S. plans to locate missile defense facilities in Poland and the Czech Republic. NSDC had reviewed the issue and further tasked MFA to prepare a Ukrainian position regarding the facilities. The MFA planned to convene an experts meeting to coordinate the Ukrainian position the week of July 2. (Comment: Belashov appreciated our efforts to keep Ukrainian officials informed of developments in the missile defense area. The fact that the NSDC is preparing to approve Ukraine's formal position underscores the importance of continuing to provide updates and responding to the questions posed by the Ukrainian defense minister and other officials.) ¶3. (C) While Belashov cautioned that MFA still had not finalized its recommendation, he previewed the likely outlines of a Ukrainian position to us, as follows: -- The proposed U.S. facilities would not defend Ukraine in the event of a missile attack on Ukraine. -- A missile intercept from the proposed U.S. facilities posed no threat to Ukrainian safety or security. -- That said, no country posed a missile threat to Ukraine, so development of a missile defense system capability was not a priority. -- Ukraine should not take a position with regard to the new U.S facilities. ¶4. (C) Belashov commented that Russian officials seemed to be genuinely concerned by U.S. missile defense plans, rather than using the issue as a tactic to pressure the U.S. He noted that Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Kislyak had made a presentation at the OSCE Forum for Security Cooperation (FSC) meeting in Vienna and held two press conferences to present Russian views. Belashov regretted that the U.S. or NATO member countries had not undertaken a similar media campaign; while he understood the U.S. was working to explain its views in NATO, he urged U.S. officials also to work in other multilateral fora, like the OSCE. ¶5. (C) Finally, Belashov commented that Ukraine was closely following U.S.-Russia negotiations on the Joint Data Exchange Center (JDEC). If an agreement were concluded, Russia would potentially commit to provide early warning data that it obtained from all sensors, including Ukrainian-operated radars in Mukacheve and Sevastopol. Under agreements established within the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) framework, Russia would need to obtain Ukrainian permission to share the data, which Belashov noted would be readily forthcoming. ¶6. (U) EUR/PRA Friedt cleared this message. ¶7. (U) Visit Embassy Kyiv's classified website: www.state.sgov.gov/p/eur/kiev. Taylor