UKRAINE: REACTION TO MISSILE DEFENSE MEDIA REPORTS

C O N F I D E N T I A L SECTION 01 OF 02 KYIV 000224 SIPDIS SIPDIS E.O. 12958: DECL: 01/31/2017 TAGS: MARR MCAP PREL PINR US UP SUBJECT: UKRAINE: REACTION TO MISSILE DEFENSE MEDIA REPORTS REF: A. WARSAW 127 ¶B. PRAGUE 52 ¶C. STATE 7446 ¶D. STATE 7445 ¶E. 06 STATE 27075 ¶F. 06 KIEV 1772 Classified By: Ambassador for reasons 1.4 (b,d). ¶1. (U) This is an action request. See para 9. ¶2. (C) Summary: Defense Minister Hrytsenko told Ambassador January 29 that the U.S. announcement about its preparedness to locate missile defense facilities in Poland and the Czech Republic had the unintended consequence in Ukraine of reinforcing the positions of opponents of Ukraine's closer relations with NATO. The media and Ukrainian politicians have had questions about the announcement and its implications for Russia. The Foreign Ministry sought to reassure the public with its own statement. End summary. Ukraine Reacts -------------- ¶3. (U) News reports on January 22 that the U.S. government had offered to locate missile defense facilities in the Czech Republic and Poland (refs A and B) created ripples of concern, if not actual alarm, in the Ukrainian media and elicited a political reaction. A journalist asked Ambassador January 23 about the news reports during a press conference for a visiting Millennium Challenge Corporation delegation and, on January 24, press accounts reported his assurances that the deployment would not threaten neighboring countries. On January 30, however, Prime Minister Yanukovych was implicitly critical of the U.S. at a press conference in Lviv for not consulting beforehand with the two countries' neighbors and noted the move would alarm Russia. During a January 30 television interview after tendering his resignation as Foreign Minister, Borys Tarasyuk said the U.S. had not offered to locate any missile defense facility in Ukraine and noted that Ukraine should proceed deliberately and consult with Poland and the Czech Republic before taking a position on the issue. ¶4. (U) Responding to allegations carried in the Russian media regarding Hrytsenko's personal role, the Defense Ministry released a statement January 30 that "Defense Minister Anatoliy Hrytsenko has not articulated any initiatives (sic) regarding Ukrainian-U.S. cooperation in the missile technology or missile defense areas." Also on January 30, MOD spokesman Andriy Lysenko told the media the Ministry of Defense would not comment on the possibility of Ukrainian missile defense cooperation with the U.S., since this was a policy decision for Ukraine's leadership, the National Security and Defense Council, and parliament to make. ¶5. (U) MFA handled the issue smoothly with a January 23 response to media inquiries that cited Ukraine's cooperation with Russia on radar early warning systems and noted the U.S. deployment of a missile defense system should "enhance the international community's potential in combating the proliferation and use of weapons of mass destruction." Offering his personal opinion, Deputy Defense Minister Volodymyr Tereshchenko also told the press January 29 that the U.S. missile defense facilities should not concern Ukraine. Losing the Information Campaign -------------- ¶6. (C) Defense Minister Hrytsenko was blunt, however, during his January 29 meeting with Ambassador. He had concluded Ukraine and the U.S. lost the information campaign when they failed to properly lay the groundwork for the announcement that missile defense systems would be installed in countries neighboring Ukraine. The Ministry of Defense had worked to dispel incorrect stereotypes and misinformation causing Ukrainians to oppose NATO membership, such as that NATO would base nuclear weapons on Ukrainian soil or force Ukraine to accept foreign bases. The sudden announcement was a set-back that had reinforced the positions of NATO opponents such as the Communist Party of Ukraine or (far-right agitator) Nataliya Vitrenko of the Progressive Socialist Party. ¶7. (C) Hrytsenko continued that Ukraine and the U.S. needed to play catch-up by thoroughly explaining that the missile defense systems were not directed toward Russia and Ukraine but at threats originating from the Middle East. Ukrainian officials could use a globe to demonstrate that, despite the KYIV 00000224 002 OF 002 contrary impression created by viewing a flat map, Poland and the Czech Republic lay on a direct route between the Middle East and the U.S. Hrytsenko then inquired whether the missile defense installation's capabilities were 360 degrees. If the technical capabilities of either the missiles or radars were limited to a particular direction, this information could be used to buttress the argument that they were solely a defense against a Middle Eastern threat. ¶8. (U) Request any information that we could share and would be responsive to Hrytsenko's question in para 7. ¶9. (U) Visit Embassy Kyiv's classified website: www.state.sgov.gov/p/eur/kiev. Taylor