RUSSIA REACTS NEGATIVELY TO IMPOSITION OF ISNPA

C O N F I D E N T I A L MOSCOW 000051

SIPDIS

SIPDIS

E.O. 12958: DECL: 01/10/2016
TAGS: PARM MTCR PREL MNUC ETTC RS
SUBJECT: RUSSIA REACTS NEGATIVELY TO IMPOSITION OF ISNPA
SANCTIONS

REF: A. 06 MOSCOW 13175

B. 06 STATE 203587

Classified By: Charge d'Affaires Daniel A. Russell. Reasons 1.4 (B/D).


1. (C) SUMMARY: Russia's first official public reaction was
calmly negative to the December 28 imposition of sanctions
against four Russian entities under the Iran-Syria
Non-Proliferation Act. The Foreign Ministry characterized
the U.S. action as an "illegal" effort to extend U.S. law to
the activities of foreign companies. A spokesman for
Rosoboronexport, one of the sanctioned firms, as well as
unofficial commentators, denounced the sanctions as an
attempt by the U.S. to stifle increasingly competitive
Russian companies from selling arms and to avenge sales to
Venezuela. While the GOR has not completed its assessment of
the full impact of the sanctions, one Foreign Ministry
official predicted political fallout. END SUMMARY.


2. (SBU) Reaction to the imposition of sanctions against
four Russian entities under the Iran-Syria Non-Proliferation
Act (reftels) has been uniformly negative over the past two
weeks. Much of the press commentary described the U.S.
action (published in the Federal Register January 5) as
"illegal" and unfair and defended the entities involved as
having acted in full compliance with Russia's laws and
international obligations. Some commentators cast the
sanctions as an effort by the U.S. to counter the increasing
competition posed by Russia's arms transfers to other
countries and as a tit-for-tat response to arms sales to
Venezuela.


3. (SBU) The Foreign Ministry issued a statement January 6,
which constituted Russia's first official public reaction to
the sanctions. It referred to the imposition of sanctions as
an "illegal" attempt by the U.S. to extend requirements of
its domestic legislation to foreign companies and force them
to abide by U.S. rules. The statement rejected "unfounded
allegations" that the entities were involved in the illicit
transfer of missile technology or weapons of mass destruction
(WMD) components in violation of Russian law or international
agreements.


4. (SBU) Other officials voiced similar views. Deputy Prime
Minister and Defense Minister Sergey Ivanov, who also heads
Russia's export control commission, emphasized January 6 that
none of the entities had violated Russian law or
international norms governing the transfer of WMD or missile
technology. A spokesman for Rosoboronexport (one of the four
sanctioned entities) denied that the firm had transferred
banned commodities or technology to Syria, Iran, or
Venezuela. Federation Council Speaker Sergey Mironov and
Deputy Duma Speaker Vladimir Pekhtin were among those who
suggested that the sanctions were imposed in response to
increased competition from Russia.


5. (C) Andrey Belousov in the Political-Military section of
the Foreign Ministry's North America Department told us
January 9 that the GOR would soon consider the full impact of
the sanctions, including their possible impact on the overall
bilateral relationship. Belousov said the timing of the
sanctions (the day before a ten-day holiday period) had not
yet allowed government officials to assess their practical
impact, especially from an inter-agency perspective.
However, he questioned the justification for the action,
speculating that there would likely be fallout.
RUSSELL