CFE AND PUTIN'S APRIL 26 REMARKS - RUSSIANS STATE

C O N F I D E N T I A L PARIS 001763

SIPDIS

SIPDIS

DEPT FOR EUR/RPM

E.O. 12958: DECL: 05/02/2017
TAGS: PREL KCFE PARM NATO RS FR
SUBJECT: CFE AND PUTIN'S APRIL 26 REMARKS - RUSSIANS STATE
THE MESSAGE WAS "POLITICAL" AND DESIGNED TO CONVEY RUSSIAN
UNHAPPINESS WITH LACK OF ADAPTED TREATY

REF: A) STATE 57275 B) PARIS 1723

Classified By: Political Minister-Counselor Josiah Rosenblatt, Reason 1
.4 B/D


1. (C) In a May 2 follow-up conversation with Arnaud Roux,
MFA action officer responsible for CFE (ref B),Roux provided
us with a readout of his May 2 conversation with Russian
Embassy representatives. According to Roux, the Russian
representative emphasized that Putin's April 26 message was
designed to send a "political" message to Allies, and would
have no immediate consequences at the "technical level."
Specifically, Putin was dramatizing Russian disappointment
with the "absence of a ratified Adapted CFE treaty, i.e., its
non-entry into force."


2. (C) The Russians made four points, Roux noted:

-- The U.S. and NATO had provided insufficient information
about the "base buildup" in Romania and Bulgaria. Moscow
does not believe that the U.S. has ever provided a precise
definition of "substantial forces," in accordance with what
it believes to be the commitments contained in the
NATO-Russia Founding Act.

-- The reason Moscow wants the Adapted CFE treaty to enter
into force is to make up for the fact that the "Eastern
group" no longer exists, its members having mostly joined the
NATO Alliance. An additional problem is that the Baltics are
not party to any treaty, that is, they have not signed or do
not belong to any disarmament treaty, according to the
Russians.

-- NATO did not and has not provided a "precise definition"
of the Istanbul Commitments. Moscow, accordingly wants more
debate at the NATO-Russia Council.

-- Lastly, Moscow is not making a link between CFE and
Missile Defense. The only linkage, according to the
Russians, is with the absence of a ratified treaty.
According to Roux, the intent is for Missile Defense
decisions to be viewed as a "trigger" for the CFE.


3. (C) Roux said the French reaction was to register
"incomprehension" at the Russian position and to question why
Russia/Putin was taking such a stand at this time.
Additionally, given the "progress" being made at the
NATO-Russia Council, there was no justification for Putin's
actions. Lastly, Roux said France warned the Russians not to
put at risk the existing security architecture of Europe,
specifically Open Skies, CSBMs and CFE, which also represent
an opportunity for European dialogue with Russia on security.


4. (C) In response to our queries, Roux said that
unfortunately the Russians offered no solutions or a
suggested way forward. The MFA responded by urging the
Russians to maintain the dialogue at the NATO-Russia Council.
In terms of the French approach, he said France shares the
U.S. view that Allies need to maintain unity, as well as
pressure on Russia to implement the Istanbul Commitments.
Lastly, Roux observed that the Russian arguments presented
did not track fully with the message Putin delivered in his
April 26 message, which only adds to the confusion over
Russian objectives.



Please visit Paris' Classified Website at:
http://www.state.sgov.gov/p/eur/paris/index.c fm

STAPLETON