RUSSIA REACTS TO THE NATO MINISTERIAL

C O N F I D E N T I A L MOSCOW 003547

SIPDIS

C O R R E C T E D C O P Y ( PARA 11 SHOULD READ PARA 10 )

E.O. 12958: DECL: 12/04/2018
TAGS: PREL PGOV MARR RS NATO
SUBJECT: RUSSIA REACTS TO THE NATO MINISTERIAL

Classified By: Political M/C Alice G. Wells. Reasons 1.4 (b)
and (d).


1. (C) Summary: The reaction by Russian officials to the
December 2 NATO Ministerial was largely muted, with the MFA
welcoming a "return to realism" as NATO decided to resume a
political dialogue with Russia. GOR officials expect NATO to
make the first step in reestablishing ties with Russia,
arguing the NATO SYG Jaap de Hoop Scheffer should hold more
formal meetings with Russia's envoy to NATO Dmitriy Rogozin
and find a way to move the relationship forward. MFA
officials called NATO's decision to not extend MAP offers to
Ukraine and Georgia "predictable," but also expressed
concerns that possible future NATO bases in Ukraine and
Georgia could be used against Russia. Rogozin argued that
the MAP issue exposed splits in NATO, and showed the alliance
valued ties with Russia more than with Ukraine and Georgia.
Experts agreed, with some arguing that NATO's bigger
challenges lie in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Russia's
relatively restrained response may also reflect its lack of
success in winning more than a polite hearing for Medvedev's
European Security Treaty, with NATO remaining the preferred
Euro-Atlantic Security architecture. End Summary.

--------------
MFA Declares "Return To Realism"
--------------


2. (U) MFA officials, in a statement issued December 4,
welcomed NATO's decision to resume a political dialogue with
Russia as a "return to realism." The statement argued that
NATO had decided not to cast Russia as the "imaginary threat
from the East," and recognized that it was counterproductive
to not cooperate on key security issues. The MFA also cast
the decision to defer MAP offers to Ukraine and Georgia as a
realistic step due to the "risks linked with bringing these
countries into the alliance swiftly." The statement argued
that cooperation in the NATO-Russia Council (NRC) was
possible only in an honest and open atmosphere in which all
members jointly sought to find common ground. Russia did not
curtail political dialogue in the NRC, and did not want a new
Cold War, according to the statement.

-------------- -
Russia Waiting For NATO To Make The First Move
-------------- -


3. (C) MFA NATO Section Head Dmitriy Talanov told us December
5 that Russia would not make the first move to reestablish
dialogue or seek new areas of cooperation with NATO, though
it was open to ideas such as cooperating to fight piracy off
the coast of Somalia or finding new ways to jointly stabilize
Afghanistan. NATO, however, needed to decide what it truly
wanted regarding Russia, and SYG de Hoop Scheffer should
engage in more formal meetings with Rogozin before traveling
to Moscow. Talanov added that, until de Hoop Scheffer and
Rogozin worked together and found a way forward, Moscow had
"absolutely nothing to say to de Hoop Scheffer."

-------------- --------------
Ukraine And Georgia: Neither Win Nor Loss For Russia
-------------- --------------


4. (C) Talanov described NATO's refusal to grant a MAP offer
to Ukraine and Georgia as neither a win nor a loss for
Russia, since the two countries had not received MAP offers,
but the Alliance had reconfirmed the Bucharest promise of
eventual membership. He saw the decisions as a compromise
between advocates and opponents of MAP. Talanov, however,
criticized proposals that Ukraine and Georgia join NATO
without first receiving a MAP offer. He said that NATO had
established procedures and should not change the rules
without all members agreeing.

-------------- --------------
MFA Warns Against Future Bases In Ukraine And Georgia
-------------- --------------


5. (C) Talanov also voiced concerns over the possibility of
future NATO bases in Ukraine or Georgia. He said that the
small bases NATO had in Romania and Bulgaria could be used
against Russia in a crisis, and if such bases were built in
Ukraine or Georgia, this would be very provocative toward
Russia. The U.S. military, he said, "has plans against
Russia, and we know it."

--------------
Zhirinovskiy As Voice Of Reason...
--------------


6. (SBU) Prominent politicians largely adhered to the GOR's
position and spin, but stopped short of triumphalism. Duma
International Relations Committee Chair Konstantin Kosachev
applauded the outcome, saying that NATO was a divided
alliance and arguing that "dragging Ukraine and Georgia into
NATO has always been an exclusively American project." He
posited NATO's cautious policy on MAP was a recognition that
allowing Georgia and Ukraine into the alliance would
aggravate, rather than solve, "most existing problems."
Similarly, the usually provocative Duma Deputy Speaker
Vladimir Zhirinovskiy issued a rather sober statement, saying
that Russia "will never fight NATO," and "will always
cooperate and hold debates and discussions." He
characterized the decision to resume political contact
between Russia and NATO and refuse to offer MAP to Ukraine
and Georgia "predictable."

--------------
...While Rogozin Gloats
--------------


7. (U) By contrast, Russia's NATO Envoy Dmitriy Rogozin
gloated. He told Vesti TV on December 3 that the failure of
NATO to offer MAP to Ukraine and Georgia showed that NATO
valued its relations with Russia more than membership for
Georgia and Ukraine. He then told Ekho Moskvy this signified
a "defeat" for the regimes in Kyiv and Tbilisi. According to
Rogozin, the "plans of those who have always spoken about
Russia in icy terms have been destroyed." A split had
developed in NATO that would only deepen as NATO tries to
further enlarge, he posited. He also disparaged Ukraine,
arguing that NATO would not invite such a "bankrupt,
scandal-ridden" country to join.

--------------
The Experts Argue Over NATO's Future
--------------


8. (U) Experts have played up European reluctance to extend a
MAP offer to Ukraine and Georgia. Aleksandr Khramchikin of
the Institute of Military and Political Analysis argued that
Georgia and Ukraine would never become NATO members because
Europe did not wish to open up disputes with Russia. Dean of
the Higher School of Economics Sergey Karaganov argued that
NATO enlargement would destabilize European politics,
something European members of NATO wish to avoid. President
of the Academy of Geopolitical Problems Colonel-General
Leonid Ivashov told Interfax on December 3 that Europe did
not want to bear the burden of an unstable Ukraine and
Georgia.


9. (U) Previewing the NATO ministerial, Editor-In-Chief of
Russia In Global Affairs magazine Fedor Lukyanov argued that
"NATO's future depends on its ability to become an effective
player in South Asia, rather than the speed with which it
penetrates post-Soviet space." Afghanistan is NATO's main
military conflict, and Pakistan is the crossroads of many
problems in the region. In this context, he charged,
enlargement was a distraction from the alliance's bigger
challenges in South Asia.

--------------
Comment
--------------


10. (C) The relatively muted official response to the
Ministerial may also be attributed to the GOR's inability to
persuade NATO and Russia's closest "Old Europe" partners that
Moscow has a coherent, alternative vision to existing
Euro-Atlantic security institutions. While Russia
aggressively counters NATO enlargement, its efforts to sell a
new European Security Treaty continue to be met with polite
skepticism.
BEYRLE