Identifier
Created
Classification
Origin
08STATE133419
2008-12-22 15:27:00
SECRET
Secretary of State
Cable title:  

ACTION REQUEST: READOUT OF FRIED-ANTONOV

Tags:  KCFE NATO PARM PREL RS GG MD 
pdf how-to read a cable
VZCZCXYZ0005
PP RUEHWEB

DE RUEHC #3419 3571534
ZNY SSSSS ZZH
P 221527Z DEC 08
FM SECSTATE WASHDC
TO ALL NATO POST COLLECTIVE PRIORITY
INFO CONVENTIONAL ARMED FORCES IN EUROPE COLLECTIVE PRIORITY
RHMFISS/JOINT STAFF WASHINGTON DC PRIORITY
RUEHVEN/USMISSION USOSCE PRIORITY 0000
RUEKJCS/SECDEF WASHINGTON DC PRIORITY
RUEAIIA/CIA WASHINGTON DC PRIORITY 0000
S E C R E T STATE 133419 

SIPDIS

E.O. 12958: DECL: 12/19/2018
TAGS: KCFE NATO PARM PREL RS GG MD
SUBJECT: ACTION REQUEST: READOUT OF FRIED-ANTONOV
DISCUSSION ON CFE

Classified By: EUR A/S DAN FRIED FOR REASONS 1.4 (B) and (D)

S E C R E T STATE 133419

SIPDIS

E.O. 12958: DECL: 12/19/2018
TAGS: KCFE NATO PARM PREL RS GG MD
SUBJECT: ACTION REQUEST: READOUT OF FRIED-ANTONOV
DISCUSSION ON CFE

Classified By: EUR A/S DAN FRIED FOR REASONS 1.4 (B) and (D)


1. (SBU) This is an action request. NATO capitals, Embassy
Tbilisi, and Embassy Chisinau are requested to deliver the
points in para 2 to the appropriate host government officials
on the results of the December 17 CFE Treaty consultations
between the U.S. and Russia. For full readout of the
consultations, please see septel.


2. (S/REL NATO, MD, GG) Points for delivery:

- Assistant Secretary Fried met Russian MFA International
Security and Disarmament Director Antonov for a five-hour
discussion to review the status of the CFE Parallel Actions
Package. Both sides were represented by full teams from
foreign and defense ministries. The meeting did not result
in any breakthroughs; Russia reiterated maximalist positions
on a number of key issues. However, the meeting resulted in
one of the most interesting and concrete discussions of
specific ideas since consultations began in fall 2007.

- The meeting touched on all the major elements of the
parallel actions package, but focused on three main issues:
the flank, Georgia, and Russia's suspension.

- Antonov's comments on the parallel actions package as a
whole echoed public comments by Foreign Minister Lavrov,
arguing that the current iteration of the paper exchanged
"Russian actions for NATO promises." The U.S. team explained
this was not the case.

- Implementation: A/S Fried underscored that NATO had been
very forthcoming in its proposals on a way ahead; Russia
should not expect that NATO Allies would be ready to offer
concessions in order to convince Russia to return to meeting
Treaty obligations that it should have been fulfilling all
along. We were ready to work cooperatively, but Russia
needed to do its part. Antonov cited information exchange
and verification as areas where Russia might be willing to
resume implementation if the rest of the package met its
(maximum) desiderata, but underscored that any steps
involving the flank would be a problem for Russia.

- Georgia: Fried used this meeting to present new ideas -
which the U.S. had worked out with Georgian authorities - for

updating the Georgia portion of the Package. The Russian
side appeared surprised that the U.S. and Georgia had been
able to identify ideas for a way forward on this difficult
aspect. The approach advanced by the U.S. involve withdrawal
of Russian CFE Treaty Limited Equipment from Georgian
territory, transparency and observation at Gudauta and other
relevant facilities, and information and verification, based
on Adapted CFE modalities, regarding Russian forces in the
South Ossetian and Abkhazian regions of Georgia, as well as
in the North Caucasus Military District. Georgia would offer
comparable transparency on its forces. The Russian team -
noting they were not agreeing to the proposal - asked
detailed questions about the specifics, and undertook to
report the ideas to Moscow immediately for consideration. It
was clear that that the Russian side considered these ideas
very ambitious.

- Although Antonov claimed that steps on Georgia were not an
essential element of a solution on CFE, particularly in the
wake of Russian military action, he did not reject the idea
that Georgia and Moldova belong in the CFE package, as he had
on previous occasions. In fact, he suggested that the U.S.
and Russia were probably closest to agreement on Moldova.

- Flank: There was extensive discussion on the flank.
Antonov pushed for a reaction to the Baluyevskiy flank
proposal, according to which the flank regime would encompass
all Russian territory covered by the Treaty, under Russia's
overall limit for Russian territory in the area of
application. The flank restrictions would remain for other
participants in the Treaty. Antonov insisted there could be
no agreement on the Parallel Actions Package if Russia's
concerns on the flank were not addressed. He ascribed this
position to President Putin.

- Discussion was extensive, encompassing the full history of
the origins of the flank limits. Fried responded sharply:
the Baluyevskiy proposal amounted to an arrangement where
flank limits applied to NATO but not to Russia. This was
obviously one-sided and not negotiable. Responding to
Antonov's argument that the flank limits are no longer
needed, Fried said that Russia's attack on Georgia, combined
with its suspension of CFE, had fueled reasonable concerns
about Russia's forces and intentions, and led many Allies to
consider legal limits more important now than previously.
Moreover, it has hard to imagine how NATO Allies could ratify
a Treaty if core provisions were being renegotiated.

- (FOR ANKARA AND OSLO ONLY/ONLY) The Russian team indicated
that the Baluyevskiy proposal did not need to be the end of
the story, and hinted that if the legal limits were
eliminated, Russia might agree to political commitments
restricting force levels, on the model of commitments
undertaken in the CFE Final Act with regard to Pskov and
Kaliningrad.

- Given the number and complexity of the issues, Fried and
Antonov agreed that it would be desirable for the sides to
meet again early in the new year, if possible. Both Fried
and Antonov were open to expanding participation to include
other concerned States Parties on an issue by issue basis.
Antonov expressed concern that a meeting at 30 (or 30-plus),
on the model of seminars in 2007, would not be conducive to
resolving issues.

- A/S Fried and Antonov agreed to follow up on planning in
January.
RICE