RUSSIA CONDEMNS NATO-GEORGIA PFP EXERCISES

C O N F I D E N T I A L SECTION 01 OF 02 MOSCOW 001020 SIPDIS E.O. 12958: DECL: 04/21/2019 TAGS: PREL PGOV NATO RS GG SUBJECT: RUSSIA CONDEMNS NATO-GEORGIA PFP EXERCISES Classified By: A/DCM Alice G. Wells for reasons 1.4(b) and (d). ¶1. (C) Summary: President Medvedev, Foreign Minster Lavrov, and Russian NATO PermRep Rogozin have sharply condemned the upcoming NATO-Georgia Partnership for Peace (PfP) exercise, charging it would be "dangerous" to conduct it in an area where "tensions were running high," and threatening consequences to NATO-Russia cooperation, such as the cancellation of the May 7 NATO-Russia Council General Chiefs of Staff meeting. While Rogozin's claim that Russia officially requested NATO to cancel the exercises remains unsubstantiated here, Lavrov's April 20 letter to the Secretary formally calling upon the U.S. to cancel the exercise may be the beginning of a concerted GOR press against NATO's cooperation with Georgia. Russia-favored organizations have split opinions, with the CSTO condemning the exercise, while the CIS called for calm, although Kazakhstan withdrew from the exercises. Analysts considered Russia's sharp reactions "contrived and affected," given the limited extent of the exercise, and suggested Russia's harsh statements could be targeted for domestic consumption and meant to distract from its own force buildup in Abkhazia and South Ossetia. End Summary. -------------- Official Russia incensed -------------- ¶2. (SBU) Russian official anti-NATO rhetoric has heated up as the date approaches for NATO-Georgia Partnership for Peace (PfP) exercises to begin in May. President Medvedev on April 17 called the decision to hold the exercises "wrong and dangerous" as they would take place in an area where "tensions are running high," and vaguely threatened to take "various decisions" if the exercises go forward. Foreign Minister Lavrov April 16 argued publicly the exercises were akin to "rearming Georgia," and that NATO's "permissiveness" in assuring Georgia in early 2008 that it would become a NATO member had "encouraged" Georgian President Saakashvili. ¶3. (C) Russian NATO Permrep Rogozin claimed April 16 to have officially requested NATO to cancel the exercises, citing three reasons: NATO-Russia cooperation was still not "unfrozen;" Russia had decided to sanction nations seen as "militarizing" Georgia; and NATO would appear to be interfering in Georgia's internal affairs by conducting the exercises in the wake of internal protests against the Saakashvili administration. In an April 20 Izvestia interview, Rogozin threatened that the May 7 NATO-Russia Council General Chiefs of Staff meeting might "not take place." While NATO's Moscow office could not confirm Rogozin's claim of an official request to cancel the exercises, Lavrov used his April 20 letter to Secretary Clinton to repeat his concerns that conducting the exercises would not foster security in the South Caucasus and would adversely affect U.S.-Russian relations. Alleging Georgia was building up its forces near the administrative borders to Abkhazia and South Ossetia, Lavrov charged the exercises encouraged "revenge-seeking sentiments" in Georgia. ¶4. (C) Lavrov's letter to the Secretary may be the opening salvo in a broader diplomatic campaign to discourage NATO-Georgia military cooperation. The UK embassy informed us that the GOR will demarche HMG on April 21 on the subject, with British diplomats here concluding that Russian invective is a sign it does not value NATO-Russia cooperation highly enough to not use the exercises as a lever. While Germany had chosen not to participate in the exercise, Kazakhstan just announced its withdrawal -- as per the Kazakh defense minister because the military was "too busy," but according to Kommersant in order to not damage its relations with Moscow. Armenia, like Kazakhstan a member of the CSTO, remains a partner in the PfP exercise. -------------- CIS, CSTO split -------------- ¶5. (SBU) Other major Russia-graced regional organizations have voiced split opinions about the planned exercises. While CSTO General Secretary Nikolai Bordyuzha on April 20 called the planned exercises "support for Saakashvili's aggressive moves" and an attempt to "aggravate the situation in the Caucasus," Lt. General Aleksander Sinaisky, Secretary MOSCOW 00001020 002 OF 002 of the CIS Council of Defense Ministers told Ekho Moskviy radio April 18 that the exercises were "procedural," and a "political demarche" by NATO that Russia would have to "calmly deal with." -------------- "Contrived and affected" -------------- ¶6. (C) In view of the limited extent of the exercises, Aleksander Golts from Yezhedevny Zhurnal called Medvedev's sharp reactions "contrived and affected," and suggested Russia was interested in NATO as a "paper tiger, not a real partner" that would not admit countries "embroiled in internal territorial conflict." While Viktor Litovkin of Nezavissimaya Gazeta considered the timing to be "terrible" and a "provocation" in the eyes of the average Russian, he told us the amount of attention paid to the PfP exercise was "not warranted," given the exercise's scale and lack of heavy weapons. Although critical of NATO's strategy in Ukraine and Georgia, Aleksandr Konovalov of the Institute for Strategic Assessments argued that in view of the threats of terrorism and nuclear proliferation, Russia had to work together with NATO. -------------- Comment -------------- ¶7. (C) With their sharp rhetoric, Russian leaders are playing to a domestic audience while raising the diplomatic costs for CIS partners who participate in the PfP exercise in Georgia. For a Russia public still outraged by Saakashvili's attack on Tskinvali, demonizing NATO for its military support of Georgia is a simple matter. Tactically, Russia may seek to divert attention or further "justify" its own military posture in South Ossetia and Abkhazia. We agree with our British colleagues that Russia sees more to gain in reinforcing NATO as an enemy rather than a potential partner. RUBIN