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