RUSSIA DENIES INVOLVEMENT IN FAILED GEORGIAN COUP

C O N F I D E N T I A L SECTION 01 OF 02 MOSCOW 001153 SIPDIS E.O. 12958: DECL: 05/04/2019 TAGS: PREL PGOV RS GG SUBJECT: RUSSIA DENIES INVOLVEMENT IN FAILED GEORGIAN COUP ATTEMPT REF: A. TBILISI 857 ¶B. MOSCOW 1145 ¶C. TBILISI 852 Classified By: DCM Eric S. Rubin for reasons 1.4(b) and (d). ¶1. (C) Summary. The MFA, MOD, and Duma members all rejected Georgia's claims of Russian special service involvement in the failed Georgian coup attempt May 5, saying the accusations were meant to distract from internal instability that was the true cause of the uprising. The MFA stated Moscow was not increasing its military presence in the region, stressing that Russian forces in South Ossetia and Abkhazia were operating at normal levels. MFA Director Neverov told us that FM Lavrov's decision not to participate in the May 19 NRC was not directly linked to the PfP exercises in Georgia, but to NATO's expulsion of two Russian diplomats. Several Russian analysts discounted Russian involvement in the coup attempt, although Pavel Felgenhauer speculated that it was "likely" that Russia had provided "background support" to the opposition groups which organized the April 9 protests. End Summary --- GOR --- ¶2. (SBU) The GOR vehemently rejected Georgian claims of Russian special service involvement in the May 5 failed coup attempt (refs A, C). The Ministry of Defense stated that the allegations were "clearly provocative" and aimed at "obtaining political dividends." Deputy Foreign Minister Karasin told the press that Georgia was trying to blame Russia for its domestic political instability with its "absolutely delusional" accusations, adding that he had first learned of the coup through U.S. diplomatic channels (ref B). ¶3. (SBU) In a statement released late on May 5, the MFA said while it was not the first time Georgia had leveled at Russia accusations of supporting a coup d'etat, each time they became "more and more ridiculous," never before having reached the level of claiming Russia was using the Georgian military to overthrow the Georgian government. The statement went on to say "uncontrolled internal political processes" caused the coup attempt, affirming that Russia "out of principle" did not interfere in Georgia's internal affairs. Noting that the PfP exercises were to begin May 6, the MFA then repeated its warning against conducting military exercises in the "tense" region. Underscoring that Russian bases in South Ossetia and Abkhazia were operating at normal status, the MFA rejected allegations that Russia had increased its military presence in order to influence the internal situation in Georgia. ¶4. (SBU) Duma members were also quick to reject accusations of Russian involvement in the failed coup attempt. Head of the Committee on CIS Affairs Alexei Ostrovsky accused Saakashvili of "seeing Russia's hand in everything" in his "maniacal obsession." In reality, Saakashvili had lost the confidence of the Georgian military and secret services, Ostrovsky contended. First Deputy chairman of the Duma Defense Committee Igor Barinov called allegations of Russian special service involvement a "complete delusion." Deputy Chairman of the Duma Committee on Security and retired FSB colonel Gennady Gudkov similarly called the accusations "absolute nonsense," and claimed former Georgian President Shevardnadze had similarly seen Russian intrigues behind every mishap. ¶5. (C) Despite the MFA's swipe at the PfP exercises, MFA Director Neverov told us there was no direct link between the decision by FM Lavrov to call off his participation in the May 19 NATO-Russia Council meetings and the staging of the May 6 exercises in Georgia. Instead, Neverov characterized NATO's decision to expel two Russian diplomats assigned to the Russia's permanent mission to the organization as "almost the final straw." Russian permrep Rogozin accused NATO of not being ready to assume normal relations with Russia yet, but allowed that dialogue would continue at the ambassadorial level. -------------- Analysts MOSCOW 00001153 002 OF 002 -------------- ¶6. (C) Several analysts we spoke to dismissed Georgian accusations of a Russian hand in the May 5 coup attempt in Georgia. Noting that the coup only involved one tank battalion, Alexei Vlasov from Moscow State University (MGU) told us that he considered the event to be purely internal. Although it was not well-publicized, he said many in Georgia were discontent with President Saakashvili and supported a change in government. He did not have concrete information regarding accusations of Russian support for the coup attempt, but did not give any credence to the theory that Russia sought to undermine Georgia's NATO aspirations by supporting the revolt. Vadim Muhanov from the Center for South Caucasus Studies similarly considered that domestic reasons sufficiently explained the events. He noted both the political discontent with Saakashvili as evidenced in the recent protests, but also thought the economic crisis added to the desire to replace Saakashvili. ¶7. (C) However, Novaya Gazeta's Pavel Felgenhauer, who has predicted further Russian military provocations of Georgia, expressed concern that the buildup of Russian forces on the borders and the stated intent of protesters to block roads could lead to "violent clashes." While he had no information on Russia's involvement in the coup attempt, he speculated that it was "likely" that Russia had provided "background support" to the opposition groups which organized the April 9 protests. Although the state of the Russian fleet was such that it could not provide much support, he said it could offload marines from the four landing ships currently off the coast of Abkhazia. -------------- Comment -------------- ¶8. (C) We will continue to make the point that Russian actions have -- at a minimum -- raised tensions and increased the potential for miscalculations in Georgia. While we have no evidence of direct Russian involvement in the coup attempt, FM Lavrov can be reminded in his May 7 Washington consultations of the critical importance of peacefully managing our differences over Georgia, as well as the importance we attach to Georgian sovereignty and territorial integrity. BEYRLE