RUSSIA EAGER TO CONCLUDE AGREEMENT ON LETHAL

C O N F I D E N T I A L SECTION 01 OF 03 MOSCOW 001475

SIPDIS

E.O. 12958: DECL: 06/05/2019
TAGS: PGOV PREL MARR AF RS
SUBJECT: RUSSIA EAGER TO CONCLUDE AGREEMENT ON LETHAL
TRANSIT TO AFGHANISTAN

MOSCOW 00001475 001.2 OF 003


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

//////////ZFR//////////ZFR//////////ZFR////// ////

PLEASE DELETE CABLE WILL BE RESENT UNDER NEW MRN

//////////ZFR//////////ZFR//////////ZFR////// ////


MOSCOW 00001475 002 OF 003




6. (C) Aleksandr Dulenko, Counselor in the GOR Administrative
Department, explained that the legal requirements for the
transport of lethal cargo were accepted by France, Germany
and Spain when concluding their individual lethal transit
agreements with Russia. These requirements include:

-- Aircraft transporting lethal cargo are required to land in
Russia for customs inspection that entails customs officials
verifying that an aircraft's documentation is correct.
Yelena Mayevskaya of the Federal Customs Service said that
cargo would not be inspected unless there was reason to
believe the aircraft carried something other than what was
listed on the manifest. Russian legislation does not allow
exemptions to this landing requirement, although GOR
officials involved in the discussions thought a simplified
procedure for checking documents could be reached in the case
of U.S. transit flights.

-- Cargo transiting Russia is exempt from customs duties,
although a fee is required for customs administration.

-- Aircraft crews do not require visas.

-- Aircraft transporting military personnel with their
"personal arms" do not have to land for customs inspection.
The example was given of an infantry company transported with
mortars and anti-tank systems. The GOR would consider these
the organic arms of the company and not require the flight to
land. Asked to clarify the Russian text's exemption of
"personal arms," the GOR delegation described light and small
arms, such as service weapons, and "special logistical
equipment" as mobile kitchens or other troop logistics.

-- Transport of lethal cargo requires advance customs service
authorization. Blanket authorization for multiple flights
carrying ammunition or other such general military material
could be issued for a year. Single authorization would be
made for flights carrying more specialized cargo.

-- Routes must be consistent with the advance authorization.
The routes must correspond to major airports that can handle
the aircraft being used, including unscheduled stops for bad
weather, provide refueling and servicing for the aircraft,
and capable of handling potentially hazardous cargo. Neverov
pointed out that Germany uses the same airfield for all
transit flights that land in Russia, and based a support crew
there.


7. (C) Mull raised U.S. concern over the need to have every
flight transporting lethal cargo land in Russia for what
amounted to a document check, which would significantly add
to the time required for delivery and increase costs. Citing
the U.S. arrangement with the Bahamas as an example, Mull
asked if this requirement could be waived or the documents
examined at the flights' point of departure. Neverov doubted
the landing requirement could be waived since it was required
by Russian law, and in FORCE with Germany, France and Spain.
He downplayed prospects that Russia would agree to a treaty
provision overruling the domestic legislation requirement for
lethal transit flights to land, but said that some
flexibility might be found to address the U.S. concern.

Air Navigation Fees
--------------


8. (C) Dmitri Savitskiy, Acting Director of the Russian AIR
Navigation Agency (ANA),explained that Russian law required
levying fees for AIR navigation service regardless of whether
aircraft were commercial or state. Without naming the U.S.,
Dmitri Mirko of the Russian Aviation Administration noted
that the ANA already had "accumulated debt" and reiterated
that waivers were not possible since the ANA was required to
pay tax on the service rendered even if the AIR navigation
fee was not paid. France, Germany and Spain accepted this
requirement and paid AIR navigation fees for all their
transit flights.


9. (C) Mull responded that the U.S. would not object to
paying fees for chartered civilian flights, but reiterated
that the U.S. did not recognize a government's right to
impose fees on state flights. He asked if the GOR would
consider covering the AIR navigation fees owed to the ANA as
part of its contribution to stabilizing Afghanistan, and
suggested that the U.S. could cap the number of daily flights
at possibly three, thereby limiting the costs incurred by the
GOR. Neverov replied that this proposal was a "legitimate
question."


MOSCOW 00001475 003 OF 003



10. (C) Neverov said that Russia did not envisage any
restrictions on the number of U.S. flights that would be
allowed under the agreement, adding that the U.S. could send
as many as were needed to "assist the effectiveness of the
international FORCE in Afghanistan," but asked for the
projected volume of U.S. flights. While noting that no
formal planning had begun, the U.S. delegation suggested that
a minimum of 2-3 flights a day would likely be necessary to
make the route feasible. Savitskiy explained that AIR
navigation fees are calculated based upon the length of a
route and path an aircraft takes through Russian airspace.


11. (C) Asked whether a legally binding and ratified
agreement could contain exceptions to the GOR requirement for
state flight charges, Neverov responded "great minds think
alike." He confirmed that a ratified agreement would create
a legal norm and that, in practice, the U.S. and Russia have
allowed different procedures in the past. He emphasized that
an international agreement would prevail over domestic
legislation.

Next Steps
--------------


12. (C) Mull undertook to provide written responses to the
Russian text, but flagged the AIR navigation fees and
requirement to land for customs inspections as obvious areas
of concern.
BEYRLE