RUSSIAN REACTIONS TO REVISED DRAFT OF THE RUSSIA

C O N F I D E N T I A L SECTION 01 OF 02 MOSCOW 001660 SIPDIS E.O. 12958: DECL: 06/24/2019 TAGS: PREL MARR AF US RS SUBJECT: RUSSIAN REACTIONS TO REVISED DRAFT OF THE RUSSIA AFGHANISTAN TRANSIT AGREEMENT REF: STATE 65194 Classified By: DCM Eric S. Rubin. Reasons 1.4 (b) and (d). ¶1. (C) Embassy delivered the revised draft of the Russia Afghanistan Transit Agreement (reftel) to MFA North America Deputy Director Nikolay Sofinskiy and European Cooperation Deputy Director Yuri Gorlatch June 24. Set forth below are their initial questions and comments on the text. We also passed on the proposal for Ambassador Mull and delegation to return to Moscow July 2 to finalize the agreement. Sofinskiy and Gorlatch said the GOR would get back to us ASAP, both on the date and on their reactions and responses to our draft. ¶2. (C) Comments and questions: -- Article 1: -- General -- They noted that Russia would like to be more specific regarding third parties (particularly not allowing use of this agreement to benefit transit for Lithuania, which they say they cannot do because of the dispute over Kaliningrad transit),and suggested an annex or some way to list the countries which could/would be supported by this agreement. They said they would look at something similar to what is in the German agreement and get back to us with a proposal. -- Para 2a -- Question about what is included in "supplies," but recognizing that it was their language originally ("logistics equipment"),they will get back to us. -- Para 2d (and throughout) - What does U.S. mean by "U.S. military transport aircraft and other state transport aircraft." What is "other state transport aircraft?" Does this include commercial aircraft? -- Article 2: -- Para 1b, c, d - Need to study the items on each list, but initial thinking is that "tanks and other self-propelled armored combat vehicles with weapons, and spare parts for them" should also be included in Annex 2, because of the inclusion of weapons. They said it would be difficult to explain why these are exempted from landing in Russia. We also understood that Annexes 1 and 2 are not mutually exclusive; some items on Annex 1, which require a one-time authorization may also require a landing in Russia, and therefore be on both Annexes. Correct? -- Para 3 - They will review what they mean by "flight conditions." They were thinking of the types of things listed in para 4 (such as airport changes for landing),but took on board that those were not really "flight conditions," and were specific terms that could be altered as necessary, but should not affect the overall continuation of the Agreement. -- Para 4/6 - May need some language or annex listing the possible destinations, airports, etc., such as that in the NATO agreement, but will review this and get back to us. -- Para 7 - Per reftel, we provided the numbers and flight information. They questioned whether the overall number of flights (4500 per year) was realistic. Did we really expect to have approximately 12 flights per day? They said they would need to look at this to determine whether it would undermine or interfere with Russian commercial flights, and how they would explain this to the other agencies, the Duma and the Russian public. -- They said they also would prefer the numbers of flights and details to be included in a separate Note, not in the Agreement to be signed at the Summit. Article 5: Para 2b - They said that in Russia, use of "'direct' performance of official duties" means the person is acting under an order; they would like some more specificity on when/in what circumstances personnel are covered or not, and pointed to the SOFA agreements (their example: on a chartered flight with Russian pilots and U.S. soldiers on board, if one of the soldiers shoots one of the pilots, is this considered "performance of official duties?") Article 6: MOSCOW 00001660 002 OF 002 Para 2: No problem. If the U.S. does not want to allow an inspection, it has the option to have the aircraft depart Russia instead. This is acceptable. Article 11: New para 2 - looks okay, but will need to review. Article 13: Language is okay. Article 14: Para 2 - Problem is that while entry into force may take a couple of years (as envisioned in para 1),RF agrees this agreement should be provisionally applied (per para 2),but they cannot start applying it upon signature (if signed, as hoped, at the summit),because it will take some time (not identified) to determine what the cost to Russia will be and how to reallocate the funds, and for other agencies to put in place necessary internal requirements. Thus, Russia would like the agreement to begin provisional application within a period of time (they suggested 60 days) after exchange of another set of dipnotes (possibly to include the number of flights, etc. as noted above),which would occur at some point after the agreement is signed. They said they particularly needed time to negotiate with the Ministry of Finance on the costs. We pointed out a concern that this left open the timeframe from signature to the exchange of these other dipnotes (followed by the additional 60 days after exchange) before the agreement could begin to be implemented. They said if the agreement were approved by the two Presidents and signed, it would be the impetus to resolve these issues quickly. BEYRLE