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