NATO-RUSSIA DRAFT TREATY: MFA SAYS IT SHOULDN'T BE

C O N F I D E N T I A L MOSCOW 003003

SIPDIS

GENEVA FOR JCIC

E.O. 12958: DECL: 12/10/2019
TAGS: PARM PREL MASS NATO RS
SUBJECT: NATO-RUSSIA DRAFT TREATY: MFA SAYS IT SHOULDN'T BE
A SURPRISE

REF: USNATO 579

Classified By: Acting POL M/C David Kostelancik for reasons 1.4 (b) and
(d)


1. (C) Summary: MFA European Cooperation Department Deputy
Yuriy Gorlach said FM Lavrov's proposal at the NATO-Russia
Council ministerial December 4 was not a radical measure, but
only made legally-binding the commitments already undertaken
in the NRC Founding Act of 1997. The proposed agreement is
meant to complement existing security arrangements like CFE
and OSCE and will further enhance the security of new NATO
members, while allowing the U.S. and Russia to reduce their
military forces in Europe. End Summary.


2. (C) MFA European Cooperation Department Deputy Yuriy
Gorlach told Embassy poloffs December 11 he was "surprised
the U.S. and other NATO Allies found provocative" the Russian
proposal circulated by Foreign Minister Lavrov at the
NATO-Russia Council ministerial meeting December 4 (Reftel).
Gorlach said the proposed agreement, which would prohibit
the stationing of substantial combat forces in the "new"
member states of NATO, merely made legally-binding the
political commitment undertaken in the NRC Founding Act of

1997. He cautioned that Allied criticism of this provision,
Article 4 in the Lavrov proposal, as "provocative" only
encourages the GOR'S "hard-line" elements to oppose further
cooperation with the U.S. and NATO.


3. (C) Gorlach said the proposal, which he claimed has the
personal backing of President Medvedev, was meant to put Cold
War attitudes "behind us, once and for all," as "we're no
longer adversaries." The proposal would also address ongoing
security concerns of the new NATO members and Russia by
formalizing the guarantees made in the Founding Act. Gorlach
mentioned U.S. temporary deployments to Bulgaria and Romania,
the NATO air policing mission in the Baltics, and potential
U.S. missile defense facilities in Eastern Europe as among
Russian concerns. Also, the Lavrov proposal would allow the
U.S. and Russia to reduce their forces on the European
continent and redeploy them to meet their "real" security
challenges.


4. (C) Gorlach described the Lavrov proposal as part of the
Russian model of concentric or nesting security arrangements
in the Euro-Atlantic space, with NATO at the core, the NRC
surrounding it, and the European Security Treaty encompassing
all. The NRC proposal does not contradict the commitments
made in the CFE or adapted treaties, and is meant to fit
comfortably with the existing architecture of security
agreements -- CFE Vienna Document, OSCE soft security
documents -- on which an European Security Treaty would be
built.


5. (C) Regarding process, Gorlach refused to acknowledge that
Russia's proposal was precipitous, saying the Allies had been
asking Russia in Brussels and Vienna to provide concrete
proposals to allow meaningful discussion in response to
Russia's call for a new European security architecture. Now
that Russia had done so, Allies were complaining, he said.
Gorlach said Russia's reluctance to engage on the NRC "Way
Ahead" document stemmed from the desire to initiate this more
ambitious proposal. He described the NRC ministerial as a
"good, substantial dialogue," although he hoped that Russian
acceptance of the revised "Way Ahead" paper did not preclude
addressing matters that did not neatly fit into the
categories mentioned in the paper.


6. (C) Comment: Gorlach repeatedly expressed his hope for
"positive comment" from the U.S. and Allies on the paper, and
seemed genuinely surprised that the proposals could be viewed
as provocative. Russia's intense focus on the Medvedev
treaty and its NRC companion suggests that Moscow will
withhold meaningful cooperation on matters considered to be
high priorities by NATO until it gains at least a hearing on
its broader proposals. End comment.
Beyrle