Identifier
Created
Classification
Origin
09USNATO165
2009-05-04 17:45:00
SECRET//NOFORN
Mission USNATO
Cable title:  

ROGOZIN RAMBLES SOVIET-STYLE IN RESTART OF THE

Tags:  NATO PREL MOPS GG RS 
pdf how-to read a cable
VZCZCXYZ0015
OO RUEHWEB

DE RUEHNO #0165/01 1241745
ZNY SSSSS ZZH
O 041745Z MAY 09
FM USMISSION USNATO
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC IMMEDIATE 2903
INFO RUEHZG/NATO EU COLLECTIVE IMMEDIATE
RUEHTA/AMEMBASSY ASTANA IMMEDIATE
RUEHKV/AMEMBASSY KYIV IMMEDIATE 0217
RUEHMO/AMEMBASSY MOSCOW IMMEDIATE 6334
RUEHSI/AMEMBASSY TBILISI IMMEDIATE 5751
RHMFISS/HQ USEUCOM VAIHINGEN GE IMMEDIATE
RHEFDIA/DIA WASHDC IMMEDIATE
RHEHNSC/NSC WASHDC IMMEDIATE
RUEKJCS/JOINT STAFF WASHDC IMMEDIATE
RUEKJCS/SECDEF WASHINGTON DC IMMEDIATE
RUEAIIA/CIA WASHDC IMMEDIATE
RUEHNO/USDELMC BRUSSELS BE IMMEDIATE
RHMFISS/USNMR SHAPE BE IMMEDIATE
S E C R E T USNATO 000165 

NOFORN
SIPDIS

E.O. 12958: DECL: 01/05/2017
TAGS: NATO PREL MOPS GG RS
SUBJECT: ROGOZIN RAMBLES SOVIET-STYLE IN RESTART OF THE
NATO-RUSSIA COUNCIL

REF: A. USNATO 157

B. STATE 43053

Classified By: Ambassador Kurt Volker for reasons 1.4 (b) and (d).

S E C R E T USNATO 000165

NOFORN
SIPDIS

E.O. 12958: DECL: 01/05/2017
TAGS: NATO PREL MOPS GG RS
SUBJECT: ROGOZIN RAMBLES SOVIET-STYLE IN RESTART OF THE
NATO-RUSSIA COUNCIL

REF: A. USNATO 157

B. STATE 43053

Classified By: Ambassador Kurt Volker for reasons 1.4 (b) and (d).


1. (S/NF) SUMMARY: On April 29, the first formal NATO-Russia
Council (NRC) Ambassadorial meeting was held since the August
2008 Russia-Georgia war. Russian Ambassador Rogozin used the
meeting to dissect and criticize the communiqu from NATO's
recent 60th Anniversary Summit. Paying particular attention
to the language on Georgia, he took the opportunity to urge
the cancellation of the upcoming NATO/Partnership for Peace
exercises which will be held in Georgia. Allies were
frustrated by Rogozin's unconstructive comments, pushing back
appropriately. They made clear that the exercises in Georgia
would go forward as planned. After an initial discussion on
several non-papers on the subject of NRC reform (including
one co-sponsored by the U.S.),Ambassadors tasked the NRC
Preparatory Committee to have an instructed discussion on the
issue. After being told that Secretary Clinton was not
available for the date initially proposed for the NRC Foreign
Ministerial, Rogozin urged Allies to quickly determine a date
when the meeting could be held. He said Russia would like to
focus on Afghanistan, European security issues, and the state
of relations between NATO and Russia at the Ministerial.
Repudiating his own recent press comments, Rogozin said the
Russian decision not to participate in a May 7 Chiefs of
Defense meeting was not intended as a political demarche
regarding the exercises in Georgia. Instead, he said that
Moscow believed military-to-military cooperation could only
be considered after a political mandate had been delivered at
the upcoming NRC Foreign Ministerial process. He called
attention to Russia's proposals for revitalizing work on a
CFE solution based on the U.S.-drafted Parallel Actions
Package and sought further work on non-proliferation issues.
He also asked for a meeting with Allied armament directors.
END SUMMARY


ROGOZIN'S RANT ON THE NATO SUMMIT COMMUNIQU...
-------------- ---


2. (S/NF) On April 29, NATO-Russia Council (NRC) Ambassadors
met for the first time in formal session since the August

2008 Russia-Georgia war and the resulting suspension by
Allied Foreign Ministers of "business as usual" in the NRC.
Following a brief summary of the results of the April 3-4
NATO Summit by NATO Secretary General de Hoop Scheffer,
Russian Ambassador Rogozin launched into an extended Russian
critique of the Summit Communiqu. Specific criticism
included:

-- Paragraph 3: Indivisibility of Security: Rogozin
complained that the reference to the indivisibility of
security referred only to Allied security and, therefore,
ignored Russian security needs. (Note: This is standard
Alliance language which has been used for years in Summit and
Ministerial communiqus.)

-- Paragraph 7: Kosovo: Rogozin argued that the decision by
many NATO Allies to recognize the independence of Kosovo
contradicted the Paragraph 7 statement of support for the
principle of territorial integrity.

-- Paragraph 8: Medvedev European Security Treaty Proposals:
Rogozin complained that paragraph 8 seemed to imply that the
Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE)
was not the appropriate venue for discussion of proposal by
Russian President Medvedev for a European Security Treaty.
Rogozin argued that the OSCE was an appropriate venue because
it had not been dealing with hard security issues for at
least the last year, adding that he did not want the Medvedev
proposal "hidden away" at the OSCE. He argued for a
discussion of the Medvedev proposal within the NRC, including
at ministerial level.

-- Paragraph 19: NATO-UN: Rogozin criticized the NATO-UN
agreement cited in the paragraph, arguing that it had been

signed without the knowledge or consent of Russia. He also
argued that while the UN had tried to argue that this was
merely an agreement between the secretariats of the two
organizations, the NATO Communiqu indicated it was an
agreement between the respective organizations.

-- Paragraph 49: Cyber-security: Rogozin asked what the
reference to cyber attacks was meant to imply. Did it mean,
he asked, that attacks on the computers of Alliance members
would be considered an Article 5 (i.e. collective defense)
issue, even if launched by private individuals?

-- Paragraph 57: CFE: Rogozin then turned to the CFE
paragraph of the summit declaration, and commented on it in a
positive tone, arguing that we need to show more flexibility.
He said the Russia-U.S. Parallel actions package could be
the basis for a way forward but we need to improve it.
Rogozin then walked through, in broad brush, most of the
elements of the paper that Russian MFA Disarmament Director
Antonov passed to A/S Gottemoeller on April 24 in Rome (REF
B). (NOTE: Partly because of difficulties with translation
of some of the technical language in Rogozin's CFE remarks,
his comments resulted in some confusion. Allies concluded
that the upshot was that Russia said it was ready to work on
the basis of the parallel actions package. END NOTE.)
Rogozin called on Vienna to increase its work and indicated
that Russia would present its CFE proposals in Vienna at may
12-13 (presumably the JCG and FSC meetings). Finally, he
said NRC Ambassadors should discuss CFE at their next
meeting, and offered to have Russia's JCP rep provide a CFE
presentation. In response, Germany expressed deep concern
over Russia's suspension of the CFE treaty and requested more
details on the Russian proposals. Ambassador Volker stressed
the importance of implementation of the existing treaty but
welcomed Russia's willingness to work on the basis of the
parallel action plan. Several allies supported U.S. and
German interventions.

-- Article 60: The High North: Rogozin argued that NATO had
no constructive role to play in the High North, adding that
the activities of the Arctic Council were sufficient. He
also disputed the Communique's claim that the region has been
received increased international attention, adding as a poor
joke that the only attention he could see was that which
might be generated by polar bears.

And Venom for Georgia...
--------------


3. (S/NF) Rogozin's comments about the Georgia-related
language in the Communiqu were particularly pointed. He
asked how NATO-Georgian relations could have deepened (Summit
Communiqu paragraph 31) when Georgian actions had not
promoted stability in the Caucasus region. He used the
opportunity to urge Allies to cancel or defer the
NATO/Partnership for Peace exercises Cooperative Longbow 2009
and Cooperative Lancer 2009 which are scheduled to be held in
Georgia later this year, adding that cancellation or
deferment was necessary to protect "the image and reputation
of NATO." He claimed that holding the exercises during the
electoral campaign in South Ossetia would put undue pressure
on the South Ossetian electorate. He also complained about
comments attributed to U.S. Deputy Assistant Secretary of
Defense Secretary Joseph Benkert that the exercises were
intended to support Georgian territorial integrity, arguing
that Benkert's comments were proof that the exercises had a
political dimension.

Leaves Allies Frustrated
--------------


4. (S/NF) Allies--even the usually more forward-leaning ones
with regard to engagement with Russia--were clearly
frustrated by the unhelpful tone and substance of Rogozin's
intervention. German PermRep Brandenburg said he was
reminded of his days as a political officer in the Soviet
Union in the 1980s. Norwegian PermRep Traavik remarked that
"if we are going into the future, we are going backwards into

the future." Italian PermRep Stefanini added that "we don't
want to miss the bus. It may come twice, but not three
times." Canadian PermRep McRae simply expressed bafflement
at the "unreconstructed" Russian intervention, asking
rhetorically "where are we going?"


5. (S/NF) Allies pushed back in all the right places, in a
well-orchestrated (although not pre-coordinated) manner.
They argued that Rogozin was reading selectively from the
NATO Communique. They noted, for example, that Rogozin had
not even mentioned the carefully balanced language in the
Russia-related section of the document (paragraphs 33-35),
adding that Rogozin should spend more time reading the actual
text and less time trying to "read between the lines."


6. (S/NF) On Georgia, Allies quickly brushed aside the
Russian attempts to cancel the NATO/PfP exercises, with Italy
arguing that Rogozin's "concerns" were "much ado about
nothing." Noting the limited time frame and small number of
forces in these exercises, Canada mused that Russian forces
in Georgia had no invitation from the host government, no
limits on their numbers, and an undefined time frame for
their continued presence. Ambassador Volker explained that
the exercises--which were designed to promote
interoperability--will threaten no one and that no heavy
equipment will be involved. He pointed out that Russia was
invited to participate and that the 600 PfP soldiers will be
dwarfed by the over 7,000 Russian troops in Abkhazia and
South Ossetia. Ambassador Volker also explained the context
of ASD Benkert's statement about the exercise, quoting from a
transcript provided by Embassy Astana. Lithuanian PermRep
Linkevicius expressed regret at the lack of Russian
implementation of the commitments it agreed to in the
cease-fire with Georgia negotiated by the EU, adding that
Lithuania saw a clear linkage between these commitments and
the ability to be more forward leaning with regard to
re-engagement with Russia.


7. (S/NF) French PermRep Andreani said that that Rogozin did
not have a good understanding of the Allied position with
regard to the OSCE role for the Medvedev proposals. She said
that she thought the OSCE was the proper forum for to handle
the Medvedev proposals, but that that did not rule out
discussions within the NRC. Ambassador Volker agreed, noting
that the OSCE was more inclusive than was the NRC. He also
strongly refuted Rogozin's argument that the OSCE was
inappropriate for hard security issues, pointing out that the
OSCE has had a "security basket" for years. Germany urged
Rogozin not to underestimate the OSCE.


8. (S/NF) Norway, Iceland, and Italy (an observer to the
Arctic Council) acknowledged the leading role of the Arctic
Council on High North issues, but took pains to defend a NATO
role, as well. Iceland said security issues cannot be
addressed in the Arctic Council. Canadian PermRep McRae
asked when Moscow would begin pre-notification of bomber
flights in the area that come near Alliance territory.
Norwegian PermRep Traavik took issue with Rogozin's statement
that there was not increased international attention to the
region, stating that such attention was "an objective fact"
which could be easily seen in the discussions taking place in
scientific circles, as well as in media and think tank
events. Ambassador Volker said that the High North was an
area ripe for cooperation.



9. (S/NF) On other issues raised by Rogozin, Hungary and the
UK said Russia's arguments about Kosovo ignored Kosovo's

special circumstances. On the issue of the indivisibility of
security, Ambassador Volker pointed out that security is a
common good. He said that security for NATO or her partners
increases security for all in the Euro-Atlantic area and is
not at the expense of any other country. Volker also pointed
out that the arrangement with the UN was important to the
Alliance because NATO has been acting as the executor for
several operations with a UN mandate, such as in Afghanistan.


THE PAPER CHASE ON NRC REFORM
--------------


10. (S/NF) Ambassadors expressed initial impressions of the
three non-papers on NRC reform/revitalization (1)
CZ/US/GER, 2) Russian, and the 3) SP/IT/TU/FR papers) and
clearly seem to prefer the greater depth and substance in
the CZ/US/GER paper(ref A). Ambassador Rogozin said he
personally supported streamlining NRC committee structures
from our paper, and then suggested the creation of a new
working group to negotiate the details. One hour prior to
the meeting, the Russia Mission circulated its non-paper
(emailed to EUR/RPM). Luxembourg, Slovenia, Norway, and
the U.S. expressed concern with the proposal to create a
coalition of willing members to act as an NRC steering
committee. Deputy Political Advisor Baez warned against a
focus on the proliferation of meetings and said substance
should drive the number of meetings. From the Russian paper,
Rogozin highlighted that NRC members should not
enhance their security at the expense of other NRC members.
In addition, Russia wants to create a working
group focused on Afghanistan and advocated holding NRC
Ambassadorial meetings in different locations, such as in,
"Russia, Norfolk, Italy and near conflict zones."
Ambassadors tasked the NRC Prep Com to discuss and
potentially merge ideas from the three non-papers for
approval by NRC Foreign Ministers. Spain and Portugal
suggested that the Prep Com focus on improving the substance
of the NRC rather than the procedure.

NRC MINISTERIAL
--------------


11. (S/NF) Rogozin said Foreign Minister Lavrov was available
for the NRC Foreign Ministerial on May 19 (NOTE: USNATO
has expressed its displeasure to the NATO International Staff
for proposing a date to Russia for the NRC
Ministerial before there was an inter-alliance agreement on
it. End note.) Ambassador Volker noted that the Secretary
was not available on May 19, but that he was working with
Washington on an alternate date. Rogozin urged Allies to
find a date for the ministerial as soon as possible in the
acceptable time frame (NOTE: By acceptable time frame, the
Russian Mission to NATO told us that Moscow is
hyper-sensitive as to the sequencing of NRC re-engagement and
that the Foreign Ministerial must precede the June 11-12 NATO
Defense Ministerial. End note.) On the agenda for the
Ministerial, Russia wants to include: the state of NRC
relations, Medvedev's European security proposal, and
Afghanistan. The Secretary General made clear that as
Chairman of the NRC he would work with capitals to
expeditiously determine a date for the Foreign Ministerial.

NON-ATTENDANCE AT THE CHODS CONFERENCE
--------------


12. (S/NF) Many Allies expressed regret at the Russian
decision not to attend the May 7 NRC Chiefs of Defense
(CHODs) meeting. Repudiating comments that he had made in
the press, Rogozin responded that the Russian cancellation of
the CHODs was not a political demarche relating to the
exercise in Georgia. Instead, he said that Russia believed
that political guidance from NRC Foreign Ministers was needed
before consideration could be given to restarting
military-to-military cooperation. (NOTE: Rogozin echoed the
line that Russian Military Representative Mazlov used to
cancel the May 7 meeting of NRC CHODs, claiming Moscow wanted
political guidance from NRC Foreign Ministers before any
military re-engagement or high-level meetings on the military
side. End note)

MILITARY PROCUREMENT, NON-PROLIFERATION, AND CAI
-------------- ---


13. (S/NF) Rogozin proposed a meeting with Allied armament
directors, arguing that the NRC should look at cooperation in
the procurement of military hardware



14. (S/NF) Rogozin also called for a meeting of NRC
Disarmament Directors to reinvigorate the moribund NRC
non-proliferation working group. NATO Secretary General de
Hoop Scheffer agreed that there was a clear consensus within
the group to re-invigorate its work, but disagreed with
Rogozin's approach. He said that this process must start at
the expert level, going on to note that Russia had canceled
all of the experts' meetings of this group this year (NOTE:
Allies strongly oppose the Russia top-down approach which
ignores the need for preparatory groundwork done at the
working level. End note.) Norway said it saw
non-proliferation issues as a part of the "Holy Trinity" of
arms control, disarmament, and non-proliferation.


15. (S/NF) Poland also took the opportunity to urge further
development of the NRC Cooperative Airspace Initiative.

COMMENT
--------------


16. (S/NF) Although all Allies did a good job of pushing back
on Rogozin, some Allies "aired the Alliance's dirty laundry"
in front of Rogozin, revealing to him the continuing
divisions within NATO over the wisdom of the "no business as
usual" policy adopted in August. Germany, for example,
expressed regret that there had been no NRC meetings for an
extended period of time, while Greece "rejoiced" at this
meeting. Hungary said that the message it wanted to send was
that it was "glad to have you back." As we move forward with
re-engagement with Russia, we will need to make sure that
these Allies stay on message: an eyes-open approach of
seeking cooperation in areas of common interest, while also
pushing back in areas where we disagree. It is important
that Russia see first had that it cannot continue to divide
an increasingly unified Alliance.
VOLKER