NATO-RUSSIA: NAC DISCUSSES RUSSIAN MILITARY EXERCISES

S E C R E T SECTION 01 OF 03 USNATO 000546



SIPDIS



E.O. 12958: DECL: 11/23/2019

TAGS: PGOV, PREL, PINR, MOPS, NATO, RS

SUBJECT: NATO-RUSSIA: NAC DISCUSSES RUSSIAN MILITARY

EXERCISES



Classified By: Ambassador Daalder for reasons 1.4 (b/d).



1. (S) Summary: NATO Allies expressed concern during a

November 18 North Atlantic Council meeting over the message

Russia intended to send by using a provocative scenario for

its largest military exercises since the Soviet era, and

structuring events to avoid inviting observers. The exercise

centered on repelling an attack launched from Poland and

Lithuania, and included the simulated use of nuclear-capable

ballistic missiles. The Secretary General called the Russian

action "provocative and inappropriate," and said the

information provided by Russia on the exercises had been

unsatisfactory. Several Allies criticized NATO's "failure"

to respond adequately to the Russian moves, which some felt

had shaken Allied solidarity. The U.S. objected to Russia's

failure to allow observers at the exercises, and advised NATO

to remain transparent when holding its own exercises.

Lithuania and Norway said that the Russian activity should be

reflected in NATO military planning. Many Allies reacted

strongly to the exercises, both the execution and the lack of

transparency, and to NATO's slow response. As the U.S.

navigates the differences within NATO regarding Russia, it

must also be prepared to respond forcefully to such Russian

provocations. End summary.



Largest Russian Exercises

--------------



2. (S) On November 18, the NATO International Military Staff

(IMS) briefed the North Atlantic Council (NAC) on the recent

Russian military exercises Zapad and Ladoga, which had

concerned many Allies because of the provocative scenario

that had Russia and Belarus repel an attack launched from

Poland and Lithuania. The IMS determined that the exercises,

the largest Russia has held since the Soviet era, were

intended to address command and control deficiencies

identified during the August 2008 conflict in Georgia, and to

test the restructuring of the Russian armed forces toward

more maneuverable units. The IMS provided the following

information on the exercises:



-- Ladoga, held from August 10 to September 29, 2009,

involved 15,000 Russian troops. Zapad was held from

September 8-29, 2009, and involved 7,000 Belarussian troops

and 11,000 Russian troops.



-- The Russians conducted this scenario as a series of

exercises, possibly to keep the number of troops under the

Vienna Document's legal threshold requiring observers. The

exercises were assessed as having shared a common command

center.



-- The exercises included offensive and defensive air

operations, deployment of troops over long distances, joint

operations with air forces, river crossings and live firing

at night, long range aviation missions, amphibious landing

operations, and missile launches, some of which may have

simulated the use of tactical nuclear weapons.



-- The exercises demonstrated that Russia has limited

capability for joint operations with air forces, continues to

rely on aging and obsolete equipment, lacks all-weather

capability and strategic transportation means, is not able to

conduct network centric warfare, has an officer corps lacking

flexibility, and has a manpower shortage.



-- NATO IMS concluded that Russian armed forces were: able to

respond to a small to mid-sized local and regional conflict

in its western region; not able to respond to two small

conflicts in different geographical areas simultaneously; not

able to conduct large scale conventional operations; and

still relying on the use of tactical nuclear weapons, even in

local or regional conflicts.



Exercises are "Provocative and Inappropriate"

--------------



3. (C) The SecGen characterized the exercises as "provocative

and inappropriate" considering that NATO and Russia had

committed to address their concerns in a collective manner.

He warned, however, that NATO's response to the exercises



USNATO 00000546 002 OF 003





should not initiate a "downward spiral" in relations with

Russia. Despite Allies raising with Russia their concern

about the exercises, both in the NATO-Russia Council (NRC)

and bilaterally, the Russian reaction had been

"unsatisfactory." He suggested that NATO raise the exercises

at the next NRC Ambassadorial meeting and during the NRC

Ministerial in December, and pledged to raise the matter

during his upcoming visit to Moscow.



NATO Was Silent

--------------



4. (C) NATO Allies from Central and Eastern Europe and Canada

commented on what they saw as NATO's failure to respond

adequately to the Russian exercises, both publicly and within

the Alliance. This validated the point made in a recent

non-paper signed by Poland, the Czech Republic, Romania,

Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, which called for an enhanced

and regular discussion of Russia within NATO (septel).

Countries made the following points:



-- Lithuania said that Russia disregarded the effects of the

exercises on its neighbors, which were particularly sensitive

to such provocations after Russian actions in Georgia and the

announcement of Moscow's intention to protect its compatriots

abroad.



-- Poland complained that "NATO was silent" when the

exercises took place, although it was satisfied that the NAC

was now discussing this issue, thereby demonstrating "Allied

solidarity as Poland understood it."



-- Latvia observed that even after several Allies had made

their concern about the Russian exercises known, NATO failed

to respond sufficiently, thus raising questions about NATO

solidarity.



-- Romania thought that the Russian actions had too close a

resemblance to the Cold War era, and was part of a disturbing

trend in Russian behavior.



-- The Czech Republic said it was "politically unacceptable"

for a NATO Partner to demonstrate the behavior exhibited by

Russia, which called into question this Partner's

"credibility."



-- Estonia quoted from the NATO strategic intelligence

document MC-161, which states that "Russia will continue to

test the credibility and cohesion of the Alliance, including

the joint defense clause."



5. (C) The SecGen responded that "everything" could be

discussed within the Alliance, but noted these Allies' desire

to discuss Russia more often and said he would continue to

put it on the agenda. He suggested discussing the exercises

at the November 25 NRC Ambassadorial meeting. (Note: Poland

proposed at the November 19 NRC Preparatory Committee Meeting

that the exercises be put on the agenda of the NRC

Ambassadorial. Russia resisted, prompting Allies to support

Poland's suggestion. End note.)



Confidence Building a "Two Way Street"

--------------



6. (C) Several Allies responded to Russian actions more

cautiously, with Italy warning the Allies not to "over

dramatize" the exercises. Italy, however, also raised

concerns about Russia's failure to allow observers,

commenting that confidence building was a "two way street."



7. (C) Ambassador Daalder called the lack of transparency

demonstrated by a Partner country disturbing. He added that

each nation had a right to hold military exercises, but a

case could be made that Russia had violated its commitments

by failing to allow observers. Ambassador Daalder urged NATO

to avoid a "tit-for-tat response, and be as transparent as

possible when holding its own exercises.



8. (C) Germany was tough on Russia, saying that it agreed

with Allies that the scope and purpose of the exercises did

not square with "where we want to go with NATO-Russia



USNATO 00000546 003 OF 003





relations." The NRC was the appropriate place to raise the

Russian exercises, but this would allow Russia to raise

concerns about NATO exercises. Germany said that its experts

had determined that Russia had not formally violated the

terms of the Vienna Document, and reminded the NAC that NATO

had opposed lowering the legal threshold for requiring

observers at military exercises.



Russian Actions Should Inform NATO Planning

--------------



9. (C) Lithuania thought that the exercises suggested that

Russia would continue planning for military action against

"NATO territory," which should factor into NATO's own

military planning. Norway agreed, and said that the Russian

activities on the periphery of the Alliance pointed to the

need to improve NATO geographic planning, as well as to

enhance the initiative to raise NATO's profile by having a

physical presence in certain member states.



Comment

--------------



10. (C) Allies displayed a greater than usual degree of unity

in this discussion of Russia, and from this we conclude that

one of the greatest engines of Allied unity on relations with

Russia is Moscow's willingness to act in a manner

uncomfortable for Allies. The fact that Allies viewed NATO's

"failure" to respond adequately to the Russian exercises as

raising questions of Allied solidarity is worth noting. If

Allies feel that their concerns about Russia are not

adequately reflected in NATO public statements and internal

discussions, they will continue to press for more, as the six

nations did in their recent non-paper. The discussion also

underscored that a decision to conduct routine contingency

planning and exercises designed in part to demonstrate the

vitality of the Alliance's Article 5 commitments are unlikely

to be politically contentious within the Alliance.

DAALDER