Identifier
Created
Classification
Origin
09USOSCE156
2009-07-08 16:03:00
UNCLASSIFIED//FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
Mission USOSCE
Cable title:  

CFE/JCG--JULY 7: RUSSIA INSISTS FLANK LIMITS MUST

Tags:  KCFE OSCE PARM PREL 
pdf how-to read a cable
VZCZCXRO1040
PP RUEHSK RUEHSL
DE RUEHVEN #0156/01 1891603
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
P 081603Z JUL 09
FM USMISSION USOSCE
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC PRIORITY 6466
INFO RUCNCFE/CONVENTIONAL ARMED FORCES IN EUROPE PRIORITY
RUEASWA/DTRA ALEX WASHINGTON DC PRIORITY
RUEKJCS/JOINT STAFF WASHDC//J-5-DDPMA-IN/CAC/DDPMA-E// PRIORITY
RHMFISS/CDR USEUCOM VAIHINGEN GE PRIORITY
RUESDT/DTRA-OSES DARMSTADT GE PRIORITY
RUEKJCS/SECDEF WASHDC PRIORITY
RUEKJCS/DIA WASHDC PRIORITY
RUEAIIA/CIA WASHDC PRIORITY
RUEHNO/USMISSION USNATO PRIORITY 1746
RUEAHQA/HQ USAF WASHINGTON DC//XONP// PRIORITY
RUEADWD/DA WASHINGTON DC PRIORITY
UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 05 USOSCE 000156 

SENSITIVE
SIPDIS

STATE FOR VCI/CCA, EUR/RPM
NSC FOR NILSSON, HAYDEN
JCS FOR J5 NORWOOD, COL SMITH
OSD FOR ISA

E.O. 12958: N/A
TAGS: KCFE OSCE PARM PREL
SUBJECT: CFE/JCG--JULY 7: RUSSIA INSISTS FLANK LIMITS MUST
GO; CLAIMS NATO EQUIPMENT CEILING VIOLATIONS

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 05 USOSCE 000156

SENSITIVE
SIPDIS

STATE FOR VCI/CCA, EUR/RPM
NSC FOR NILSSON, HAYDEN
JCS FOR J5 NORWOOD, COL SMITH
OSD FOR ISA

E.O. 12958: N/A
TAGS: KCFE OSCE PARM PREL
SUBJECT: CFE/JCG--JULY 7: RUSSIA INSISTS FLANK LIMITS MUST
GO; CLAIMS NATO EQUIPMENT CEILING VIOLATIONS


1. (SBU) Summary. At the July 7 Joint Consultative Group
(JCG),Belgium delivered a joint statement on behalf of 22
NATO states, criticizing Russia for not providing its
supplementary flank data as of 1 July as required by the
Flank Agreement. Using this segue, Russia (Ulyanov) referred
to the third item in the Russian Aide-Memoire and stated
emphatically that the Russian position on removing the flank
limitations on Russia is uncompromising. Ulyanov said the
flank issue has to be resolved as part of a package solution
and is necessary to restore the CFE Treaty.


2. (SBU) In support of its claim that NATO has violated the
CFE Treaty, Russia presented figures indicating percentages
exceeded in all categories. The U.S., Germany and Turkey
rejected Russian allegations and reminded Russia that without
having Russia's data it was impossible to understand or
verify Russia's claim. See Comment in para 17. End Summary.

- - - - - - - - - - -
Belgium Reads a Joint Statement Reproaching Russia
- - - - - - - - - - -


3. (SBU) At the 7 July 2009 JCG, Belgium (Kenes) delivered a
joint statement (on behalf of Germany, the U.S., Belgium,
Bulgaria, Canada, Denmark, Spain, France, the U.K., Greece,
Hungary, Iceland, Italy, Luxembourg, Norway, the Netherlands,
Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, the Czech Republic, and
Turkey) which noted that Russia failed to provide its
additional data on July 1 for battle tanks, armored combat
vehicles and pieces of artillery in the flank region as
required by the Flank Agreement. (See JCG Journal 699 for
full text) Russia was encouraged to resume full
implementation of the CFE regime without further delay,
including the provision of this data, consistent with its
obligations.

- - - - - - - - - - -
Coincidentally, Russia Wanted to Discuss Flank Holdings
- - - - - - - - - - -


4. (SBU) Russia (Ulyanov) immediately took the floor to
continue his comments on the Aide-Memoire; focusing on the
third paragraph which deals with the flank issue. Ulyanov
reminded colleagues that the issue of the flanks was resolved
in 1990, but that subsequent geo-strategic changes, such as

the dissolution of the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact,
prompted flank problems to emerge. Ulyanov complained that
Russia had ended up with a small quota and yet had a very
large territory. For a flank that comprised over 2.3 million
square kilometers (a territory larger than the aggregate of
the U.K., Italy, France, Germany, Poland, Lithuania, Latvia,
Estonia and Romania) Russia had slightly more than 700 battle
tanks, 580 ACVs, and 1008 artillery pieces for its whole
flank region. Russia's Northern Caucasus Military District
that had previously been a rear district in Soviet times was
suddenly a border district in an unstable region. Despite
raising concerns to other State Parties, Russia's concerns
were not heeded as NATO was happy that Russia was
disadvantaged. The position of the NATO countries only
changed when they realized that Russia was willing to take
unilateral actions to correct this disparity.


5. (SBU) In May 1996 during the Review Conference, the Flank
Document was agreed to and signed. Ulyanov stated that, even
though it was an additional burden, Russia had committed to
provide semiannual supplemental flank data and allow up to 10
additional inspections per year under this document. Ulyanov
was not sure why Russia agreed to such terms then, and mused
that perhaps because of its commitment to arms control.
However, Ulyanov claimed that this was not part of the CFE
Treaty and therefore not a legal obligation. When A/CFE was
signed in 1999, these provisions were also agreed by Russia
in order to preserve the arms control regime. But, this
fragile balance was de facto violated by NATO Alliance
expansion when Romania, Bulgaria, and the three Baltic states

USOSCE 00000156 002 OF 005


joined NATO. The flank agreement was torn in tatters because
of these accessions. Despite this situation, Russia still
ratified the A/CFE in 2004. When it was clearly understood
in Moscow the imbalance of the situation, Russia decided
suspension was necessary to restore the viability of the
regime.

- - - - - - - - - - -
New Flank Agreement Needed to Restore CFE Viability
- - - - - - - - - - -


6. (SBU) Ulyanov went on to note that there are three
preconditions for reaching agreement on a new flank
agreement. First, a flank balance/equilibrium must be
restored. Ulyanov alleged that in the flank, currently NATO
states collectively have 12 times more Battle Tanks (BT) than
Russia and that there are even some individual countries in
the southern region that have 5 times more BT than Russia.
Similar advantages are present in other equipment categories
as well. This equates to one force dominating Europe
militarily. Second, of a political nature, the territorial
sub ceilings only apply to Russia and parts of Ukraine.
Russia must be on an equal footing with other countries.
Third, the flank ceilings impede Russia's ability to fight
terrorism in the southern region. Ulyanov stressed that this
might be the most important reason that Russia insists on
lifting the territorial sub-ceilings.

- - - - - - - - - -
We're Not so Bad, are Trying to Work with You
- - - - - - - - - -


7. (SBU) Ulyanov then offered examples of how it has tried
to take into account partner views. In May 2008, RussiaQ,s
former Chief of General Staff suggested that the flank regime
should extend to parts of Europe (Bulgaria and Romania); the
exception being Turkey which has areas that are not in the
zone of application. Russia remains ready to work on this
proposal, but NATO positions remain static, its arguments
unconvincing, and there has been no progress on NATO
positions. The flank issue must be part of the package
solution.


8. (SBU) The third precondition for reaching agreement
involves the possibility that a partner needs additional
CSBMs, and Russia is willing to consider this approach.
Ulyanov stated that Russia itself needs no more CSBMs,
however if another partner feels like they are necessary then
that country need only elaborate its concerns and propose
CSBMs. Russia will consider these as long as the abolition
of the legally binding sub ceilings occurs.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
U.S. Reply: Cannot Discuss Russian Claim without Data
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


9. (SBU) The U.S. (Neighbour) replied to Russia's charges by
briefly observing that the flank issue is one that will
not/not be resolved in the JCG. There are first order issues
that must be overcome in the existing high-level bilateral
channels, augmented with Allies, before discussions in other
venues can be productive. He added that Allies have listened
to Russia and have revised the flank limits twice in response
to Russian concerns. For instance, under A/CFE Russia is
allowed 1500 battle tanks in the flank, a very large force.
Neighbour expressed concern that today, SPs do not know how
much TLE Russia actually has. Since Russia's current data is
not available, we can't accurately address the Russian
claims, such as NATO has twelve times as many tanks. The
U.S. urged Russia to provide the Treaty data so that everyone
may understand. The U.S. also observed that A/CFE would
address Russian concerns expressed today. The way forward to
A/CFE is the Parallel Actions Package.

- - - - - - - - - - -

USOSCE 00000156 003 OF 005


And Turkey Joins In
- - - - - - - - - - -


10. (SBU) Turkey (Begec) thanked Russia for its comments and
then proceeded to point out that although Russia claimed that
the status of the flank commitments was not provided for in
the Treaty, if one looks at Article 14, paragraph 1, it
states that the flank regime should remain. Furthermore, two
months later there was a JCG decision that stated in Article
XIV, paragraph 1, subparagraph 1, that the documents were
legally binding and part of the Treaty. Yes, NATO enlarged,
but not in the Caucasus and Russia still has far more TLE in
that region than the three countries located there. If there
are calls for balance in European levels, than there should
be balance in regional levels also. More succinctly,
Russia's point was irrelevant since RussiaQ,s combined TLE is
far more than that of the Caucasus states. Turkey agrees
that there is some discrimination in the Treaty as Russia had
the largest amount of TLE so obviously equality was not a
principle enshrined in the beginnings of the Treaty. As for
counter terrorism, Turkey says the flank limitations were
revised to help the Russia in the Chechnyan War. If Russia
feels that the remaining three countries in the Caucus region
are more threatening than the Chechnya era, then Turkey is
ready to reevaluate and give thought to Russia's concerns.
RussiaQ,s suggestion to expand the flank areas to include the
exclusion zone contradicts the essence of the flank
agreement. As far as the exclusion of certain areas of
Turkey, when Russia is ready to talk about its area east of
the Urals, Turkey will engage. Regarding the additional
CSBMs for the flank region, Turkey is happy with the current
flank agreement and does not need additional CSBMs. Although
Russia claims its position is uncompromising regarding flank
issues, Turkey sees Russia as merely being uncompromising
about the Caucasus. Russia can't explain its relations in
the Caucasus only using CFE terms - it should update its
foreign policy beyond the Treaty. Turkey reaffirmed its
position in accordance with the March 2008 NAC statement and
paragraph 57 of the NATO Strasbourg Declaration.

- - - - - - - - - - -
Russia Draws a Line in the Sand
- - - - - - - - - - -


11. (SBU) Russia responded to Turkey with just a "few"
comments. Ulyanov again asserted that the flank agreement
semi annual information and additional inspections were not
provided for in the old (current) Treaty. These requirements
are in A/CFE, however that has not entered into force and
therefore is not legally binding. Russia is not interested
in increasing the ceilings in the flank. This is
unacceptable due to the enormous imbalances with NATO. This
would be political discrimination against Russia. Moreover,
there is a terrorist threat in its south that Russia must be
able to deal with effectively without limits and
discrimination. Ulyanov said if the Turks don't need
additional CSBMs, then neither did the Russians. However if
others want to discuss additional CSBMs, then Russia was
willing to consider them. He finished by reiterating that if
the flank issue is not resolved, CFE is finished.


12. (SBU) Ulyanov reminded others that Turkey enjoys a prime
position because it has a large zone of exclusion in which
they can build up armaments whenever they want. Russia had
previously taken note of Turkish requests to bear in mind
special conditions for terrorism in southeast Turkey in the
early 1990's; Russia is merely asking for the same
understanding and support. Ulyanov underscored that its
position in regard to the flank issue is uncompromisable and
if it is not resolved, restoring the viability of the CFE
Treaty cannot be achieved. He closed by emphasizing that
"We are not bluffing or playing games or politics. This is
our real position and please interpret it this way."

- - - - - - - - - - -

USOSCE 00000156 004 OF 005


Turkey Rejoins
- - - - - - - - - - -


13. (SBU) Turkey quickly pointed out that it has two
exclusion zones: one for VD99 and one for CFE. These zones
include territory in its Asian area (vice European).
Emphasizing that CFE is a treaty on "European" armed
forces, it was Turkey's political goodwill that prompted it
to be one of the few countries to accept limitations on its
Asian territory under the CFE Treaty. Turkey owes nothing,
and if there was a price to be paid, then it was paid at the
signing of the 1999 flank agreement. Ulyanov could not
resist reminding everyone that several Central "Asian"
countries were also part of VD99, obviously not having
territory in Europe. Turkey got the last word by repeating
that it had stated that it was one of a few countries, not
the only exception.

- - - - - - - - - - -
We Were so Naive
- - - - - - - - - - -


14. (SBU) Under Agenda item 3(C) Limitations, Russia
(Ulyanov) returned to the topic of NATO non-compliance and
blatant violation of the established Treaty limits.
Acknowledging he has explained this numerous times, Ulyanov
said he would re-explain Russia's position since Allies were
asking many questions. Ulyanov declared that no single
alliance or state should be in a position to dominate others
militarily. In 1990 we agreed to achieve balance of group
levels, rules of sufficiency, and rejected the concept of
hegemony. Equal group ceilings were established, but one
group no longer exists - the Warsaw Pact. In 1990, Article 2
of the Treaty listed 16 members of the Washington Agreement,
now there are 28 members. As Turkey pointed out last week,
CFE does not ban expansion the expansion of alliances, but it
does have an impact on the arms regime in Europe.


15. (SBU) Today aggregate national ceilings of NATO
armaments exceed the treaty limitations although many NATO
states have reduced their armament. Ulyanov enumerated that
NATO exceeds BT limitations by 30%, ACVs by 33%, artillery
pieces by 26%, combat aircraft by 22% and attack helicopters
by 27%. In the flank they have physically (not virtually)
surpassed levels of BT by 27%, ACVs by 46%, and artillery
pieces by 26%. NATO states should reduce the group levels so
they don't violate the Treaty.


16. (SBU) NATO pursued expansion without attention to arms
control. NATO says that the CFE Treaty limits only apply to
the original 16 members. Ulyanov coyly did not want to raise
the issue of trans-Atlantic solidarity, but some NATO members
claim that new NATO members are not equal to the old members;
but this is an internal issue for NATO. Today Belgium spoke
for 22 nations, not 28 because 6 of these NATO Allies are not
members of this treaty. Yet, all 28 nations are single
aggregate wholes. Twenty-eight nations are part of a
military alliance and yet some of these countries refuse to
join the CFE Treaty. In the early 1990's Russia was naQve
and trusted NATO promises that it wouldn't expand. Russia
trusted that the Baltics would remain neutral, but they went
ahead and joined this military treaty and yet they do not
want to join the arms control regime. NATO in aggregate
violates the group ceilings especially in the flank region.
Ulyanov asked when and how its partners intend to remove
these violations.

- - - - - - - - - - -
2nd Round with Russia
- - - - - - - - - - -


17. (SBU) The U.S.(Neighbour) recalled the statements made
last week by two state Parties, emphasizing that we should
not focus on blocs or alliance groups. That reflects Cold
War thinking and it is time to look forward. Referring to

USOSCE 00000156 005 OF 005


yesterday's positive statements from the Moscow Summit,
Neighbour confirmed that our leaders are not thinking in
bloc-tQbloc terms. No blocs are recognized in the A/CFE.
A/CFE addresses Russian concerns and remains the way forward.
Ulyanov pointed out that perhaps if blocs don't exist, then
there should be no more collective statements from NATO.
Turkey (Begec) replied by simply stating that it does not
accept the Russian allegations that NATO is violating the
Treaty and that Russia has no legal claim. As far as the
flank agreement is concerned, the geographical scope was
narrowed by removing several oblasts (i.e. Pskov, Volgograd,
etc) thus reducing the area concerned. Turkey scoffed that
now it is unpleasant to be accused of grossly violating the
flank agreement.


18. (SBU) Germany (Schweizer) attempted to undercut Russia by
explaining away the "misunderstanding." Schweizer said
that when Belgium spoke it was not representing a bloc, but
rather a group of nations who had a common way of thinking.
We were simply like-minded states, not a bloc that was
threatening Russia. Obviously the limitations are important
because they are a separate item on the agenda. Changing
tone, Schweizer then asked for Russia to provide the basis
for the figures it presented since he recognized that one can
always present figures in new ways and can depict things
differently. Germany pointed out that it doesn't have data
from Russia, but it does from the other 29 countries.
Regarding national ceilings, one needs to evaluate
circumstances and know the information about serviceability
of units, ability to deploy, international missions, etc to
put numbers in the proper perspective. In summary, Schweizer
stressed that this was a backward way of thinking and that
A/CFE had replaced this system with new territorial ceilings.


19. (SBU) Russia acknowledged that it had accepted the flank
limitations in 1999, but in 2002 this deal was violated by
NATO's expansion. These limitations simply are not
acceptable anymore. They are unwarranted. Russia is ready
to seek common solutions and have serious discussions but its
Western colleagues are not ready for that.


20. (U) The next JCG will be held on July 14 under Belarus
chairmanship.
Christensen