CFE/JCG: 14 JULY PLENARY - RUSSIA RE-SETS OLD

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 03 USOSCE 000166

SENSITIVE
SIPDIS

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

E.O. 12958: N/A
TAGS: KCFE OSCE PARM PREL
SUBJECT: CFE/JCG: 14 JULY PLENARY - RUSSIA RE-SETS OLD
ARGUMENTS

Sensitive but Unclassified; please protect accordingly. Not
for Internet.


1. (SBU) Summary: On the occasion of the 700th JCG Plenary,
the Belarus Chair made some remarks highlighting the
importance the JCG itself has played in the history of the
Treaty. Russia said there were no grounds to be proud of the
JCG during the last 10 years, and hopes the situation will
improve before th 750th meeting. Russia continued its
itemized discussion of the May 2009 Aide Memoir (points 4, 5,
and 6),focusing on the need to: 1) lower the ceiling numbers
for NATO states; 2) negotiate the terms of accession for the
Baltic states and Slovenia; and 3) agree on definition of
substantial combat forces. Allies pressed Russia to cease
making non-legal compliance claims against NATO states, and
to provide any such claims in writing on a State-basis,
rather than group basis. The U.S. cited Russia,s
non-compliance with another inspection refusal. End Summary.

700th JCG Plenary ) Russia re-sets old arguments
--------------

2. (SBU) The Belarus Chair (Krayushkin) opened the 14 July
Plenary by attempting to highlight the occasion of the 700th
Joint Consultative Group (JCG) meeting. Conducting the
meeting in English, Belarus noted that the JCG has played an
important role in the history of the Treaty, and urged that
we keep the JCG as a unique place to further dialogue.
Russia (Ulyanov) spoiled the mood by noting usually positive
things are said for such anniversaries, but there are no
grounds to be proud of the last 10 years. Russia hopes
things will improve before the 750th meeting.

Russian Aide-memoire diatribe continues
--------------

3. (SBU) Ulyanov then launched into familiar discussion of
points 4, 5, and 6 of its May 2009 aide-memoir. He began by
saying it is necessary to agree on lower numbers of armaments
for NATO states. This is linked to the main thesis of the
Treaty that prevents domination by one party or group of
parties. NATO expansion resulted in imbalances. Although
the real level of holdings is below the ceilings of a/CFE,
the current ceilings nevertheless represent the potential for
higher levels. These ceilings are no longer acceptable and
allow NATO to dominate. Russia wants to negotiate reductions
in these ceilings.

4.(SBU) Ulyanov emphasized that aggregate holdings in NATO
states (22) should not exceed group ceilings per Article 4
and 5 of the existing Treaty (NATO 16). He noted this point
is not in the aide memoire, but that does not mean they have
not given up on this concept. He said it is not possible to
resolve this between U.S. and Russia only, it must be tackled
in the JCG.

5.(SBU) Regarding point 5 on terms of accession by new NATO
states, Ulyanov said that when the new NATO states applied
for NATO accession, they also should have applied for CFE
membership. Russia knows they affirmed their readiness to
join a/CFE, and it is now time to negotiate the terms for
them to do so, including their national and territorial
ceilings and concrete number for holdings. Their accession
should not allow any increase in capacity, but rather
limitations and/or reductions. Although their current
numbers are relatively low, there still needs to be agreement
on maximum numbers. The first draft of the parallel action
plan in August 2007 assumed that the Baltic States would
start consultations with Russia on these terms by August
2008, but that proposal has been put aside. Russia would
like clarity on when that will begin.

6.(SBU) On point 6, Ulyanov reiterated that a definition of
substantial combat forces is still required. This concept
was enshrined in the May 21, 1997 NATO-Russia Founding Act,
and was later reaffirmed in an important statement by NATO in
March 1998. This definition played a leading role in
reaching agreement on a/CFE, however as of today we still do
not know what it actually means. Last year at the 649th JCG

USOSCE 00000166 002 OF 003


plenary, Russia provided its views on specific parameters for
the definition. There have been 51 plenary opportunities to
discuss and resolve this issue, but it has not happened.
Some have suggested negotiating at the NATO-Russia Council,
but that venue does not include all the States Parties.

Allies Respond to Russia old-think, Point to A/CFE
--------------
7.(SBU) Germany (Schweitzer) replied briefly by noting that
Russia,s comparison of current and a/CFE ceilings between
groups is a vestige of cold war thinking, and confrontational
in nature. A/CFE was supposed to take us away from groups to
national and territorial approaches aimed at avoiding
sub-regional concentration of troops, not just in the flanks.
We could overcome this antagonism by bringing a/CFE into
force. He also said it was unrealistic to expect the new
NATO states to accede to the current Treaty, and it is better
to aim for a/CFE to resolve this issue.

8.(SBU) Drawing on standing guidance, U.S. (Neighbour)
remarked that regarding the 700th JCG meeting, the U.S.
continues to value the CFE Treaty, and remains committed to
getting a/CFE into force. Neighbour emphasized that there is
no requirement that a country acceding to the Washington
Treaty also join CFE. Changing the group structure was
addressed in a/CFE. He stressed that 16 states under the
current Treaty are in compliance with the Treaty. There is
no provision to count the forces of 22 states against the
numbers of the 16 states in the Western group. Furthermore,
the current Treaty does not have an accession clause. All
the new NATO states have said they intend to join a/CFE, and
their military information has been provided to all under
Vienna Document. There is no sense to go backwards on this
subject, we should look to the future. We are seeking
constructive engagement with Russia, including at upcoming
meetings planned at the end of August. Russia rejoined by
saying others think a/CFE will solve all the problems, but
a/CFE has not entered into force because certain States have
not implemented their Istanbul Commitments. Russia is ready
to work intensively on the parallel action plan, and hopes
substantive discussion can resume in the fall in the JCG.

Russian inspection refusal noted again
--------------
9.(SBU) The U.S. made a statement regarding Russia,s recent
refusal of another CFE inspection request (JCG.JOUR/700,
Annex). Several Allies spoke in support of the U.S.
intervention, stressing that it makes all the more difficult
to achieve a/CFE in the face of the ongoing Russian refusals
(UK, Czech, France, Belgium, Portugal, Italy, Turkey,
Georgia, and Denmark.)

Russia speaks again about NATO violation of limitations
--------------
10.(SBU) Under the agenda item on limitations, Russia
(Ulyanov) again raised concerns about serious violations by
22 States, charging the group with noncompliance. The
violations have been ongoing for many years, and Russia wants
to know when and how the group will respond. The UK (Gare)
noted that these repeated Russian claims have not been
included in the JCG Journals, and none of the claims has been
addressed to a specific State Party. If Russia has specific
claims regarding noncompliance with Treaty limitations by the
United Kingdom, then it would like to receive them in writing
with appropriate Treaty references.

11.(SBU) Ulyanov snidely pointed out that the UK has
forgotten that we are dealing with the old (current) Treaty,
since others have not ratified a/CFE. He reminded the UK
that the Treaty had two groups, one of which expanded, and
the other no longer exists. All Russian claims were annexed
to the Journals of the third Review Conference. These
statements outline specific violations by groups.

12.(SBU) The U.S. supported the UK statement and pointed out
that the current forces of NATO states at 22 is smaller today
that the original members in 1990. For example, at the end

USOSCE 00000166 003 OF 003


of the reduction period when limits took effect in November
1995, the U.S. had 2,238 ACVs, of the 5,372 allowed. Now
the U.S. has less than 700 ACVs, of 5,152 permitted. In
1995, Russia had 10,372 ACVs of 11,480 permitted, and as of
December 2007, it had 9,871 out of 11,280 permitted.

13.(SBU) Italy (Negro) pointed out that the current Treaty
was signed by individual State Parties, not a group of
States. Under international law, only States Parties can be
in violations, not a group of States. Therefore, the Russian
claims are baseless and only &philosophical8 in nature.
Germany (Schweitzer) expressed interest, again, on just what
figures Russia is using to make such claims. He asked again
for a synopsis from the Russian delegation so we can how
these comparisons are being made. If Russia wants to keep
thinking in bloc-to-bloc format, we need current Russian
information exchange data to understand the current state of
play.

14.(SBU) Ulyanov bemoaned the fact that despite its numerous
statements, there is a lack of understanding. Ceilings for
the Western group were breached when additional states joined
NATO. Therefore the current aggregate ceilings for all
current NATO states substantially surpasses the old (current)
CFE numbers. The UK (Gare) agreed with Italy that the
Russian thinking was merely philosophical, rather than
legally-based. Turkey (Begec) mentioned that since the basis
for Russian claims is flawed, so are its conclusions. Turkey
concluded that there is nothing in CFE to substantiate the
Russian claims.

15.(SBU) Insistent on getting the last word again, Ulyanov
expressed satisfaction that a substantive dialog had taken
place regarding the real violations of others, rather than
the other fictitious cases of non-compliance raised e.g.,
Russia inspection refusals. Unfortunately, Russia,s
partners prefer to ignore the facts.
Scott