CFE/JCG JULY 21: RUSSIA PROVIDES ALLEGATIONS IN

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 03 USOSCE 000170

SENSITIVE
SIPDIS

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

E.O. 12958: N/A
TAGS: KCFE OSCE PARM PREL
SUBJECT: CFE/JCG JULY 21: RUSSIA PROVIDES ALLEGATIONS IN
WRITING

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

1. (SBU) Summary. At the July 21 Joint Consultative Group
(JCG),Russia raised three issues which it urged delegations
to reflect on over the summer recess: a response to the U.S.
December 2008 document on the legality of Russia's
"suspension"; the case for provisional application of A/CFE;
and violations of group ceilings "by NATO." In contrast to
past practice, Russia also attached the text of its
allegations to the journal of the meeting. Belarus and
Kazakhstan supported of Russia's call for the provisional
implementation of the A/CFE, but were silent on Russia's
other points. The UK, Germany, Slovakia, the U.S. and the
Czech Republic did not engage Russia on the substance of its
interventions, but called for movement towards entry into
force of A/CFE on the basis of the parallel actions package,
rather than to reflect on the past. End Summary.
- - - - - - - - - - -
Russia Spares the Lecture, Gives Partners Homework
- - - - - - - - - - -


2. (SBU) Under General Statements, Russia (Ulyanov)
introduced its response to the U.S. statement of 9 December
2008 recorded in document JCG.JOUR/682, Annex 4 on the
legality of the Russian "suspension" of CFE. Ulyanov did not
read his five page document, but asked for it to be appended
to the JCG Journal so States Parties could study it. He then
pointedly demanded that the next time the U.S. wishes to make
a statement about the legality of Russian "suspension," it
must respond to the document being circulated.


3. (SBU) Ulyanov said NATO's position on provisional
implementation of A/CFE was puzzling, as this was a sound
solution that takes into account NATO concerns and provides
Russia with an opportunity to suspend its moratorium or to
even do away with it completely. Russia identified important
questions that should be considered prior to provisional
application of A/CFE; such as what specific legal problems
could arise during provisional application? Can temporary
implementation of A/CFE continue until A/CFE is fully
ratified and EIF, or will it need to be renewed or continued?
How would this renewal/continuance be accomplished? Ulyanov
asked for partners to consider these questions and respond by
the early part of the fall session either in the JCG, on the
margins, in a bilateral format or in Russian embassies in
their capitals. This document will also be appended to the
JCG Journal.


4. (SBU) Stating he was speaking in response to Germany and
the UK's specific requests last week for detailed written
information on the Russian allegations on the quantitative
violations of the Treaty by "NATO states," Russia (Ulyanov)
said he was surprised at this request. Russia already
provided this information in various formats and venues. He
then provided statistics in support of Russia's contention
that new NATO states and their military capacities should be
included in overall NATO holdings. Poland, Bulgaria,
Hungary, the Czech Republic and Romania have exceeded their
limitations. (Comment: We believe he meant that the addition
of the TLE resulting from these states having joined NATO
pushed NATO holdings past Western Group of States Parties
group ceilings.)

5. (SBU) Russia went on to claim that according to 1 January
2007 data, group limits were exceeded for the following
specified equipment and their actual holdings: BT - 5592
(30% overage); ACVs - 9829 (33% overage); Arty - 5177 (26%
overage); CA - 1497 (22% overage); and AH - 531 (27%
overage). In the Flank Areas, ACVs number 2691 (almost a 50%
overage). Ulyanov stated these violations could be removed
if A/CFE were EIF and if NATO complied with its Istanbul
Commitments. With this backdrop of overages, Ulyanov
declared allegations that Russia is in noncompliance with the
CFE Treaty due to not allowing inspections as being
"ludicrous". Russia then attached the text of this statement
to the JCG journal.

6. (SBU) Ulyanov highlighted Russian Minister of Foreign
Affairs Lavrov's comments in Corfu on the outcome of the

USOSCE 00000170 002 OF 003


Ministerial Meeting of the NATO-Russia Council. Regarding
the CFE Treaty, Lavrov said that he would not describe it as
in a deadlock or impasse. In response to Russia's package of
proposals (Aide-Memoire),a number of countries have provided
Russia with grounds for hope. Discussions are on-going and
continuing because arms control is an important issue. We
need to stop linking A/CFE issues with issues that bear no
relevance to the Treaty itself. (See JCG Journalfor full
text.)

- - - - - - - - - - -
Allies Label Russian Approach Backward-Looking
- - - - - - - - - - -


7. (SBU) The UK (Gare) thanked Russia for its attempt to
answer the UK's two questions from last week, but speculated
that the UK violations alluded to last week by Russia would
not be addressed in the appended documents. Russia (Ulyanov)
conceded that the violations are not national violations and
acknowledged that nationally, the UK complies with the
Treaty, as do all NATO states individually. The violations
are group violations and, as the UK has been a NATO member
for the last 60 years, it bears collective responsibility for
the violations of the group.


8. (SBU) Germany (Schweizer) declared that it was already
familiar with the figures Russia submitted at the Third
REVCON, but wondered where the pertinent figures were that
Germany requested last week. Schweizer wanted the real
figures that Russia is using to make these allegations.
Maximum holdings and limitations are divided into groups, but
Russia is referring to specific holdings. From the German
perspective, these holdings are below the ones that Russia
claimed. Germany will analyze these figures, but
conceptually the Russian figures calculated for NATO are
based on "backward-looking" methods. Finally, Schweizer
agreed with Russia's comments during the Third REVCON that
A/CFE is the way ahead, not group maximum ceilings. Slovakia
and the Czech Republic similarly called on Russia to be
forward looking in order to get A/CFE EIF. Both recorded
their support of the Parallel Actions Package and
U.S.-Russian bilateral negotiations.


9. (SBU) The U.S. (Neighbour) replied to Russia by thanking
Ulyanov for responding to Treaty partners' requests for more
positions in writing. Neighbour highlighted that the U.S.
sees these questions differently than Russia and referred to
previous U.S. statements on these issues, as well as
statements by other Treaty partners. However, a debate on
whether the western group of SPs has exceeded limits under
the old Treaty, or whether Russia's view is correct regarding
the legalities of "suspension," is backward looking. What is
needed now is to be forward looking and find a solution that
allows all to ratify A/CFE. Neighbour underscored that the
Parallel Actions Package is the only solution to the impasse.
To this end, the U.S. looks forward to the high level
bilateral meeting in late-August or early-September.


10. (SBU) Russia (Ulyanov) responded to the U.S. intervention
by clarifying that EIF of A/CFE would only partially relieve
Russia's concerns. Ten years ago that would have been
enough, however, today Russia is concerned with restoring the
viability of arms control and EIF of A/CFE is not enough to
do that. This could only be achieved by the agreement and
adaptation of the Parallel Actions Package. Ulyanov then
pointedly dismissed references he has heard calling this a
NATO-Russia package ) in reality it is U.S.-Russian only
package; NATO may have advised a bit, but did not have much
to do with it. Russia doesn't want to look backwards; it
simply sees the realities of the day and wants the violations
dealt with. Comment: Ulyanov's unsubtle reference
dismissing NATO participation in the package did not elicit
any direct responses, but Allies around the table clearly
appeared annoyed with these and Russia's other remarks, and
told us so after the meeting. End Comment.

- - - - - - - - - -

USOSCE 00000170 003 OF 003


Cancellation of Meeting in mid-September
- - - - - - - - - -


11. (SBU) Due to the FSC's "Review of OSCE Documents on SALW
and CA Conference" on 22-23 September, the Chairman
(Belgium/Kenes) proposed cancelling the JCG scheduled for 22
September. This presumably will be agreed at the next JCG
meeting on 8 September, also under the Chairmanship of
Belgium.
Scott