Keep Us Strong WikiLeaks logo

Currently released so far... 251287 / 251,287

Articles

Browse latest releases

Browse by creation date

Browse by origin

A B C D F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W Y Z

Browse by tag

A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z
AEMR ASEC AMGT AE AS AMED AVIAN AU AF AORC AGENDA AO AR AM APER AFIN ATRN AJ ABUD ARABL AL AG AODE ALOW ADANA AADP AND APECO ACABQ ASEAN AA AFFAIRS AID AGR AY AGS AFSI AGOA AMB ARF ANET ASCH ACOA AFLU AFSN AMEX AFDB ABLD AESC AFGHANISTAN AINF AVIATION ARR ARSO ANDREW ASSEMBLY AIDS APRC ASSK ADCO ASIG AC AZ APEC AFINM ADB AP ACOTA ASEX ACKM ASUP ANTITERRORISM ADPM AINR ARABLEAGUE AGAO AORG AMTC AIN ACCOUNT ASECAFINGMGRIZOREPTU AIDAC AINT ARCH AMGTKSUP ALAMI AMCHAMS ALJAZEERA AVIANFLU AORD AOREC ALIREZA AOMS AMGMT ABDALLAH AORCAE AHMED ACCELERATED AUC ALZUGUREN ANGEL AORL ASECIR AMG AMBASSADOR AEMRASECCASCKFLOMARRPRELPINRAMGTJMXL ADM ASES ABMC AER AMER ASE AMGTHA ARNOLDFREDERICK AOPC ACS AFL AEGR ASED AFPREL AGRI AMCHAM ARNOLD AN ANATO AME APERTH ASECSI AT ACDA ASEDC AIT AMERICA AMLB AMGE ACTION AGMT AFINIZ ASECVE ADRC ABER AGIT APCS AEMED ARABBL ARC ASO AIAG ACEC ASR ASECM ARG AEC ABT ADIP ADCP ANARCHISTS AORCUN AOWC ASJA AALC AX AROC ARM AGENCIES ALBE AK AZE AOPR AREP AMIA ASCE ALANAZI ABDULRAHMEN ABDULHADI AINFCY ARMS ASECEFINKCRMKPAOPTERKHLSAEMRNS AGRICULTURE AFPK AOCR ALEXANDER ATRD ATFN ABLG AORCD AFGHAN ARAS AORCYM AVERY ALVAREZ ACBAQ ALOWAR ANTOINE ABLDG ALAB AMERICAS AFAF ASECAFIN ASEK ASCC AMCT AMGTATK AMT APDC AEMRS ASECE AFSA ATRA ARTICLE ARENA AISG AEMRBC AFR AEIR ASECAF AFARI AMPR ASPA ASOC ANTONIO AORCL ASECARP APRM AUSTRALIAGROUP ASEG AFOR AEAID AMEDI ASECTH ASIC AFDIN AGUIRRE AUNR ASFC AOIC ANTXON ASA ASECCASC ALI AORCEUNPREFPRELSMIGBN ASECKHLS ASSSEMBLY ASECVZ AI ASECPGOV ASIR ASCEC ASAC ARAB AIEA ADMIRAL AUSGR AQ AMTG ARRMZY ANC APR AMAT AIHRC AFU ADEL AECL ACAO AMEMR ADEP AV AW AOR ALL ALOUNI AORCUNGA ALNEA ASC AORCO ARMITAGE AGENGA AGRIC AEM ACOAAMGT AGUILAR AFPHUM AMEDCASCKFLO AFZAL AAA ATPDEA ASECPHUM ASECKFRDCVISKIRFPHUMSMIGEG
ETRD ETTC EU ECON EFIN EAGR EAID ELAB EINV ENIV ENRG EPET EZ ELTN ELECTIONS ECPS ET ER EG EUN EIND ECONOMICS EMIN ECIN EINT EWWT EAIR EN ENGR ES EI ETMIN EL EPA EARG EFIS ECONOMY EC EK ELAM ECONOMIC EAR ESDP ECCP ELN EUM EUMEM ECA EAP ELEC ECOWAS EFTA EXIM ETTD EDRC ECOSOC ECPSN ENVIRONMENT ECO EMAIL ECTRD EREL EDU ENERG ENERGY ENVR ETRAD EAC EXTERNAL EFIC ECIP ERTD EUC ENRGMO EINZ ESTH ECCT EAGER ECPN ELNT ERD EGEN ETRN EIVN ETDR EXEC EIAD EIAR EVN EPRT ETTF ENGY EAIDCIN EXPORT ETRC ESA EIB EAPC EPIT ESOCI ETRB EINDQTRD ENRC EGOV ECLAC EUR ELF ETEL ENRGUA EVIN EARI ESCAP EID ERIN ELAN ENVT EDEV EWWY EXBS ECOM EV ELNTECON ECE ETRDGK EPETEIND ESCI ETRDAORC EAIDETRD ETTR EMS EAGRECONEINVPGOVBN EBRD EUREM ERGR EAGRBN EAUD EFI ETRDEINVECINPGOVCS EPEC ETRO ENRGY EGAR ESSO EGAD ENV ENER EAIDXMXAXBXFFR ELA EET EINVETRD EETC EIDN ERGY ETRDPGOV EING EMINCG EINVECON EURM EEC EICN EINO EPSC ELAP ELABPGOVBN EE ESPS ETRA ECONETRDBESPAR ERICKSON EEOC EVENTS EPIN EB ECUN EPWR ENG EX EH EAIDAR EAIS ELBA EPETUN ETRDEIQ EENV ECPC ETRP ECONENRG EUEAID EWT EEB EAIDNI ESENV EADM ECN ENRGKNNP ETAD ETR ECONETRDEAGRJA ETRG ETER EDUC EITC EBUD EAIF EBEXP EAIDS EITI EGOVSY EFQ ECOQKPKO ETRGY ESF EUE EAIC EPGOV ENFR EAGRE ENRD EINTECPS EAVI ETC ETCC EIAID EAIDAF EAGREAIDPGOVPRELBN EAOD ETRDA EURN EASS EINVA EAIDRW EON ECOR EPREL EGPHUM ELTM ECOS EINN ENNP EUPGOV EAGRTR ECONCS ETIO ETRDGR EAIDB EISNAR EIFN ESPINOSA EAIDASEC ELIN EWTR EMED ETFN ETT EADI EPTER ELDIN EINVEFIN ESS ENRGIZ EQRD ESOC ETRDECD ECINECONCS EAIT ECONEAIR ECONEFIN EUNJ ENRGKNNPMNUCPARMPRELNPTIAEAJMXL ELAD EFIM ETIC EFND EFN ETLN ENGRD EWRG ETA EIN EAIRECONRP EXIMOPIC ERA ENRGJM ECONEGE ENVI ECHEVARRIA EMINETRD EAD ECONIZ EENG ELBR EWWC ELTD EAIDMG ETRK EIPR EISNLN ETEX EPTED EFINECONCS EPCS EAG ETRDKIPR ED EAIO ETRDEC ENRGPARMOTRASENVKGHGPGOVECONTSPLEAID ECONEINVEFINPGOVIZ ERNG EFINU EURFOR EWWI ELTNSNAR ETD EAIRASECCASCID EOXC ESTN EAIDAORC EAGRRP ETRDEMIN ELABPHUMSMIGKCRMBN ETRDEINVTINTCS EGHG EAIDPHUMPRELUG EAGRBTIOBEXPETRDBN EDA EPETPGOV ELAINE EUCOM EMW EFINECONEAIDUNGAGM ELB EINDETRD EMI ETRDECONWTOCS EINR ESTRADA EHUM EFNI ELABV ENR EMN EXO EWWTPRELPGOVMASSMARRBN EATO END EP EINVETC ECONEFINETRDPGOVEAGRPTERKTFNKCRMEAID ELTRN EIQ ETTW EAI ENGRG ETRED ENDURING ETTRD EAIDEGZ EOCN EINF EUPREL ENRL ECPO ENLT EEFIN EPPD ECOIN EUEAGR EISL EIDE ENRGSD EINVECONSENVCSJA EAIG ENTG EEPET EUNCH EPECO ETZ EPAT EPTE EAIRGM ETRDPREL EUNGRSISAFPKSYLESO ETTN EINVKSCA ESLCO EBMGT ENRGTRGYETRDBEXPBTIOSZ EFLU ELND EFINOECD EAIDHO EDUARDO ENEG ECONEINVETRDEFINELABETRDKTDBPGOVOPIC EFINTS ECONQH ENRGPREL EUNPHUM EINDIR EPE EMINECINECONSENVTBIONS EFINM ECRM EQ EWWTSP ECONPGOVBN
KFLO KPKO KDEM KFLU KTEX KMDR KPAO KCRM KIDE KN KNNP KG KMCA KZ KJUS KWBG KU KDMR KAWC KCOR KPAL KOMC KTDB KTIA KISL KHIV KHUM KTER KCFE KTFN KS KIRF KTIP KIRC KSCA KICA KIPR KPWR KWMN KE KGIC KGIT KSTC KACT KSEP KFRD KUNR KHLS KCRS KRVC KUWAIT KVPR KSRE KMPI KMRS KNRV KNEI KCIP KSEO KITA KDRG KV KSUM KCUL KPET KBCT KO KSEC KOLY KNAR KGHG KSAF KWNM KNUC KMNP KVIR KPOL KOCI KPIR KLIG KSAC KSTH KNPT KINL KPRP KRIM KICC KIFR KPRV KAWK KFIN KT KVRC KR KHDP KGOV KPOW KTBT KPMI KPOA KRIF KEDEM KFSC KY KGCC KATRINA KWAC KSPR KTBD KBIO KSCI KRCM KNNB KBNC KIMT KCSY KINR KRAD KMFO KCORR KW KDEMSOCI KNEP KFPC KEMPI KBTR KFRDCVISCMGTCASCKOCIASECPHUMSMIGEG KNPP KTTB KTFIN KBTS KCOM KFTN KMOC KOR KDP KPOP KGHA KSLG KMCR KJUST KUM KMSG KHPD KREC KIPRTRD KPREL KEN KCSA KCRIM KGLB KAKA KWWT KUNP KCRN KISLPINR KLFU KUNC KEDU KCMA KREF KPAS KRKO KNNC KLHS KWAK KOC KAPO KTDD KOGL KLAP KECF KCRCM KNDP KSEAO KCIS KISM KREL KISR KISC KKPO KWCR KPFO KUS KX KWCI KRFD KWPG KTRD KH KLSO KEVIN KEANE KACW KWRF KNAO KETTC KTAO KWIR KVCORR KDEMGT KPLS KICT KWGB KIDS KSCS KIRP KSTCPL KDEN KLAB KFLOA KIND KMIG KPPAO KPRO KLEG KGKG KCUM KTTP KWPA KIIP KPEO KICR KNNA KMGT KCROM KMCC KLPM KNNPGM KSIA KSI KWWW KOMS KESS KMCAJO KWN KTDM KDCM KCM KVPRKHLS KENV KCCP KGCN KCEM KEMR KWMNKDEM KNNPPARM KDRM KWIM KJRE KAID KWMM KPAONZ KUAE KTFR KIF KNAP KPSC KSOCI KCWI KAUST KPIN KCHG KLBO KIRCOEXC KI KIRCHOFF KSTT KNPR KDRL KCFC KLTN KPAOKMDRKE KPALAOIS KESO KKOR KSMT KFTFN KTFM KDEMK KPKP KOCM KNN KISLSCUL KFRDSOCIRO KINT KRG KWMNSMIG KSTCC KPAOY KFOR KWPR KSEPCVIS KGIV KSEI KIL KWMNPHUMPRELKPAOZW KQ KEMS KHSL KTNF KPDD KANSOU KKIV KFCE KTTC KGH KNNNP KK KSCT KWNN KAWX KOMCSG KEIM KTSD KFIU KDTB KFGM KACP KWWMN KWAWC KSPA KGICKS KNUP KNNO KISLAO KTPN KSTS KPRM KPALPREL KPO KTLA KCRP KNMP KAWCK KCERS KDUM KEDM KTIALG KWUN KPTS KPEM KMEPI KAWL KHMN KCRO KCMR KPTD KCROR KMPT KTRF KSKN KMAC KUK KIRL KEM KSOC KBTC KOM KINP KDEMAF KTNBT KISK KRM KWBW KBWG KNNPMNUC KNOP KSUP KCOG KNET KWBC KESP KMRD KEBG KFRDKIRFCVISCMGTKOCIASECPHUMSMIGEG KPWG KOMCCO KRGY KNNF KPROG KJAN KFRED KPOKO KM KWMNCS KMPF KJWC KJU KSMIG KALR KRAL KDGOV KPA KCRMJA KCRI KAYLA KPGOV KRD KNNPCH KFEM KPRD KFAM KALM KIPRETRDKCRM KMPP KADM KRFR KMWN KWRG KTIAPARM KTIAEUN KRDP KLIP KDDEM KTIAIC KWKN KPAD KDM KRCS KWBGSY KEAI KIVP KPAOPREL KUNH KTSC KIPT KNP KJUSTH KGOR KEPREL KHSA KGHGHIV KNNR KOMH KRCIM KWPB KWIC KINF KPER KILS KA KNRG KCSI KFRP KLFLO KFE KNPPIS KQM KQRDQ KERG KPAOPHUM KSUMPHUM KVBL KARIM KOSOVO KNSD KUIR KWHG KWBGXF KWMNU KPBT KKNP KERF KCRT KVIS KWRC KVIP KTFS KMARR KDGR KPAI KDE KTCRE KMPIO KUNRAORC KHOURY KAWS KPAK KOEM KCGC KID KVRP KCPS KIVR KBDS KWOMN KIIC KTFNJA KARZAI KMVP KHJUS KPKOUNSC KMAR KIBL KUNA KSA KIS KJUSAF KDEV KPMO KHIB KIRD KOUYATE KIPRZ KBEM KPAM KDET KPPD KOSCE KJUSKUNR KICCPUR KRMS KWMNPREL KWMJN KREISLER KWM KDHS KRV KPOV KWMNCI KMPL KFLD KWWN KCVM KIMMITT KCASC KOMO KNATO KDDG KHGH KRF KSCAECON KWMEN KRIC
PREL PINR PGOV PHUM PTER PE PREF PARM PBTS PINS PHSA PK PL PM PNAT PHAS PO PROP PGOVE PA PU POLITICAL PPTER POL PALESTINIAN PHUN PIN PAMQ PPA PSEC POLM PBIO PSOE PDEM PAK PF PKAO PGOVPRELMARRMOPS PMIL PV POLITICS PRELS POLICY PRELHA PIRN PINT PGOG PERSONS PRC PEACE PROCESS PRELPGOV PROV PFOV PKK PRE PT PIRF PSI PRL PRELAF PROG PARMP PERL PUNE PREFA PP PGOB PUM PROTECTION PARTIES PRIL PEL PAGE PS PGO PCUL PLUM PIF PGOVENRGCVISMASSEAIDOPRCEWWTBN PMUC PCOR PAS PB PKO PY PKST PTR PRM POUS PRELIZ PGIC PHUMS PAL PNUC PLO PMOPS PHM PGOVBL PBK PELOSI PTE PGOVAU PNR PINSO PRO PLAB PREM PNIR PSOCI PBS PD PHUML PERURENA PKPA PVOV PMAR PHUMCF PUHM PHUH PRELPGOVETTCIRAE PRT PROPERTY PEPFAR PREI POLUN PAR PINSF PREFL PH PREC PPD PING PQL PINSCE PGV PREO PRELUN POV PGOVPHUM PINRES PRES PGOC PINO POTUS PTERE PRELKPAO PRGOV PETR PGOVEAGRKMCAKNARBN PPKO PARLIAMENT PEPR PMIG PTBS PACE PETER PMDL PVIP PKPO POLMIL PTEL PJUS PHUMNI PRELKPAOIZ PGOVPREL POGV PEREZ POWELL PMASS PDOV PARN PG PPOL PGIV PAIGH PBOV PETROL PGPV PGOVL POSTS PSO PRELEU PRELECON PHUMPINS PGOVKCMABN PQM PRELSP PRGO PATTY PRELPGOVEAIDECONEINVBEXPSCULOIIPBTIO PGVO PROTESTS PRELPLS PKFK PGOVEAIDUKNOSWGMHUCANLLHFRSPITNZ PARAGRAPH PRELGOV POG PTRD PTERM PBTSAG PHUMKPAL PRELPK PTERPGOV PAO PRIVATIZATION PSCE PPAO PGOVPRELPHUMPREFSMIGELABEAIDKCRMKWMN PARALYMPIC PRUM PKPRP PETERS PAHO PARMS PGREL PINV POINS PHUMPREL POREL PRELNL PHUMPGOV PGOVQL PLAN PRELL PARP PROVE PSOC PDD PRELNP PRELBR PKMN PGKV PUAS PRELTBIOBA PBTSEWWT PTERIS PGOVU PRELGG PHUMPRELPGOV PFOR PEPGOV PRELUNSC PRAM PICES PTERIZ PREK PRELEAGR PRELEUN PHUME PHU PHUMKCRS PRESL PRTER PGOF PARK PGOVSOCI PTERPREL PGOVEAID PGOVPHUMKPAO PINSKISL PREZ PGOVAF PARMEUN PECON PINL POGOV PGOVLO PIERRE PRELPHUM PGOVPZ PGOVKCRM PBST PKPAO PHUMHUPPS PGOVPOL PASS PPGOV PROGV PAGR PHALANAGE PARTY PRELID PGOVID PHUMR PHSAQ PINRAMGT PSA PRELM PRELMU PIA PINRPE PBTSRU PARMIR PEDRO PNUK PVPR PINOCHET PAARM PRFE PRELEIN PINF PCI PSEPC PGOVSU PRLE PDIP PHEM PRELB PORG PGGOC POLG POPDC PGOVPM PWMN PDRG PHUMK PINB PRELAL PRER PFIN PNRG PRED POLI PHUMBO PHYTRP PROLIFERATION PHARM PUOS PRHUM PUNR PENA PGOVREL PETRAEUS PGOVKDEM PGOVENRG PHUS PRESIDENT PTERKU PRELKSUMXABN PGOVSI PHUMQHA PKISL PIR PGOVZI PHUMIZNL PKNP PRELEVU PMIN PHIM PHUMBA PUBLIC PHAM PRELKPKO PMR PARTM PPREL PN PROL PDA PGOVECON PKBL PKEAID PERM PRELEZ PRELC PER PHJM PGOVPRELPINRBN PRFL PLN PWBG PNG PHUMA PGOR PHUMPTER POLINT PPEF PKPAL PNNL PMARR PAC PTIA PKDEM PAUL PREG PTERR PTERPRELPARMPGOVPBTSETTCEAIRELTNTC PRELJA POLS PI PNS PAREL PENV PTEROREP PGOVM PINER PBGT PHSAUNSC PTERDJ PRELEAID PARMIN PKIR PLEC PCRM PNET PARR PRELETRD PRELBN PINRTH PREJ PEACEKEEPINGFORCES PEMEX PRELZ PFLP PBPTS PTGOV PREVAL PRELSW PAUM PRF PHUMKDEM PATRICK PGOVKMCAPHUMBN PRELA PNUM PGGV PGOVSMIGKCRMKWMNPHUMCVISKFRDCA PBT PIND PTEP PTERKS PGOVJM PGOT PRELMARR PGOVCU PREV PREFF PRWL PET PROB PRELPHUMP PHUMAF PVTS PRELAFDB PSNR PGOVECONPRELBU PGOVZL PREP PHUMPRELBN PHSAPREL PARCA PGREV PGOVDO PGON PCON PODC PRELOV PHSAK PSHA PGOVGM PRELP POSCE PGOVPTER PHUMRU PINRHU PARMR PGOVTI PPEL PMAT PAN PANAM PGOVBO PRELHRC

Browse by classification

Community resources

courage is contagious

Viewing cable 08USOSCE129, CFE: MAY 13 JCG PLENARY: GERMAN PRESENTATION ON

If you are new to these pages, please read an introduction on the structure of a cable as well as how to discuss them with others. See also the FAQs

Understanding cables
Every cable message consists of three parts:
  • The top box shows each cables unique reference number, when and by whom it originally was sent, and what its initial classification was.
  • The middle box contains the header information that is associated with the cable. It includes information about the receiver(s) as well as a general subject.
  • The bottom box presents the body of the cable. The opening can contain a more specific subject, references to other cables (browse by origin to find them) or additional comment. This is followed by the main contents of the cable: a summary, a collection of specific topics and a comment section.
To understand the justification used for the classification of each cable, please use this WikiSource article as reference.

Discussing cables
If you find meaningful or important information in a cable, please link directly to its unique reference number. Linking to a specific paragraph in the body of a cable is also possible by copying the appropriate link (to be found at theparagraph symbol). Please mark messages for social networking services like Twitter with the hash tags #cablegate and a hash containing the reference ID e.g. #08USOSCE129.
Reference ID Created Released Classification Origin
08USOSCE129 2008-05-14 16:50 2011-08-30 01:44 CONFIDENTIAL Mission USOSCE
VZCZCXYZ0037
PP RUEHWEB

DE RUEHVEN #0129/01 1351650
ZNY CCCCC ZZH
P 141650Z MAY 08
FM USMISSION USOSCE
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC PRIORITY 5721
INFO RUCNCFE/CONVENTIONAL ARMED FORCES IN EUROPE PRIORITY
RUEHNO/USMISSION USNATO PRIORITY 1658
RUEAIIA/CIA WASHDC PRIORITY
RUEKDIA/DIA WASHDC PRIORITY
RUEKJCS/SECDEF WASHDC PRIORITY
RUESDT/DTRA-OSES DARMSTADT GE PRIORITY
RHMFISS/CDR USEUCOM VAIHINGEN GE PRIORITY
RUEKJCS/JOINT STAFF WASHDC//J5-DDPMA-IN/CAC/DDPMA-E// PRIORITY
RUEAHQA/HQ USAF WASHINGTON DC//XONP// PRIORITY
RUEADWD/DA WASHINGTON DC PRIORITY
RUEASWA/DTRA ALEX WASHINGTON DC//OSAE PRIORITY
C O N F I D E N T I A L USOSCE 000129 
 
SIPDIS 
 
STATE FOR VCI/CCA, EUR/RPM 
NSC FOR DOWLEY 
JCS FOR J5/COL NORWOOD 
OSD FOR ISA (PERENYI) 
 
E.O. 12958: DECL: 05/13/2018 
TAGS: KCFE OSCE PARM PREL RS
SUBJECT: CFE: MAY 13 JCG PLENARY: GERMAN PRESENTATION ON 
FORCE LEVELS 
 
Classified By: Chief Arms Control Delegate Hugh Neighbour, 
for reasons 1.4(b) and (d). 
 
1.  (SBU) Summary:  As part of the continuing "focused 
dialogue," at the May 13 JCG (Joint Consultative Group) 
Germany presented an update to its October 30, 2007 
presentation on the topic of "CFE Limitations in Transition: 
Security Concerns and Current Force Level Trends."  Using 
available CFE, GEMI, and VD99 information, Germany presented 
a statistical analysis comparing TLE holdings between 
previous (NATO and Warsaw Pact) and current (NATO and others) 
western/eastern groups in different Treaty areas of 
application under CFE and A/CFE.  In its comparison, Germany 
stressed the importance of the CFE Treaty and observed States 
Parties have reduced levels of TLE holdings dramatically, and 
that, with the exception of Azerbaijan, TLE holdings of 
States Parties are below group limitations, maximum levels of 
holdings, and future national and territorial ceilings.  With 
the success of CFE and potential positive contribution of 
A/CFE, Germany criticized Russia,s logic in "suspending" its 
participation. 
 
2.  (SBU)  In a reprise of the October 30 JCG, Russia again 
countered Germany's argument with its own TLE data analysis 
and accused NATO of exceeding the Western Group,s TLE 
limits.  Greece, Turkey and Italy supported Germany's 
conclusions, emphasizing that the bloc approach was obsolete. 
 The U.S. noted dramatic reductions since 1990, holdings well 
below ceilings and said Germany,s data illustrated again 
that there was no justification for "suspension" and called 
on Russia to accept the parallel actions package.  Ukraine 
noted for the meeting that Richter had included Ukraine TLE 
holdings with the CIS and reminded all that Ukraine's 
military forces are not a part of CIS.   Romania privately 
told us they were unhappy that Germany,s chart showed 
Romanian TLE had substantially increased NATO overall TLE 
holdings. 
 
3.  (SBU)  At the May 9 JCG-T   4 Germany informed Allies 
that Russia continued to want detailed discussion of elements 
of the parallel actions package in the JCG.  Germany gave a 
preview of its "focused dialogue" brief.  The U.S. urged 
Allies to focus only on CFE-related issue in the JCG.  End 
Summary. 
 
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
WESTERN/NATO TLE NUMBERS VS. EASTERN/CIS TLE NUMBERS 
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
 
4.  (SBU)  The May 13 JCG was held under the Iceland 
Chairmanship.  Germany (Richter) presented an update to its 
briefing on "CFE Limitations in Transition: Security Concerns 
and Current Force Level Trends."  The briefing was a 
statistical analysis of TLE holdings belonging to previous 
(NATO and Warsaw Pact) and current (NATO and others) States 
Parties in different Treaty areas (area of application, 
original flank, revised flank, southern and northern portions 
of the flank).  Richter produced the various charts using 
current (2008) CFE information.  For Russia, he used the 2007 
CFE information, the July 2007 CFE Flank and 2008 Vienna 
Document 1999 information.  For the four NATO non-CFE States 
Parties, he used data from the 2008 GEMI (Global Exchange of 
Military Information).  During the hour long presentation, 
which had the same conclusions as the October 30 
presentation, Germany countered Russian arguments by 
highlighting the security objectives of the CFE Treaty, the 
technical elements of CFE, the regional concept of the 
agreement and the levels of holding between the eastern and 
western group of States Parties in Area 4.1 and Area 5.1 
(Revised Flank).  Richter concluded that CFE was a unique 
disarmament treaty that abolished the capabilities for large 
scale surprise offensive action.  Richter further added that 
bipolar limitation concept was obsolete and that CFE is still 
the "cornerstone" of European security. 
 
5.  (SBU)  Moving on to A/CFE, Germany reminded the forum the 
 
 
key objectives of the adapted Treaty to include the 
replacement of East-West balance with a system of regional 
stability, abolition of group concept, new member accession, 
national and territorial ceilings, a mechanism for basic and 
exceptional deployment, and improvement in information 
exchanges and verification.  Richter pointed out that the 
"Balance of Force," and group approach concepts are invalid 
and that Russia,s complaint that NATO ceilings exceeding the 
western group limit is based on an obsolete concept of group 
limitation.  By comparing certain TLE holding categories (BT, 
ACV, artillery) between NATO and CIS (Commonwealth of 
Independent States) in total sum, in Area 4.1 and in Area 
5.1, Richter illustrated the lopsided nature bloc-to-bloc 
comparison of forces and the invalidity of Russia,s group 
concept argument because regional force comparison was 
dependent on geographical area chosen ) that would show 
different degrees of advantages or disadvantages.  Richter 
also concluded that force comparison in the revised Flank 
Area was not valid and that the bloc-to-bloc approach was 
obsolete. 
 
6.  (SBU)  Germany ended its presentation by comparing the 
total of national ceilings and current holdings of all States 
Parties for 2007 and 2008 in all TLE categories and in the 
areas of application and Flank area.  Richter concluded that 
State Parties have reduced their TLE holdings dramaticaly, 
that TLE holding of States Parties are belowgroup 
limitations, maximum levels of holdings an future national 
and territorial ceilings.  Richtr also stated that CFE has 
been successful in mantaining stability and security in 
Europe and tht entry into force of A/CFE will continue to 
maitain stability through prevention of sub-regional orce 
concentration. 
 
7.  (SBU)  Throughout Germny's presentation, Richter 
repeatedly mentioned that the data analysis was incomplete 
due to the fact that Russia had not submitted its CFE 
informtion as of 1 January 2008.  This was a reminder to all 
of Russian non-compliance.  Additionally, Ricter repeated 
the theme that Russia,s use of a blc-to-bloc 
comparison/concept was obsolete and inalid. 
 
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
BLOC ) TO ) BLOC IS ALIVE AND WELL? 
- - - - - - - -  - - - - - - - - - 
 
8.  (SBU)  Greece, Turkey, and Italy voiced their support for 
Germany's analyss.  Each repeated Richter's theme that 
bloc-to-bloc comparison was no longer valid and is 
counterproductive.  Greece (Sourani) stated that current 
NATO holdings were belowthe western level and that the 
concept of NATO vrsus CIS is invalid due t the changing 
security situation in Europe.  Souani repeated the offer 
made in the NAC statement of 28 March for the review of 
Treaty operation, quipment ceilings, and specific elements 
after A/FE is in force.  Italy (Negro) echoed Germany,s 
conclusion that CFE has hlp maintain stability in Europe and 
that A/CFE wil increase stability in the region.  Negro 
voiced support for continue dialogue in all forums. 
 
9.  (SBU)  Similar to last year, Russian MOD representative 
(Uskov) again responded to Germany's statistical analysis 
with a selective use of Russia numbers.  Uskov stated that 
Russia compares forces not by numbers alone, but rather by 
"potential" of the forces.  He complained that A/CFE was not 
in force and that the number of States Parties of the Eastern 
Group are now a part of NATO.  Uskov reiterated familiar 
claims that NATO has exceeded the Western Group TLE limit by 
1254 battle tanks, 2691 armored combat vehicles, and 1590 
pieces of artillery.  He highlighted the fact that the 
addition of Bulgaria and Romania to NATO had a negative 
impact on the force balance.  In examining the flank areas, 
Uskov cited numbers with corresponding ratios, taken from 
2007 (and not 2008) CFE data, that showed NATO's advantage 
over Russia in selected (e.g., southern and northern portions 
of the Flank).  (Comment:  we are uncertain if Russia used 
 
 
the 2007 numbers for political effect or just did not bother 
to update its earlier arguments from October.  End Comment). 
He expressed concerns that the Baltics were building up their 
force level in preparation for accession negotiation.  Russia 
cannot accept such restrictions. 
 
10.  (SBU)  The U.S. (Neighbour) joined Germany in rejecting 
the bloc-to-bloc approach to force comparison.  Neighbour 
pointed out to the JCG that Russia had not provided ts data 
last December and as a result some of the material available 
for the German analysis was not as complete as it could be. 
Using 2008 CFE and GEMI data, Neighbour cited the reduction 
in the overall TLE levels of NATO members even though the 
number of NATO members had grown from 16 in 1990 to 26 at 
present.  He also pointed out that level of US ground TLE had 
decreased in the past year by 13 percent, to only a fraction 
) seven percent ) of the levels of 1990 and air TLE today 
is only 1/3 of  what we had in 1990.  He stressed the 
importance of the Treaty by emphasizing the dramatic 
reduction of TLE to below ceilings and observed tht there 
was no urgency or justification for Russa to "suspend" 
Treaty participation to redress cilings or for any other 
reason.  Neighbour, yet again, urged Russia to accept the 
parallel actions package. 
 
11.  (SBU)  Russia (Ulyanov), responded to the U.S. comments, 
noting that some of the US decrease was as a result of 
Kosovo, Iraq and Afghanistan.  Ulyanov stated that the 
current CFE Treaty is against Russia's interests and that 
A/CFE has not entered into force.  Russia is not interested 
in bloc-to-bloc force balance.  It believed the goal of CFE 
is for there to be no dominating player in Europe, but 
current CFE is not doing this.  Ulyanov further commented 
that though there is a rejection of the bloc-to-bloc concept, 
the JCG operates in a bloc-to-bloc fashion with NATO members 
disciplined to speak with one voice and that no NATO member 
is allowed to speak in its own national capacity. 
 
12.  (SBU)  Ukraine (Herasymenko) noted that Germany had 
included Ukraine TLE holdings with the CIS and reminded all 
that Ukraine's military forces are not a part of CIS, which 
is not a military alliance and not analogous to NATO. 
Additionally, Romania (Neculaescu) privately told USDEL that 
it were unhappy that Germany's chart showed Romanian TLE had 
substantially increased NATO overall TLE holdings. 
Neculaescu had foreseen this issue and had communicated his 
concerns to Richter following the JCG-T, but to no avail. 
Also in private, the U.K. (MacLeod) told USDEL that her 
delegation thought Germany's presentation was excellent. 
 
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
LET,S DISSECT THE 28 MARCH NAC STATEMENT 
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
 
13.  (SBU)  Russia (Ulyanov) closed the discussion of 
Germany's brief by suggesting to the JCG that it should look 
into technical details of ways to restore viability of the 
Treaty.  Ulyanov informed all that at the parallel actions 
package, had generalities, but no specifics and that he 
wanted to discuss the guarantees being offered in the NAC 
statement (and in the package). 
 
- - - - - - - - - - - - - 
JCG-T  4:  STAY ON TARGET 
- - - - - - - - - - - - - 
 
14.  (C)  At the May 9 JCG-T   4, Germany (Richter) informed 
Allies that Russian Chief Arms Control Delegate (Ulyanov) 
told him that Russia will continue to push for discussion on 
the definition of substantial combat forces, accession terms 
for the Baltic countries and Slovenia, and lowering the 
territorial ceilings of NATO's States Parties.  Missing from 
this list is the earlier demand for a "collective ceiling" 
for NATO.  Ulyanov told Richter that Russia wanted details of 
these three elements to be included in the parallel actions 
package and that without such details; Russia cannot lift the 
 
"moratorium."  Ulyanov made an identical pitch to USDEL 
(Neighbour) on 13 May.  Neighbour told Ulyanov no and 
reiterated US views about not disaggregating the package. 
 
15.  (C)  Germany also previewed its "focused dialogue" JCG 
brief "CFE Limitations in Transition: Security Concerns and 
Current Force Level Trends" to the group.  Richter confided 
to everyone that through statistical analysis (e.g., 
comparing ceilings vs. actual holdings), he would "demolish" 
Russian arguments, highlight the benefit of CFE as well as 
A/CFE, prove that Russia has no cause for suspension, and 
that it should accept the parallel actions package.  Richter 
also hoped to prove that future headroom would allow the 
flexibility to lower ceilings of NATO States Parties. 
 
16.  (C)  The U.S. (Neighbour) urged Allies to focus on only 
CFE-related issues in the JCG and not other topics currently 
being discussed in other OSCE forums.  A number of allies 
wondered about the meaning of "active patience" guidance from 
the HTLF and questioned the frequency of JCG meeting after 
the "focused dialogue" was completed.  Some believe we could 
reduce the number of meetings and still use the JCG to hit 
Russia on non-compliance and other CFE-related concerns. 
 
17.  (SBU)  On the margin, the Treaty Operations and 
Implementation (TOI) Working Group Chair (Italy, 
Fardellotti), inform USDEL (Claus) that Russia is willing to 
continue discussion within the TOI, preferably on issues 
related to A/CFE implementation.  Fardellotti asked Russia to 
submit proposed topics to add to the agenda for discussion 
within the small group and TOI. 
 
18.  (U)  The next JCG-T  4 will be on May 19 and the next 
JCG will be on May 20. 
FINLEY