VZCZCXRO9265
PP RUEHFL RUEHKW RUEHLA RUEHMRE RUEHROV RUEHSR
DE RUEHVEN #0235/01 2801156
ZNY CCCCC ZZH
P 061156Z OCT 08 ZDK
FM USMISSION USOSCE
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC PRIORITY 5950
INFO RUEHZL/EUROPEAN POLITICAL COLLECTIVE 0059
RUCNOSC/ORG FOR SECURITY CO OP IN EUR COLLECTIVE
RHEHNSC/NSC WASHDC
RUCNDT/USMISSION USUN NEW YORK 0602
RUEHUNV/USMISSION UNVIE VIENNA 1157
RHMFISS/CDR USEUCOM VAIHINGEN GE
RHMFISS/CDRUSAREUR HEIDELBERG GE
RUEAIIA/CIA WASHDC
RHDLCNE/CINCUSNAVEUR LONDON UK
RUEKDIA/DIA WASHDC
RUEASWA/DTRA ALEX WASHINGTON DC
RUESDT/DTRA-OSES DARMSTADT GE
RHMFISS/HQ USCENTCOM MACDILL AFB FL
RUEKJCS/JCS WASHDC
RUEKJCS/JOINT STAFF WASHDC
RUEKJCS/SECDEF WASHDC
RUEHGV/USMISSION GENEVA 1097

C O N F I D E N T I A L SECTION 01 OF 03 USOSCE 000235 
 
SIPDIS 
 
STATE FOR VCI/CCA, VCI/NRRC, EUR/RPM, EUR/PRA, EUR/CARC 
JCS FOR J-5 
OSD FOR ISA (PERENYI) 
NSC FOR HAYES 
USUN FOR LEGAL, POL 
EUCOM FOR J-5 
CENTCOM FOR J-5 
UNVIE FOR AC 
GENEVA FOR CD 
 
E.O. 12958: DECL: 10/05/2018 
TAGS: PARM PREL KCFE OSCE RS XG
SUBJECT: CFE: ANTONOV FAILS TO DIVIDE ALLIES AT VIENNA LUNCH 
 
Classified By: CHARGE KYLE SCOTT FOR REASONS 1.4 (B AND D) 
 
¶1. (C) Summary.  The Russian chief arms control delegate, 
Mikhail Ulyanov, hosted a lunch on October 2 in honor of the 
head of the Russian MFA arms control and disarmament 
division, Anatoliy Antonov.  The lunch was billed as an 
effort to put forward Russian views on the current state of 
arms control in Europe, but it was clearly aimed to drive 
wedges between the U.S. and the other invited allies, 
including the PermReps from Germany, Italy, France and the 
UK.  If that was the aim, it failed, as Antonov's appeals to 
allies for opportunities to hear the Russian view "anywhere, 
anytime" were met with statements of satisfaction with the 
U.S. lead in bilateral talks between NATO and Russia, and 
clear pressures on Russia to find some way to return to 
elements of the CFE regime.  Antonov replied that he saw no 
compelling reason for Russia to reconsider its suspension of 
CFE, although it did not intend to withdraw from the Treaty 
entirely.  At the same time, Antonov warned that a decision 
to give MAP to Ukraine and Georgia would likely cause Russia 
to reconsider arms control in Europe, and that under these 
circumstances he "would see no place for CFE."  End Summary. 
 
PARTICIPANTS 
------------ 
 
¶2. (SBU) Hosts: Russian Chief Arms Control Delegate Mikhail 
Ulyanov, Anatoliy Antonov, MoD rep, and local Russian arms 
control delegate 
 
Others: 
UK OSCE PermRep Ian Cliff 
French OSCE PermRep Eric Lebedel 
Italian OSCE PermRep Francesco Bascone 
German OSCE PermRep Heiner Horsten 
U.S. Charge Kyle Scott 
 
Antonov: We're Wasting Time Not Talking 
--------------------------------------- 
 
¶3. (C) Antonov kicked off the lunch noting that the situation 
for arms control discussions was not good.  He made a point 
of expressing effusive praise for his American counterpart in 
recent talks, A/S Fried, but argued that "creative" American 
proposals that were originally tabled in 2007 have been 
watered down and walked back steadily by allies and 
Georgia/Moldova ever since.  Antonov described the status of 
negotiations by the end of his July 29 meeting with A/S Fried 
on the Parallel Actions Package, first proposed to the 
Russians at the "2 plus 2" bilaterals in Moscow in October 
2007, as "very close" on Moldova, but conceded that 
subsequent events in Georgia meant that this issue was 
probably not ripe for progress at this time.  In both cases, 
he insisted that his mandate was to deal with the arms 
control aspects of the problems; he was not authorized to 
seek a resolution to the frozen conflicts themselves.  Thus, 
Antonov claimed, the major remaining sticking point in the 
Moldova discussions dealt with the size and nature of a 
possible civilian peacekeeping mission as part of a peace 
settlement-) something he is not able to deal with. 
 
¶4. (C) Antonov, describing the essence of his phone 
conversation with A/S Fried in September in which the U.S. 
side said it would not be able to meet as planned due to 
events in Georgia, declared "We are wasting time not 
 
USOSCE 00000235  002 OF 003 
 
 
talking," adding that he is open to consultations, anywhere, 
with anyone.  He vowed that "we should not sacrifice 
disarmament and non-proliferation to current political 
problems." 
 
The Baluyevskiy Flank Proposal 
------------------------------ 
 
¶5. (C) Antonov also said Moscow wants more discussion of 
flanks.  He reminded the group of the Baluyevskiy proposal, 
which is only an informal proposal at this time.  Even so, 
Russia was waiting for some sort of reaction to the idea. 
When the Italian PermRep suggested that he saw little 
difference between "eliminating the flank zone for Russia" 
entirely and the Baluyevskiy proposal of making all of 
Russian territory included in the flank restrictions, Antonov 
and Ulyanov argued that there was a major difference: under 
the Baluyevskiy idea, constraints would remain on Russian 
transfers of treaty-limited equipment (TLE) from east of the 
Urals into "European Russia," and Russia would also not be 
allowed to exchange quotas with countries like Belarus or, 
perhaps, Armenia. 
 
¶6. (C) Antonov urged allies to look at the proposal seriously 
and react.  He repeated that it was still an informal 
proposal because if it were put forward officially it might 
elicit an immediate rejection by NATO allies and could cause 
Russia difficulty in adjusting it if there were a serious 
dialogue on the basis of the proposal. 
 
What Is to Be Done? 
------------------- 
 
¶7. (C) Antonov urged Allies to re-engage with Russia on arms 
control rather than allow talks to continue to languish.  He 
recalled A/S Fried's call for more intensive dialogue back in 
July, and also welcomed the idea of including other partners 
in the dialogue on key issues.  Rather than conclude that 
there is nothing to be done in the current situation, Antonov 
was ready to meet anywhere and with anyone to explain Russian 
positions and seek new paths forward.  While he highly 
respected the Fried-Antonov channel, he said he worried that 
allies were not getting the full picture or did not fully 
understand the steps they were taking.  How else could he 
explain the "shocking" unified NATO position at Bucharest, in 
which NATO had expanded its demands and created new linkages 
that went beyond the Fried-Antonov talks. 
 
¶8. (C) Charge Scott noted that Antonov's portrayal of the key 
proposals made during the July 29 Fried-Antonov talks was 
basically accurate, but the U.S. did not share his 
interpretation of "how close matters had been."  Scott also 
stressed that A/S Fried has called on Russia to find some way 
to resume at least partial implementation of the CFE Treaty 
as a confidence-building measure, although Antonov had 
indicated this would not be possible.  It was Russia, Scott 
said, which had already put a stake in the heart of CFE, and 
then followed the July 29 Fried-Antonov meeting with an 
invasion of a sovereign country in violation of CFE basic 
principles.  The burden for next steps was not with the NATO 
allies but with Russia, Scott concluded. 
 
¶9. (C) The Italian PermRep said his country favored a 
continuation of dialogue.  Russia had shocked the NATO allies 
into new action by suspending CFE; he also urged Moscow to 
 
USOSCE 00000235  003 OF 003 
 
 
now give serious consideration to revising its suspension 
decision.  He noted that the Treaty's ceiling limits were not 
as important at this time as the CSBMs embodied in the 
frequent military-to-military exchanges, the inspections, and 
the annual exchange of information.  Antonov was no 
persuaded, noting that he saw no reason or action which would 
persuade the Russian Federation to go back to the 
"anachronistic" CFE Treaty. 
 
¶10. (C) UK PermRep Cliff supported the Italian view of the 
importance of the Treaty's measures as CSBMs, as well as the 
proposal to return to the Treaty.  He argued that he could 
not imagine "moving to step B as long as one party is in 
breach of Step A."  He also said the UK was very comfortable 
with having "one country" negotiate for all the allies on the 
complex issues at play and felt it was being kept fully 
informed of the state of negotiations by the U.S.  If there 
were any questions, he noted that the Russian delegation here 
in Vienna is also working hard to ensure that Russia's 
positions are well-known.  Cliff wondered aloud, however, how 
the Parallel Actions Plan could now survive, since the 
question of Gudauta was such an essential part of the 
process.  With the Russian invasion of Georgia and the 
decision to permanently base Russian forces at Gudauta, it is 
obvious there could be no progress in the near-term. 
 
¶11. (C) His message of comfort with the U.S.-led process was 
shared by Germany, although German PermRep Horsten also noted 
that Germany wants to keep channels of communication open. 
While progress "out in the open" was unlikely, he suggested 
that there may be "forward movement elsewhere if we keep 
channels open for dialogue."  At this, Antonov asked if any 
initiatives such as the Paris Conference or the Bad Saarow 
gathering were being considered, but no one else indicated an 
interest in a repeat of those efforts. 
 
¶12. (C) Ulyanov suggested the Fried-Antonov talks should be 
complemented by meetings at the expert level in Vienna.  No 
other participant voiced any enthusiasm for this approach 
 
Possible Complete Withdrawal from CFE if MAP Moves Ahead 
--------------------------------------------- ----------- 
 
¶13. (C) French PermRep Lebedel asked if the first anniversary 
of Russia's suspension of CFE might lead to further Russian 
steps, especially in light of the NATO and OSCE Ministerials 
that precede it.  Antonov said that Moscow has no special 
plans to withdraw, if that is what the question was about. 
That said, he declared, a MAP decision for Ukraine and 
Georgia remains a red line for Moscow and Russia would have 
to reconsider arms control in Europe if that takes place. 
Under such circumstances, Antonov said he would "see no place 
for CFE." 
SCOTT