VZCZCXRO9178
PP RUEHSK RUEHSL
DE RUEHVEN #0166/01 1971432
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
P 161432Z JUL 09
FM USMISSION USOSCE
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC PRIORITY 6491
INFO RUCNCFE/CONVENTIONAL ARMED FORCES IN EUROPE
RUEAIIA/CIA WASHDC
RUEKJCS/DIA WASHDC
RUEKJCS/SECDEF WASHDC
RUEASWA/DTRA ALEX WASHINGTON DC//OSAE
RUESDT/DTRA-OSES DARMSTADT GE
RHMFISS/CDR USEUCOM VAIHINGEN GE
RUEKJCS/JOINT STAFF WASHDC//J5-DDPMA-IN/CAC/DDPMA-E//
RUEAHQA/HQ USAF WASHINGTON DC//XONP//

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