VZCZCXRO2655
PP RUEHSK RUEHSL
DE RUEHVEN #0170/01 2021648
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
P 211648Z JUL 09
FM USMISSION USOSCE
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC PRIORITY 6502
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 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