

Currently released so far... 12553 / 251,287
Browse latest releases
2010/12/01
2010/12/02
2010/12/03
2010/12/04
2010/12/05
2010/12/06
2010/12/07
2010/12/08
2010/12/09
2010/12/10
2010/12/11
2010/12/12
2010/12/13
2010/12/14
2010/12/15
2010/12/16
2010/12/17
2010/12/18
2010/12/19
2010/12/20
2010/12/21
2010/12/22
2010/12/23
2010/12/24
2010/12/25
2010/12/26
2010/12/27
2010/12/28
2010/12/29
2010/12/30
2011/01/01
2011/01/02
2011/01/04
2011/01/05
2011/01/07
2011/01/09
2011/01/10
2011/01/11
2011/01/12
2011/01/13
2011/01/14
2011/01/15
2011/01/16
2011/01/17
2011/01/18
2011/01/19
2011/01/20
2011/01/21
2011/01/22
2011/01/23
2011/01/24
2011/01/25
2011/01/26
2011/01/27
2011/01/28
2011/01/29
2011/01/30
2011/01/31
2011/02/01
2011/02/02
2011/02/03
2011/02/04
2011/02/05
2011/02/06
2011/02/07
2011/02/08
2011/02/09
2011/02/10
2011/02/11
2011/02/12
2011/02/13
2011/02/14
2011/02/15
2011/02/16
2011/02/17
2011/02/18
2011/02/19
2011/02/20
2011/02/21
2011/02/22
2011/02/23
2011/02/24
2011/02/25
2011/02/26
2011/02/27
2011/02/28
2011/03/01
2011/03/02
2011/03/03
2011/03/04
2011/03/05
2011/03/06
2011/03/07
2011/03/08
2011/03/09
2011/03/10
2011/03/11
2011/03/13
2011/03/14
2011/03/15
2011/03/16
2011/03/17
2011/03/18
2011/03/19
2011/03/20
2011/03/21
2011/03/22
2011/03/23
2011/03/24
2011/03/25
2011/03/26
2011/03/27
2011/03/28
2011/03/29
2011/03/30
2011/03/31
2011/04/01
2011/04/02
2011/04/03
2011/04/04
2011/04/05
2011/04/06
2011/04/07
2011/04/08
2011/04/09
2011/04/10
2011/04/11
2011/04/12
2011/04/13
2011/04/14
2011/04/15
2011/04/16
2011/04/17
2011/04/18
2011/04/19
2011/04/20
2011/04/21
2011/04/22
2011/04/23
2011/04/24
2011/04/25
2011/04/26
2011/04/27
2011/04/28
2011/04/29
2011/04/30
2011/05/01
2011/05/02
2011/05/03
2011/05/04
2011/05/05
2011/05/06
2011/05/07
2011/05/08
2011/05/09
2011/05/10
2011/05/11
2011/05/12
Browse by creation date
Browse by origin
Embassy Athens
Embassy Asuncion
Embassy Astana
Embassy Asmara
Embassy Ashgabat
Embassy Apia
Embassy Ankara
Embassy Amman
Embassy Algiers
Embassy Addis Ababa
Embassy Accra
Embassy Abuja
Embassy Abu Dhabi
Embassy Abidjan
Consulate Auckland
Consulate Amsterdam
Consulate Adana
American Institute Taiwan, Taipei
Embassy Bujumbura
Embassy Buenos Aires
Embassy Budapest
Embassy Bucharest
Embassy Brussels
Embassy Bridgetown
Embassy Bratislava
Embassy Brasilia
Embassy Bogota
Embassy Bishkek
Embassy Bern
Embassy Berlin
Embassy Belmopan
Embassy Belgrade
Embassy Beirut
Embassy Beijing
Embassy Banjul
Embassy Bangkok
Embassy Bandar Seri Begawan
Embassy Bamako
Embassy Baku
Embassy Baghdad
Consulate Barcelona
Embassy Copenhagen
Embassy Conakry
Embassy Colombo
Embassy Chisinau
Embassy Caracas
Embassy Canberra
Embassy Cairo
Consulate Curacao
Consulate Ciudad Juarez
Consulate Chennai
Consulate Casablanca
Consulate Cape Town
Consulate Calgary
Embassy Dushanbe
Embassy Dublin
Embassy Doha
Embassy Djibouti
Embassy Dili
Embassy Dhaka
Embassy Dar Es Salaam
Embassy Damascus
Embassy Dakar
Consulate Dubai
Embassy Helsinki
Embassy Harare
Embassy Hanoi
Consulate Ho Chi Minh City
Consulate Hermosillo
Consulate Hamilton
Consulate Hamburg
Consulate Halifax
Embassy Kyiv
Embassy Kuwait
Embassy Kuala Lumpur
Embassy Kinshasa
Embassy Kingston
Embassy Kigali
Embassy Khartoum
Embassy Kathmandu
Embassy Kampala
Embassy Kabul
Consulate Kolkata
Embassy Luxembourg
Embassy Luanda
Embassy London
Embassy Ljubljana
Embassy Lisbon
Embassy Lima
Embassy Lilongwe
Embassy La Paz
Consulate Lahore
Consulate Lagos
Mission USOSCE
Mission USNATO
Mission UNESCO
Embassy Muscat
Embassy Moscow
Embassy Montevideo
Embassy Monrovia
Embassy Minsk
Embassy Mexico
Embassy Mbabane
Embassy Maputo
Embassy Manila
Embassy Manama
Embassy Managua
Embassy Malabo
Embassy Madrid
Consulate Munich
Consulate Mumbai
Consulate Montreal
Consulate Monterrey
Consulate Milan
Consulate Melbourne
Embassy Nicosia
Embassy Niamey
Embassy New Delhi
Embassy Ndjamena
Embassy Nassau
Embassy Nairobi
Consulate Naples
Consulate Naha
Embassy Pristina
Embassy Pretoria
Embassy Prague
Embassy Port Of Spain
Embassy Port Louis
Embassy Port Au Prince
Embassy Phnom Penh
Embassy Paris
Embassy Paramaribo
Embassy Panama
Consulate Peshawar
REO Basrah
Embassy Rome
Embassy Riyadh
Embassy Riga
Embassy Reykjavik
Embassy Rangoon
Embassy Rabat
Consulate Rio De Janeiro
Consulate Recife
Secretary of State
Embassy Suva
Embassy Stockholm
Embassy Sofia
Embassy Skopje
Embassy Singapore
Embassy Seoul
Embassy Sarajevo
Embassy Santo Domingo
Embassy Santiago
Embassy Sanaa
Embassy San Salvador
Embassy San Jose
Consulate Strasbourg
Consulate St Petersburg
Consulate Shenyang
Consulate Shanghai
Consulate Sapporo
Consulate Sao Paulo
Embassy Tunis
Embassy Tripoli
Embassy Tokyo
Embassy The Hague
Embassy Tel Aviv
Embassy Tehran
Embassy Tegucigalpa
Embassy Tbilisi
Embassy Tashkent
Embassy Tallinn
Consulate Toronto
Consulate Tijuana
USUN New York
USEU Brussels
US Office Almaty
US Mission Geneva
US Interests Section Havana
US Delegation, Secretary
UNVIE
Embassy Ulaanbaatar
Embassy Vilnius
Embassy Vienna
Embassy Vatican
Embassy Valletta
Consulate Vladivostok
Consulate Vancouver
Browse by tag
APECO
ASEC
AMGT
AFIN
APER
ACABQ
AORC
AEMR
AF
AE
AR
AGMT
AU
AY
ABLD
AS
AG
AJ
APCS
AX
AM
AMEX
ATRN
ADM
AMED
AFGHANISTAN
AZ
AL
ASUP
AND
ARM
ASEAN
AFFAIRS
AQ
ATFN
AMBASSADOR
AODE
APEC
ACBAQ
AFSI
AFSN
AO
ABUD
AC
ADPM
ADCO
ASIG
ARF
AUC
ASEX
AGAO
AA
AER
AVERY
AGRICULTURE
AIT
AADP
ASCH
AORL
AROC
ACOA
ANET
AID
AMCHAMS
AINF
AMG
AFU
AN
ALOW
ASECKFRDCVISKIRFPHUMSMIGEG
ACS
ADANA
AECL
ACAO
AORG
AGR
BEXP
BR
BM
BG
BL
BA
BTIO
BO
BP
BC
BILAT
BK
BU
BD
BRUSSELS
BB
BF
BBSR
BIDEN
BX
BE
BH
BT
BY
BMGT
BWC
BTIU
BN
CA
CASC
CFED
CO
CH
CS
CU
CE
CI
CM
CMGT
CJAN
COM
CG
CIS
CVIS
CR
CKGR
CHR
CVR
COUNTER
CIA
CLINTON
CY
CPAS
CD
CBW
COUNTERTERRORISM
CITEL
CDG
CW
CODEL
COUNTRY
CLEARANCE
COE
CN
CARICOM
CB
CONDOLEEZZA
CWC
CACS
CSW
CIDA
CIC
CITT
CONS
CL
CACM
CDB
CDC
CAN
CF
CJUS
CTM
CBSA
CARSON
CT
CLMT
CBC
CEUDA
CV
COPUOS
CTR
CROS
CAPC
CAC
CNARC
CICTE
CBE
ECON
ETRD
EIND
ENRG
EC
ELAB
EAGR
EAID
EFIS
EFIN
EINV
EUN
EG
EPET
EAIR
EU
ELTN
EWWT
ECIN
ERD
EI
ETTC
EUR
EN
EZ
ETC
ENVI
EMIN
ET
ENVR
ER
ECPS
EINT
EAP
ES
ENIV
ECONOMY
EXTERNAL
EINN
EFTA
ECONOMIC
EPA
EXBS
ECA
ELN
ETRDEINVECINPGOVCS
ENGR
ECUN
ENGY
ECONOMICS
ELECTIONS
EIAR
EINDETRD
EREL
EUC
ECONEFIN
EURN
EDU
ETRDEINVTINTCS
ECIP
ENERG
EFIM
EAIDS
EK
ETRDECONWTOCS
EINVETC
ECONCS
EUNCH
ESA
ECINECONCS
EUREM
ESENV
EFINECONCS
ETRC
ENNP
EAIG
EXIM
EEPET
EINVECONSENVCSJA
EUMEM
ETRA
ERNG
ETRO
ETRN
EINVEFIN
ICTY
IN
IS
IR
IC
IZ
IA
INTERPOL
IAEA
IT
IMO
IO
IV
ID
IRAQI
IEA
INRB
IL
IWC
ITU
ICAO
ISRAELI
ICRC
IIP
IMF
IBRD
ISLAMISTS
ITALY
ITALIAN
ILO
IPR
IQ
IRS
IAHRC
IZPREL
IRAJ
IDP
ILC
ITF
ICJ
IF
ITPHUM
INMARSAT
ISRAEL
IACI
IBET
ITRA
INR
IRC
IDA
ICTR
IGAD
INRA
INRO
IEFIN
INTELSAT
INTERNAL
INDO
ITPGOV
KWMN
KSCA
KDEM
KTFN
KIPR
KCRM
KPAL
KE
KPAO
KPKO
KS
KN
KISL
KFRD
KJUS
KIRF
KFLO
KG
KTIP
KTER
KRCM
KTIA
KGHG
KIRC
KU
KPRP
KMCA
KMPI
KSEO
KNNP
KZ
KNEI
KCOR
KOMC
KCFC
KSTC
KMDR
KFLU
KSAF
KSEP
KSAC
KR
KGIC
KSUM
KWBG
KCIP
KDRG
KOLY
KAWC
KCHG
KHDP
KRVC
KBIO
KAWK
KGCC
KHLS
KBCT
KPLS
KREL
KCFE
KMFO
KV
KFRDKIRFCVISCMGTKOCIASECPHUMSMIGEG
KFTFN
KVPR
KTDB
KSPR
KIDE
KVRP
KTEX
KBTR
KTRD
KICC
KCOM
KO
KLIG
KDEMAF
KMRS
KRAD
KOCI
KSTH
KUNR
KNSD
KGIT
KFSC
KHIV
KPAI
KICA
KACT
KHUM
KREC
KSEC
KFRDCVISCMGTCASCKOCIASECPHUMSMIGEG
KCMR
KPIN
KESS
KDEV
KNAR
KNUC
KPWR
KENV
KWWMN
KWMNCS
KPRV
KOM
KBTS
KCRS
KNPP
KWNM
KRFD
KVIR
KTBT
KAID
KRIM
KDDG
KRGY
KHSA
KWMM
KMOC
KSCI
KPAK
KX
KPAONZ
KCGC
KID
KPOA
KIFR
KFIN
KWAC
KOMS
KCRCM
KNUP
KMIG
KNNPMNUC
KERG
KTLA
KCSY
KJUST
MOPS
MARR
MASS
MNUC
MX
MCAP
MO
MR
MI
MD
MK
MA
MP
MY
MTCRE
MOPPS
MASC
MIL
MTS
MLS
MILI
MAR
MU
MEPN
MAPP
MTCR
MEPI
MZ
MEETINGS
MG
MW
MAS
MT
MCC
MIK
ML
MARAD
MV
MERCOSUR
MTRE
MPOS
MEPP
MILITARY
MDC
MQADHAFI
MUCN
MRCRE
MAPS
MEDIA
MASSMNUC
MC
NZ
NZUS
NL
NU
NATO
NP
NO
NIPP
NE
NH
NR
NA
NPT
NI
NSF
NG
NSG
NAFTA
NC
NDP
NEW
NRR
NATIONAL
NT
NS
NASA
NAR
NV
NORAD
NSSP
NK
NPA
NGO
NSC
NATOPREL
NW
NPG
NSFO
OPDC
OTRA
OIIP
OREP
OVIP
OSCE
OEXC
OIE
OPRC
OAS
OPIC
OTR
OMIG
OSAC
OFFICIALS
OECD
OSCI
OBSP
OFDA
OPCW
ODIP
OFDP
OES
OPAD
OCII
OHUM
OVP
ON
OIC
OCS
PHUM
PREL
PGOV
PINR
PTER
PARM
PREF
PM
PE
PINS
PK
PHSA
PBTS
PRGOV
PA
PORG
PP
PS
PGOF
PL
PO
PARMS
PKFK
PSOE
PEPR
PAK
POL
PPA
PINT
PMAR
PRELP
PREFA
PALESTINIAN
PBIO
PINF
PNG
PMIL
PFOR
PUNE
PGOVLO
PAO
POLITICS
PHUMBA
PSEPC
PTBS
PCUL
PROP
PNAT
PNR
POLINT
PGOVE
PROG
PHALANAGE
PARTY
PDEM
PECON
PROV
PHUMPREL
PGOC
PY
PCI
PLN
PDOV
PREO
PGIV
PHUH
PAS
PU
POGOV
PF
PINL
POV
PAHO
PRL
PG
PRAM
POLITICAL
PARTIES
POLICY
PGOVSMIGKCRMKWMNPHUMCVISKFRDCA
PGGV
PHUS
PSA
PHUMPGOV
PEL
PSI
PAIGH
POSTS
PBT
PTERE
RS
RU
RW
RM
RO
RP
REGION
RSP
RF
RICE
RCMP
RFE
RIGHTS
RIGHTSPOLMIL
ROBERT
RUPREL
RELATIONS
ROOD
REACTION
RSO
REPORT
SENV
SNAR
SCUL
SR
SC
SOCI
SMIG
SI
SP
SU
SO
SW
SY
SA
SZ
SAN
SF
SN
STEINBERG
SG
ST
SIPDIS
SNARIZ
SNARN
SSA
SK
SPCVIS
SOFA
SAARC
SL
SEVN
SARS
SIPRS
SHUM
SANC
SWE
SHI
SYR
SNARCS
SPCE
SYRIA
SEN
SH
SCRS
SENVKGHG
TRGY
TSPL
TPHY
TSPA
TBIO
TI
TW
THPY
TX
TU
TS
TZ
TC
TH
TT
TIP
TO
TERRORISM
TRSY
TINT
TN
TURKEY
TBID
TL
TV
TNGD
TD
TF
TP
TFIN
TAGS
TK
TR
UNSC
UK
UNGA
UN
US
UNHRC
UG
UP
UNMIK
UNHCR
UE
USTR
UNVIE
UAE
UZ
UY
UNO
UNESCO
USEU
USOAS
UV
UNODC
UNCHS
UNFICYP
UNEP
UNIDROIT
UNDESCO
UNDP
UNPUOS
UNC
UNAUS
USUN
UNCHC
UNCHR
UNCND
UNICEF
UNCSD
UNDC
USNC
USPS
USAID
Browse by classification
Community resources
courage is contagious
Viewing cable 09USNATO464, ACTION REQUEST: BALTIC CONTINGENCY PLANNING: SOME
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.
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. #09USNATO464.
Reference ID | Created | Released | Classification | Origin |
---|---|---|---|---|
09USNATO464 | 2009-10-20 16:58 | 2010-12-06 21:30 | SECRET//NOFORN | Mission USNATO |
VZCZCXRO4913
OO RUEHDBU RUEHSL
DE RUEHNO #0464/01 2931658
ZNY SSSSS ZZH
O 201658Z OCT 09
FM USMISSION USNATO
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC IMMEDIATE 3502
RUEKJCS/SECDEF WASHINGTON DC IMMEDIATE
RUEKJCS/JOINT STAFF WASHDC IMMEDIATE
RHEHNSC/WHITE HOUSE NSC WASHDC IMMEDIATE
INFO RUEHXD/MOSCOW POLITICAL COLLECTIVE PRIORITY
RUEHZG/NATO EU COLLECTIVE PRIORITY
RUEHMO/AMEMBASSY MOSCOW PRIORITY 6537
RUEHRA/AMEMBASSY RIGA PRIORITY 7164
RUEHTL/AMEMBASSY TALLINN PRIORITY 0013
RUEHVL/AMEMBASSY VILNIUS PRIORITY 7310
RUEAIIA/CIA WASHDC PRIORITY
RHEFDIA/DIA WASHDC PRIORITY
RHMFISS/HQ USEUCOM VAIHINGEN GE PRIORITY
RUEHNO/USDELMC BRUSSELS BE PRIORITY
RHMFISS/USNMR SHAPE BE PRIORITY
S E C R E T SECTION 01 OF 03 USNATO 000464
NOFORN
SIPDIS
E.O. 12958: DNG: CO 10/18/2029
TAGS: MARR MCAP PREL NATO ZB RS
SUBJECT: ACTION REQUEST: BALTIC CONTINGENCY PLANNING: SOME
IDEAS
REF: A. VILNIUS 533
¶B. VILNIUS 527
¶C. TALLIN 309
¶D. RIGA 514
¶E. SECRETARY (SECTO) 007
Classified By: Ambassador Ivo Daalder. Reasons: 1.4 (b) and (d).
¶1. (SBU) This is an action request. See paragraph 10.
¶2. (S/NF) SUMMARY: Leaders in Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania
are pressing hard for NATO Article 5 contingency planning for
the Baltic states. President Obama and Secretary Clinton are
on record supporting such contingency planning for Allies.
At the same time, however, NATO internal processes and
politics make it difficult to openly carry out such planning,
particularly if it would require specifying Russia as a
potential threat. Nevertheless, there are possible ways to
meet the substance of Baltic demands. The existing
contingency plan for Poland, for example, might be modified
to include the Baltics or generic plans for the use of the
NATO Response Force could be exercised and certified in a
manner consistent with Baltic defense. We request high-level
interagency discussion of the issue to develop the substance
and NATO tactics of Baltic planning and exercises. END
SUMMARY
Why Baltic Contingency Planning?
--------------------------------
¶3. (S/NF) As reported in refs A-D, leaders in Estonia,
Latvia, and Lithuania are pressing hard for NATO Article 5
contingency planning for the defense of the Baltics. The
Administration at the highest levels is on record supporting
such efforts. President Obama told NATO Secretary General
Rasmussen this during the latter's September 28-29 trip to
Washington. Furthermore, Secretary Clinton told her
colleagues at the September 22 "Trans-Atlantic Dinner" in New
York that the U.S. wants more work on Article 5 contingency
plans (ref E).
The Difficulties
----------------
¶4. (S/NF) At the same time, the internal processes and
politics of the Alliance make it unlikely that a Baltic-only
Article 5 contingency plan could be developed. NATO
contingency plans are designed for possible future security
risks that are consistent with NATO's General Intelligence
Estimate (MC 161) and NATO Ministerial Guidance. While
Admiral Stavridis, the Supreme Allied Commander Europe
(SACEUR), does have the authority to generate, review and
revise contingency plans based on changes in the strategic
security environment, those changes to the security
environment would need to be reflected in MC 161. Without a
change to MC 161, SACEUR does not have the authority to
develop new Article 5 contingency plans. Moreover, changes
to MC 161 are not made by SACEUR. They must be agreed by the
NAC.
¶5. (S/NF) In this case, the Baltic states clearly believe
that the Russian Federation represents a future security risk
and desire a contingency plan to address that risk. And
therein lies the problem. While the exact content of MC 161
cannot be discussed in this message, post-Cold War NATO has
consistently said that it no longer views Russia as a threat.
Allies, for example, agreed to language in the 1997
NATO-Russia Founding Act that "NATO and Russia do not
consider each other as adversaries." As we saw during the
debates over the Russia-Georgia war, many Allies will take
great pains to avoid even the suggestion that the Alliance
and Russia are on course toward a new Cold War. Countries
such as Germany are unlikely to agree changes to MC 161 that
explicitly define Russia as a potential threat, preferring
instead to argue that the Alliance needs to find a way to
work cooperatively with Moscow.
USNATO 00000464 002 OF 003
But Hard is Not "Too Hard"
--------------------------
¶6. (S/NF) Despite these difficulties, however, there are
steps that can be taken to meet the substance of the Baltic
demands and demonstrate the Allied commitment to their
defense. As a start, SACEUR did begin conducting informal
"prudent planning" efforts within his own Headquarters in the
wake of the Russian-Georgian war. These efforts should
continue. Furthermore, the existing NATO contingency plan
for Poland is up for revision. We could explore the
possibility of revising this plan to include the
reinforcement/defense of the Baltics as an element of the
reinforcement/defense of Poland. Indeed, this idea was first
raised by the German PermRep in conversation with Ambassador
Daalder. NATO also has a number of agreed generic
contingency plans for the NATO Response Force (NRF),
including for relatively high-end "initial entry operations."
Perhaps these generic NRF plans can be exercised/certified
in a manner that would be consistent with the defense of the
Baltics. Finally, we could pursue a generic Article 5
Alliance-wide contingency plan which would be applicable to
multiple threats.
Necessary for NATO-Russia; Expeditionary Forces
--------------------------------------------- --
¶7. (S/NF) Baltic reassurance can not be seen in isolation.
Our ability to move forward with other U.S. priorities at
NATO will be affected by our ability to reassure the Baltic
states. For example, our ability to maintain an Allied
consensus on re-engagement with Moscow will depend on it.
Furthermore, the Baltic states have made clear that if they
do not feel they can trust Allies to defend them, they will
have to consider developing a force structure focused on
territorial defense rather than on expeditionary capabilities.
U.S. Reassurance Does Not Equal NATO Reassurance
--------------------------------------------- ---
¶8. (S/NF) The U.S. has taken a number of bilateral steps to
reassure the Baltics, including tasking the U.S. European
Command (which ADM Stavridis heads under his U.S.-only hat)
to develop a plan for supporting NATO deterrence and defense
in the Baltic region. While these efforts can be useful in
supporting NATO contingency planning and reassurance efforts,
if done on their own they could actually undermine our
efforts to reassure the Baltic states that all NATO Allies
will carry out their Article 5 commitments. Defense of the
Baltics must remain a NATO Article 5 commitment, not solely a
U.S. bilateral one. Unless consensus can be achieved within
the Alliance to take positive steps in this direction, the
Baltic states will continue to lose faith in the Alliance,
undercutting a key U.S. strategic objective. Washington
should not allow U.S. bilateral reassurance efforts to become
an easy substitute for NATO-wide efforts.
Recommended Way Ahead
---------------------
¶9. (S/NF) Ambassador Daalder has been having quiet
conversations with some Allies, as well as with SACEUR, to
see what might be possible. We believe that a key aspect of
any approach would be to socialize the NAC on the issue
through briefings by SACEUR on current plans and the extent
to which they satisfy the requirement to defend Allied
territory. In addition to further consideration of the ideas
in para 6 above, Mission proposes the following as an initial
way ahead on this issue that we should seek to set in train:
-- The Military Committee should task NATO Military
Authorities to review the current family of contingency plans
to determine if they are sufficient to meet NATO's Article 5
commitments;
USNATO 00000464 003 OF 003
-- The North Atlantic Council should ask SACEUR to brief
PermReps on the status of these plans and on their ability to
provide for the defense/protection of Allied territory,
populations, and Alliance interests;
-- SHAPE should request that each Ally assess its own
national plans and national contributions in support of these
plans;
-- Strategic communications/public messaging regarding NATO
contingency planning would allow the Alliance to highlight
its efforts to provide for the protection of Alliance
territory from the range of threats;
-- Ongoing Strategic Concept discussion and seminars should
be used to identify new security threats and ways to meet
those threats. This process could help build consensus for
new contingency planning efforts;
-- The U.S. should consider the possibility/suitability of
adapting the upcoming USEUCOM bilateral exercise, "Baltic
Host 2010," into a NATO deterrence and defense of the Baltic
states exercise; and
-- As NATO contingency plans are developed, task the
development of supporting USEUCOM contingency plans.
¶10. (S/NF) Mission requests that a NATO IPC be scheduled in
the near future to discuss this issue further, with a view to
developing a coherent interagency-agreed strategy on how to
take forward the President's vision of contingency planning
in NATO.
DAALDER