Viewing cable 10STATE7810, EXPANSION OF EAGLE GUARDIAN TO INCLUDE BALTIC
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.
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. #10STATE7810.
|10STATE7810||2010-01-26 20:08||2010-12-06 21:09||SECRET||Secretary of State|
VZCZCXRO8554 PP RUEHSL DE RUEHC #7810/01 0262036 ZNY SSSSS ZZH P 262029Z JAN 10 FM SECSTATE WASHDC TO ALL NATO POST COLLECTIVE PRIORITY INFO RUEHMO/AMEMBASSY MOSCOW PRIORITY 6905
S E C R E T SECTION 01 OF 02 STATE 007810 SIPDIS EO 12958 DECL: 01/22/2020 TAGS MARR, MCAP, NATO, PREL, EN, LG, LH, PL SUBJECT: EXPANSION OF EAGLE GUARDIAN TO INCLUDE BALTIC ALLIES REF: A. USNATO 35 B. 09 STATE 127892 Classified By: EUR PDAS Nancy McEldowney for reasons 1.4 (b)
and (d) ¶1. (U) This is an action cable. Please see paragraphs 3-4. ¶2. (S) Summary and Action Request. On January 22 NATO
Allies agreed in the Military Committee to expand the
NATO Contingency Plan for Poland, EAGLE GUARDIAN, to
include the defense and reinforcement of the Baltic States.
Posts in Allied capitals should be prepared to explain, as
necessary, U.S. support for this approach and how it fits
within our broader vision for NATO contingency planning,
as well as how to respond to media inquiries on the matter.
Posts are asked to draw on the points below, as necessary,
in discussions on this issue. End Summary and Action Request. ¶3. (C) Posts need not engage host government officials
proactively on NATO contingency planning at this time,
but are encouraged to use the points below as the basis
for discussions on the matter as needed. (S/REL NATO) CONTINGENCY POINTS (FOR USE AT POST,S DISCRETION) -- The United States believes that NATO - as a matter
of course - should conduct appropriate contingency planning
for the possible defense of Allied territory and populations. -- As President Obama said in Prague: “We must work
together as NATO members so that we have contingency
plans in place to deal with new threats, wherever they
may come from.” -- The U.S. welcomes the decision to expand EAGLE
GUARDIAN to include the defense of the Baltic states,
and sees it as a logical military extension of the
existing contingency plan that fits well within the
existing scenario. -- We see the expansion of EAGLE GUARDIAN as a step
toward the possible expansion of NATO’s other existing
country-specific contingency plans into regional plans.
This is the first step in a multi-stage process to develop
a complete set of appropriate contingency plans for the
full range of possible threats - both regional and
functional - as soon as possible. At the same time,
we believe contingency planning is only one element
of NATO’s Article 5 preparedness. (S/REL NATO) POINTS ABOUT PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF PLANS
(FOR USE AT POST’S DISCRETION) -- The United States believes strongly that such planning
should not be discussed publicly. These military plans
are classified at the NATO SECRET level. -- The Alliance has many public diplomacy tools at its
disposal. Contingency planning is not one of them. What
we should do is explore other public steps for demonstrating
the vitality of Article 5, such as exercises, defense
investment, and partnerships. -- Public discussion of contingency plans undermines
their military value, giving insight into NATO’s planning
processes. This weakens the security of all Allies. -- A public discussion of contingency planning would
also likely lead to an unnecessary increase in NATO-Russia
tensions, something we should try to avoid as we work
to improve practical cooperation in areas of common
NATO-Russia interest. -- We hope that we can count on your support in keeping
discussions on NATO contingency planning out of the
public domain. -- We should work together to develop strategies - to
include activities such as exercises, defense investment,
and partnerships - for demonstrating to our publics that Article 5’s value ultimately lies in NATO’s capabilities and deterrence, rather than specific planning. ¶4. (C) Washington strongly believes that the details of
NATO,s contingency plans should remain in confidential
channels. However, recent press coverage of NATO decisions
regarding possible contingency planning options for the
Baltic region may lead to additional media inquiries.
If necessary, posts may use the points below in responding to STATE 00007810 002 OF 002 public queries. (U) PUBLIC/PRESS INQUIRIES -- IF ASKED: -- NATO does not discuss specific plans. -- As a matter of course, however, NATO engages in
planning in order to be as prepared as possible for
whatever situations might arise, particularly as relates
to its ability to carrying out its Article 5 commitments. -- Plans are not static. NATO is constantly reviewing and
revising its plans. -- NATO planning is an internal process designed to make
the Alliance as prepared as possible for future contingencies.
It is not “aimed” at any other country. -- President Obama acknowledged this when he said at Prague
that “We must work together as NATO members so that we have
contingency plans in place to deal with new threats, wherever
they may come from.” CLINTON