DND downplays operational impact of Open Skies restrictions by Russia, contrasting the DoD

(U) Canadian and American airmen load wet film in an observation camera
 Photo by Public Affairs Photographer Warrant Officer Robert Granger,
Director General Public Affairs, Ottawa. (IS2007-6013)

Exercising their Open Skies Treaty right, the Russian Federation performed overflights of Eastern Canada at the end of August 2016. The Treaty on Open Skies is a transparency / arms control and verification agreement between 34 countries, which Canada and Russia are signatory to.  Since there was no press release put out by the Department of National Defence about the overflight, I requested an interview to discuss the recent overflight, and other Open Skies topics, with a representative of the Department of National Defence.  Lieutenant-Colonel Veillette, Section Head of Strategic Joint Staff, Arms Control and Verification 4, agreed to meet and speak with me, on the record.

As background to this, you may recall the testimony before congress of Admiral Cecil Haney (Commander, U.S. Strategic Command) February 24th 2016 at the meeting of the U.S. House Armed Services Committee on U.S. Strategic Forces Posture, if not here it is. You may remember Marine Corps Lt. Gen. Vincent Stewart (Director of the Defense Intelligence Agency) speaking at the March 2nd 2016 House Armed Services Committee hearing on World Wide Threats; if not, here it is.  You may remember Mr. Brian P. Mckeon (Principal Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Policy, Department of Defense) speaking at the April 14th 2016 Senate Armed Services Committee hearing on Missile Defeat Posture and Strategy of the United States; if not, here it is.  To sum up, they all spoke rather negatively about Russia and the Open Skies Treaty, painting the Russians as abusing the spirit of the agreement and using it to conduct "foundational intelligence", as well as slamming the Russians' plans to upgrade to an "electro-optical sensor" from wet film.  Perhaps you recall their depiction of the restrictions to Open Skies flights over Russia, phrased to suggest the flights were blocked, when they were not.  Perhaps you remember that Russia was being accused of being in contravention of the treaty.  Then there was the 2016 United States Department of State Compliance Report (here) that outlined what were supposed to be major violations of the treaty in 2015.  There were threats of retaliation, described at length by the House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Ed Royce, Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes and Armed Services Committee Chairman Mac Thornberry in a letter to President Obama here.

The Russians came back to Canada for their most recent overflight, with the newly painted, and digital electro-optical sensor-outfitted, Russian Federation Open Skies-approved Tupolev Tu-154M RF-85655.  It was the first Canadian overflight by the Russians to use their new electro-optical sensor, approved by the OSCC in June 2016.  One week prior, the Russians performed an overflight of the United States, with the same digital electro-optical sensor, despite the objections raised in the spring before the congress and threats from congressmen.  Regarding what some call "advanced sensors" used on the Russian open Skies missions, Lieutenant-Colonel Veillette did not use US Lt.Gen Stewart's "Polaroid vs 1080P" comparison, voiced on March 2nd 2016 before the House Armed Services Committee hearing on World Wide Threats. Canadian Lieutenant-Colonel Veillette stated:

"30cm resolution for digital, 30cm for wet film; it's like, what's heavier? 5 pounds of iron or 5 pounds of (lead)? 30cm is 30cm." 

The Lieutenant-Colonel, in stark contrast with US officials, is clearly not worried about the new digital electro-optical sensors, which were framed as "advanced sensors" by the American media, fueled by US Government officials' statements.  Before being approved, the sensors were vetted by a multi-national team representing the nations of the OSCC; 30cm resolution is the treaty-mandated imagery resolution limit, both digital and wet film cameras must adhere to the same standards in order to be used on board an Open Skies plane.  There is no significant intelligence advantage that is provided by digital cameras, other than post processing of the original image, removing the need to process hundreds of wet film images and create print duplicates.  Changing the type of sensor from analog to digital is akin to a professional photographer switching from using a 35mm DSLR camera to a digital DSLR camera, assuming both gave the same resolution image.

When asked about Russian restrictions on the Open Skies Treaty overflights over the Russian Federation, and if they impacted the observation missions the RCAF routinely flies over the Russian Federation in those same restricted areas, Lieutenant-Colonel Veillette stated ...

". . . somewhat, but at the end I don't think the treaty is degraded by any shape or form . . . operationally it makes things a little bit more complicated, but not totally (insurmountable), there's always a way."  

Specifically on the topic of the flight distance restriction of 500km imposed over Kaliningrad:

"If I cannot see everything in 500km it doesn't mean I cannot go a 2nd time and do another 500km, if I wanted to do 1000km there; so in the end, is it degraded? Somewhat, because I would rather do it once."

...which, again, is a far cry from the Pentagon / DoD narrative which depicted the Russian-imposed restrictions as being heinous acts, stopping just short of suggesting the United States should pull out of treaty because of them.

United States Marine Corps Lieutenant general Lt. Gen. Stewart, the Director of the US Defence Information Agency, accused the Russians of spying on critical infrastructure and gathering "foundational intelligence"; suggesting that some sites being photographed in the United States by the Russians aren't military in nature, and taking observation photos of them is taking advantage of the treaty for espionage purposes.  I asked RCAF Lieutenant-Colonel Veillette about Russian Open Skies overflights taking aerial photography of infrastructure, power facilities, and other areas of seemingly questionable military value in Canada:

"people have the misconception because we're flying (a) military airplane to do those missions, that (we) are solely looking at military resources . . . every country who flies Open Skies is not solely flying over (military sites)."

Many non-military sites are valuable intelligence targets that would indicate an imminent threat to Russia; rail yards, transportation hubs, factories, power stations... all have military value, and if Canada was preparing for war, they would each show changes.  Green vehicles being moved by rail.  Machines of war being produced at domestic facilities.  Fighter jets being lined up at alternate airfields.  It isn't sufficient to just look at military bases, and Canada doesn't limit our Open Skies Treaty overflights to purely military targets in Russia either. (more here)

I was very pleased to have the opportunity to speak with Lieutenant-Colonel Veillette, and hope I will be able to do so again.  As the Section Head of SJS ACV 4, the unit which performs the Open Skies overflights by Canada, facilitates Russian overflights of Canada, and facilitates transit of Russian Open Skies missions en-route to the United States, his in-depth insight and experience clarified several topics of interest.

Cutting through misinformation about the Open Skies Treaty

There's a little-known ( in my circles anyway ) international treaty called The Treaty on Open Skies that the United States, Canada, Russia and 31 other countries are signatory to, which allows any of the member states to give a short notice that they will fly an approved plane with approved cameras of limited resolution over another signatory country, and take pictures of areas where they are suspicious might be hiding something of military value; or to establish a baseline that can be monitored in future flights. To ensure no funny business occurs, qualified members of the observed nation are on board the plane too, to verify the pre-approved cameras and sensors are aimed at what they should be, they are flying at the right height, and generally nothing fishy is going on. When the air crew of the observer plane arrives in the country which will be observed, they bring with them a "flight plan" and "mission plan" (these are the proper terms defined in the treaty). They outline what they plan to be taking pictures of and what route they are proposing. There are some basic logistical constraints; like where airports are where they can refuel, and the maximum distance allowed, but generally the requesting nation can ask to fly anywhere in the country. Once the route is tabled, members of both countries negotiate. When both parties come to an agreement on the route, the flight takes place.  Open Skies Treaty missions happen routinely over all signatory countries, but many do not publicly talk about them.  It is actually in the US Air Force Open Skies operations manual (Section 4.2.1.1.6.7) to not actively disclose information to the public about Open Skies flights, not perform any public outreach, and only answer questions when asked.

The Open Skies idea was originally floated by the US President Dwight Eisenhower as a way to defuse tensions with the Soviet Union by levelling the playing field, to ensure everyone had similar imagery to base their strategic decisions on, and make sure calm heads prevailed.  All countries would fly joint missions over each other's air space to reassure themselves that the other isn't doing anything that would threaten their national security and safety.  This is ultimately the spirit of the agreement; stop by with short notice, check that everything is in order, we're not preparing to bomb or invade you, and we'll do the same.



The Open Skies Treaty was revived by George HW Bush in 1989 and signed by the initial signatory nations in 1992.  In 2002 the treaty came into force, and nations began overflights.



In the past few years the narrative being projected out of enclaves of the DoD and State Department has changed.

During the February 24th 2016 meeting of the  U.S. House Armed Services Committee on U.S. Strategic Forces Posture testimony was provided by Admiral Cecil Haney, Commander, U.S. Strategic Command.  The rhetoric from some factions in Washington is no longer favourable to the Open Skies Treaty, and I am quite certain it isn't for the reasons they claim.

At 22:00 the term "Electro Optical Sensor" is spoken of by the Chairman seemingly like it is a super-weapon.  It's a fancy word for digital camera.  Nothing more.  Admiral Haney mentions that they will be reviewing the pros and cons of the new electro-optical sensor the Russians want to use in the Open Skies overflights of the United States... but neglects to mention the same camera is being used over Europe currently.
At 55:08  Admiral Haney Suggests that Russia has no overhead capability to photograph the United States without the Open Skies Treaty flights... really?

(U) February 24th 2016 meeting of the  U.S. House Armed Services Committee on U.S. Strategic Forces Posture

On March 2nd 2016 the House Armed Services Committee hearing on World Wide Threats was interviewing Marine Corps Lt. Gen. Vincent Stewart, director of the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) where he said

"I've got to keep this really simple for me. This Open Skies discussion is think Polaroids in the 1960s, 70s, and 80s versus 1080 high definition capability as we go to a digital environment. The things you can see, the amount of data you can collect, the things that you can do with post-processing using digital techniques, allows Russia in my opinion to get incredible foundational intelligence on critical infrastructure, bases, ports, all of our facilities. So my perspective, it gives them a significant advantage. And yes, we both can use the same techniques but I have a great concern about the quality of the imagery, the quantity of the imagery, the ability to do post-processing of digital imagery, and what that allows them to see as foundational intelligence that I would love to have personally and I would love to deny the Russians having that capability."

At 48:00 Congressman Turner, Ohio (R) essentially states that the US doesn't need the treaty because their space assets have extraordinary resolution.  That's the most truth I've heard yet.

The objections of the Lt. Gen. Vincent Stewart are disingenuous, at best, considering the capabilities of the United States' space-borne assets and their own Open Skies flights over Russia.  The US Military can see anything, anywhere, in Russia, in relatively short order, overhead, or at an angle, without warning, and without the Open Skies Treaty, using satellites.

(U) March 2nd 2016  House Armed Services Committee hearing on World Wide Threats

In a beautiful bit of committee theatre, Mr. Brian P. Mckeon, Principal Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Policy, DoD is grilled by a Republican congressman suggesting that the Americans are being taken advantage of by the Russians who are overflying the Unites States with impunity and taking pictures that will tip the scales of power. What isn't evident is both Mr. Mckeon and the congressman's previous statements rabidly oppose the Open Skies Treaty. This is hardly a bipartisan or objective discussion.

From the April 14 2016 Senate Armed Services Committee hearing on Missile Defeat Posture and Strategy of the United States (relating to budget) at 40:44 Mr. Brian P. Mckeon, Principal Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Policy, Department of Defense starts to be questioned regarding Open Skies, and at ~42:00 he states clearly that the Open Skies will be adhered to but nothing further provided; seemingly regardless of the spirit of the agreement.

(U) April 14th 2016 Senate Armed Services Committee hearing on Missile Defeat Posture and Strategy of the United States 

Let me state this more succinctly:

• The American military can see every inch of Russia (and the world) with its space-borne electro-optical sensors, multi-spectral, and synthetic aperture radar, mounted on secret spy satellites, which can and do monitor anywhere, all the time, without any notification to Russia or warning to "cover up" deployed assets.
• The American military does not want the Russian military to be able to overfly the United States with a treaty-limited-resolution electro-optical sensor, at predefined heights, on a predefined route, with prior notification, with a camera that is already being used to fly over the European Union (without objection from any EU government, BTW).
• The American military clearly feels it has out-grown the Open Skies Treaty; it states openly it doesn't get as much intel from its own flights over Russia, as Russia gets from overflying the United States.
• Imagery collected from Open Skies Treaty cameras must be, and is, shared across all 32 nations who are signatory to the treaty.  Imagery collected by US Spy Satellites is not shared with anyone, unless it is redacted and absolutely necessary.  If Russia spots something odd during an Open Skies flight it can share it with 32 countries; the picture cannot be refuted due to the protocols involved in taking the picture and developing the wet film; it's bulletproof.
• The American National Reconnaissance Office (NRO) has spent untold BILLIONS of dollars deploying spy satellites with bleeding edge sensors.  For the Russians to fly over in an old converted cosmonaut trainer plane, and collect good-enough imagery that they want under the treaty's defined framework, has got to sting.

It's unfortunate the American people are largely being briefed by half-cocked, partisan, ill informed, poorly researched, media organisations who don't take the time to think about what they are broadcasting or writing.  There's a lot more to the story than what is being covered by the mainstream media, and I think part of that is because the United States Government has ensured that since 2002 the public has been kept in the dark about this treaty, so nobody understands its nuances.

Here are some recent articles covering the same topic, do you think they're well researched?

http://thehill.com/policy/defense/283647-gop-chairmen-to-obama-dont-allow-russian-spy-flights-over-us

http://freebeacon.com/national-security/obama-warned-enabling-enhanced-russian-spying/

I'm not critical of all articles published about Open Skies;  Leore Ben-Chorin and Steven Pifer of The Brookings Institute wrote a very well thought out piece on Open Skies earlier this year.

http://www.brookings.edu/blogs/order-from-chaos/posts/2016/03/08-open-skies-treaty-benchorin-pifer

Here is an interview with Diana Marvin, of the State Department, on the 20th Anniversary of the Open Skies Treaty  (Published on Mar 23, 2012)

Here's Hillary Clinton in 2010 stating clearly that the way forward is to switch from using wet film to digital electro-optical sensors.  The Russians have gotten there first, and have been using digital sensors over film in Europe overflights for years.