Georgia is blocking all Open Skies Treaty flights, unilaterally, and nobody will report on it.

Georgian Coat of Arms

I alluded to this in one of yesterday's blog posts, but there was little uptake, and it was buried in a Voice of America rant, so I'll spell it out again.

In 2012 the Georgian government published their intent to violate the Open Skies Treaty if they were ever given the chance. Due to their lengthy disputes with Russia over he regions of Abkhazia and South Ossetia, Georgia unilaterally decided to prohibit any overflights by Russian Open Skies Treaty flights over their territory. There is no provision in the Open Skies Treaty that would allow that, for any reason. Russia requested, through the yearly routine quota allocation process, to overfly Georgia in 2018, because a spot was made available to them by another signatory who did not renew their overflights of Georgia setting up the Russian Federation for the request, Georgia refused to sign the entire 2018 flight quota; they did exactly what they said they'd do. All states have yearly quotas under the Open Skies Treaty; generally, the more you overfly, the more you're overflown. Below is a copy of the memo from the Georgian government and link to their web site. Regardless of what Russia has done, refusing all overflights of another country remains completely in contravention of the treaty, and is a massive escalation over denying flights along a 10 km x 250 km strip of land between Georgia and Russia. Russia justifies their 10 km x 250 km exclusion zone by their interpretation of the treaty, which does clearly state that a 10 km buffer between signatory and non-signatory countries should be maintained for Open Skies Treaty flight plans (which I explained previously). While the borders that Russia recognizes are different than the borders the United States, Georgia, and many other countries recognize, these are diplomatic issues that can be solved through diplomacy, and do not require halting an entire treaty unilaterally at the whim of one signatory.

Georgia Ceases Open Skies Treaty Vis-a-Vis Russia
Civil Georgia, Tbilisi / 2012-04-06 03:32
(original)

Georgia said it had ceased its obligations vis-à-vis Russia under the Open Skies Treaty, which allows its 34 participating states to gather information about each other's military forces through unarmed observation flights.
The move was in a response to Russia's decision two years ago to impose restrictions on flight path for aerial observation over its territory, in particular over the areas adjacent to Georgia's occupied regions of Abkhazia and South Ossetia, the Georgian Foreign Ministry said in a statement on April 5.
The treaty, which went into force in 2002, contains a clause according to which "the flight path of an observation aircraft shall not be closer than... ten kilometres from the border with an adjacent State that is not a State Party."
"Russia refused to allow the observation flights over its territory to fly within 10 kilometers of the occupied regions of Georgia, asserting that those regions constituted states, which were non-parties to the Treaty," the Georgian Foreign Ministry said. "The Russian Federation has deliberately and improperly restricted the right of all other States Parties under the Open Skies Treaty, denying them full territorial access to the Russian territory as required by the Treaty."
"It is obvious that the Russian Federation cannot unilaterally alter the geographical coverage of the multilateral Treaty by purporting to recognize a new entity on the territory of a State Party. Nor can Russia compel other States Parties to accept this illegal recognition [of Abkhazia and South Ossetia]," the Georgian Foreign Ministry said.
For two years, the Georgian Foreign Ministry said, Tbilisi had been trying in vain together with its partner states to make Russia "return to full compliance with the treaty obligations".
It also said that Georgia's decision to cease its obligations under the treaty in respect of Russia "means that Georgia will not allow any observation flights with the participation of the Russian Federation over the territory of Georgia and Georgia will not conduct observation flights over the territory of the Russian Federation."
The Foreign Ministry stressed that Tbilisi would continue fulfilling its obligations under the Open Skies Treaty with respect of all other participating states.
In November, 2011 following some NATO-member states Georgia too announced about stopping sharing military information under the Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe (CFE) with Russia; Moscow suspended its participation in CFE in 2007.

There is no reason for 32 signatory Open Skies Treaty countries to request flights that are within the 10km x 250km area that is contentious, and that is the most obvious way to avoid "illegal recognition" of the international boundaries of Georgia. That is the status quo, and what has been done with Crimea already, which completely lets the air out of Georgia's argument. You will notice that since Russia annexed Crimea, 33 signatory states have not asked Ukraine (or Russia) for permission to overfly Crimea. This is because the conflicts in Crimea, Abkhazia, and South Ossetia, have absolutely nothing to do with the Open Skies Treaty - and all the signatories understand that.

Let me venture you out on the limb where I'm sitting.

It was the United States made their quota available to the Russian Federation, the same quota that the Russian Federation is now using to request an overflight over Georgia. Georgia is blocking all Open Skies Treaty flights by all countries, including Russia over the United States, and all signatory nations, as they said they would do in 2012, if they ever got the chance, which the United States provided them.

In my view, the United States figured out how to kill the Open Skies Treaty and did so at the end of 2017, by proxy, through Georgia. Did they tell Georgia to do it, like a US-run puppet government? They didn't have to. Georgia said they would do exactly this in 2012.

The best part is, they got away with it. It's September and the 1st Western article to mention an "impasse" was published today by DefenceNews.com, owned by Sightline Media Group, and they still won't publish why or what this "impasse" is.

Bravo.

2018-09-15 Footnote:Thomas Moore suggested my understanding of what has prevented all Open Skies Treaty flights by all countries may not be accurate. I'm open to being proven wrong, but I'm still trying to figure out and reconcile what Mr Moore's interpretation is, what mine is, and how they intersect. With some luck, maybe the State Department will come clean and explain how for nine months they haven't mentioned the lack of Open Skies Treaty flights anywhere.

Glad to host Under Secretary for Arms Control and International Security Andrea Thompson on the #TbilisiInternationalConference. We discussed our excellent strategic partnership and unprecedented level of cooperation 🇬🇪🇺🇸 @UnderSecT @StateDept pic.twitter.com/MtRNZR1oJv

— David Zalkaliani (@DZalkaliani) 11 September 2018

Debunking Anti-Open Skies Treaty Propaganda, Digital Electro-Optical Sensor Edition

The Open Skies Treaty allows signatories to the treaty to overfly, with short notice, using agreed upon planes, pre-approved crews, joint flight crews, and take pictures with treaty-limited sensors. I use the term sensor rather than camera, because the treaty allows for pre-approved synthetic aperture radar, infra-red, and the visual spectrum to be observed and captured for posterity. Currenly there is no plane equipped with synthetic aperture radar, no synthetic aperture radar is certified for use under the treaty, and none are in the queue to be certified either.

It should also go without saying that there is a faction of the American government who wants to kill the Open Skies Treaty; a treaty proposed during the Cold War, and rebooted by then President of the United States George HW Bush in 1992. The treaty came into force in 2002, and there have been hundreds of flights conducted by representatives of 34 different nations..

In 2016 VAdm Haney (then Commander of the United States Strategic Command) and LtGen Stewart (Director of the Defense Intelligence Agency and Commander for the Joint Functional Component Command for Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance) went before the House Armed Services Committee (HASC), and repeated misinformation they'd been provided, to the people of the committee, and by extension misled the people of the United States.

LtGen Stewart said on March 2nd 2016 :

"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." (YouTube video)

No Sir, let's not slander the Open Skies Treaty approved wet-film cameras by suggesting their resolution is in any way similar to imagery captured by hanging an old Polaroid camera out the window of a plane and snapping a picture. The United States and other countries use some of the highest-end wet-film framing cameras on the market, specifically made for surveying and aerial observation, which capture the treaty-imposed maximum resolution of 30cm, in the visual spectrum. "Post-processing" could mean anything, but it's possibly referring to the inclusion of location metadata and the ability for the Russians to use digital images like anyone would with the inherent advantages of a digital medium. You can tile them easier than you could with wet-film, overlay other map data, and you can share them across departments much easier than with wet-film, which requires physical access to the prints, among other practical hurdles that can be solved by any digital product. None of that constitutes a violation of the treaty, or even the spirit of the treaty; Russia implemented their digital-electro optical sensor faster.

In 2016, specifically because of the misleading statements being made by American officials, I interviewed the Canadian Lieutenant colonel who is responsible for the Arms Control and Verification team that conducts Canadian Open Skies Treaty flights over Russia, facilitates Russian flights over Canada, and arranges logistical support for Russian transit flights to the United States. It was abundantly clear from our discussion that there was no problem with the Russian digital electro-optical sensor;

"30cm resolution for digital, 30cm for wet film ... 30cm is 30cm." -LCol Steeve Veillette, RCAF SJS ACV

While the Open Skies Treaty was thought of in the 1950s, signed in the 1990s, and in place since 2002, technology has come a long way. Thankfully the authors of the treaty future-proofed it somewhat, having the forsight to include provisions for visual spectrum cameras, Infra-Red, and Synthetic Aperture Radar, and still leave the list open ended, allowing for future sensors to be proposed and wrapped in. Over ten years ago the United States was leading the charge to digitize the Open Skies process, but Russia completed engineering, testing, and certification of their digital electro-optical sensor first. In order to certify the camera, 22 nations needed to approve the design was to the specifications laid out in the treaty, such as the camera was tamper proof, as well as meeting treaty-mandated maximum resolution provisions in the treaty. This means that the Russian camera, on the Russian Open Skies Treaty designated plane, conforms to all resolution limits and restrictions in the treaty. It provides advantages that are inherent in digital (no processing chemicals, can make duplicates of the images with two clicks of a mouse, etc..) but no quality difference in the imagery. That is the ruling of the governing body of the treaty, the OSCC, of which the United States has a seat.

American political opponents to the Open Skies Treaty call the Russian switch from wet-film to digital an upgrade, and claim it gives the Russians an unacceptable advantage over the United States of America, suggesting the quality of the images, and resulting intelligence gained from them, is superior to the status quo. This complaint is spurious at best, since the United States is actively developing their own digital electro-optical sensor that will be extremely similar in capabilities, identical in fact, to the Russian sensor they're crying foul about now. Further, the digital electro-optical sensor (ahem, camera) has been certified by the OSCC to be compliant to all the same restrictions as the wet-film camera.

As for the accusations that Russia would gain "foundational intelligence" with the digital electro-optical sensor; all of the countries who are signatory to the Open Skies Treaty gain intelligence from observation flights. Suggesting anything else is rather dishonest.

The OC-135 planes that are used by the USAF to conduct observation flights are falling appart, and I'm not sure how they haven't been grounded for flight safety issues yet. Reports of the OC-135 being incapable of landing at all Russian airstrips that are allowed in the Open Skies Treaty for refuelling are true, therefore their range is limited to where they can fly to from designated airports. A different plane capable of landing on less well maintained airstrips would benefit the United States. For example, in order to fly observation missions in one area of Russia's North, refuelling in Tiksi Airfield is required. Unfortunately, due to frost heaves and other maintenance issues, the OC-135 is unable to land on the paved, but rough, runway. This is where partners are useful to the United States; USAF members tagged along on a Canadian Open Skies Treaty flight to Tiksi July 4th to 9th 2016. The adept RCAF crew and rough and tumble CC-130J Hercules can land on gravel, and had no issue with the rough runway. What I believe should be publicized to a much greater degree is the US isn't in this treaty alone, it has 32 allies that fly missions over Russia who are required to share their imagery with anyone who asks. It's extremely infrequent that I see any mention in the American press that the treaty is multilateral, and not like the START or other treaties that only have Russian and the United States at the table. Maybe it's unfamiliar territory, to discuss a 34-way treaty where everyone has an equal say, but I do think the American news media is glossing over the multinational aspect of the Open Skies Treaty.

Of the two outstanding items characterized as violations by the Russian Federation by the United States State Department Arms Control and Verification department, which are documented in their yearly report (which is not part of their Open Skies Treaty responsibilities, but they publish one yearly all the same) one has to to with the border region near Georgia, and the other to do with Kaliningrad.

(report: https://www.state.gov/documents/organization/280774.pdf)

In April of 2012 Georgia announced to the OSCC that it would no longer cooperate with Russia in the Open Skies Treaty due to their involvement in the Georgian "breakaway" republics of South Ossetia and Abkhazia, which are not recognized as separate countries by Georgia or the United States, but at the time the OSCC didn't really address the issue, and the State Department didn't mention in their yearly compliance report that Georgia was in violation of the treaty, because nothing of any importance had been blocked or violated yet.  Fast forward to 2017; Russia requested, in the appropriate OSCC meeting at the end of the year when they define the next years quotas regarding who will fly over who under the treaty, that they fly over Georgia. Georgia refused, as they said they would in 2012, which is a violation of the Open Skies Treaty. Since the OSCC requires unanimous consent regarding the quotas of flights to be flown for 2018, and Georgia refuses to do so, the entire treaty is currently on hold, and no countries are able to overfly anyone.

(Georgia background: https://old.civil.ge/eng/article.php?id=24634)

Because Russia considers South Ossetia and Abkhazia independent countries, confirming to the Open Skies Treaty, are prohibiting flight plans within 10km of the border with either, since they are not signatories to the Open Skies Treaty. Georgia and the United States consider them to still be part of Georgia, therefore no limit is required in their eyes. This border dispute is far outside the scope of the Open Skies Treaty, and the slice of land that cannot be overflown is so small, while very significant to Georgia, I cannot see any reason for this to impact the overall treaty. If the US really wants to see something in that strip, they can with their national technical means already; claiming there is something of interest in that 10km slice is disingenuous. Opponents flaunt this a slippery slope, and that Russia must return to *full* compliance of the treaty in the eyes of the US, but I don't see how that's possible with the complicated South Ossetia and Abkhazia issue. It would make sense to me that American opponents of the treaty know it's impossible for Russia to return to compliance with this outstanding unrelated issue, and are using it as proof that Russia is unwilling to cooperate, and a reason for the United States to withdraw from the Open Skies Treaty.

The second outstanding violation the United States accuses Russia of is limiting the flight distance over Kaliningrad to 500km, which the US says is a violation of the agreement, and Russia says they are doing within the agreement for flight safety.

"Some of our partners, who have the right to make observation flights at a maximum distance of 5,500 kilometres, used this right over the Kaliningrad Region, flying over it far and wide, which created problems in the limited airspace of the region and hindered the operation of Khrabrovo International Airport. We did not manage to convince our partners to show a reasonable degree of restraint. This is why we had to minimise spending by restricting the maximum flight distance over the Kaliningrad Region to 500 kilometres. This is not contrary to the OST or the signatories’ subsequent decisions. I would like to point out that this has not changed the total flight distance of 5,500 km and hence coverage of Russia’s territory. The flight range of 500 km over the Kaliningrad Region is sufficient for observing any part of the region, even the most distant areas, during observation flights. In other words, this restriction has not affected observation effectiveness."
source: http://www.russianembassy.org/article/excerpts-from-the-briefing-by-foreign-ministry-spokesperson-maria-zakharova-37

Significantly, I had been told this same story, off the record, by American officials, so I can confirm the story from two sources, one of which is public.

Kaliningrad is roughly the same size as Connecticut. Under the treaty an observation flight can take pictures over 5,500km of Russia; but the intent is to fly across Russia, not stay within one spot and photograph every bush and every tree in a single area. Technically, there is nothing to say the 5,500km can't be spent in one area, but in practical terms this wreaks havoc on commercial airline operation, especially over Kaliningrad. Flying a flight path exclusively over Kaliningrad (think of trying to burn thousands of miles over CT zig-zagging a lawnmower pattern, all day) isn't exactly within the spirit of the agreement, but was technically legal - which is why Russia imposed a unilateral 500km limit after not receiving support at the OSCC for their objections.

Opponents of the treaty use the term "restriction" when referring to Russia's two limits imposed on flights in Russia, but the English word restriction is ambiguous enough to mean different things to different people. Restriction in this case means being allowed to overfly Kaliningrad with strings attached, not blocking all flights over the Kaliningrad enclave, as it has been portrayed in the media. Likewise, the 10km wide strip of land near Georgia that depending who you ask is, or isn't, subject to the Open Skies Treaty is being blocked, but justly in Russia's view.  These are diplomatic issues that are best handled by the State Department who have brought the number of treaty violations down to only two, whereas years ago they had at least five - all others have been solved through diplomatic means.

Please let me know if I've missed anything!

Suggested reading:

"Modernize Open Skies"

   by George P. Shultz, Sidney D. Drell, and Christopher Stubbs

   NY Times Op-Ed, 2012-03-25
   https://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/26/opinion/26iht-edshultz26.html

"Intelligence and Security Implications of the Treaty on Open Skies, report of the Select Committee on Intelligence"
  United States Senate, 1993-04-19
  https://www.intelligence.senate.gov/sites/default/files/publications/10344.pdf

US Space-Based Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance
  Maj Brian Crothers, USAF; Maj Jeff Lanphear, USAF; Maj Brian Garino, USAF;
  Maj Paul P. Konyha III, USAF; and Maj Edward P. Byrne, USAF
  http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/space/au-18-2009/au-18_chap13.pdf

Georgia Ceases Open Skies Treaty Vis-à-Vis Russia
  Civil Georgia, Tbilisi / 2012-04-06
  https://old.civil.ge/eng/article.php?id=24634

CRS Insight: The #OpenSkiesTreaty: Issues in the Current Debate2017-08-10 #IN10502
  https://www.everycrsreport.com/files/20170810_IN10502_018968bc34d51c43d60616bb9c0f5770266f4e2c.html

United States Department of State Arms Control and Verification compliance report April 2018
  https://www.state.gov/documents/organization/280774.pdf

Voice of America, PolygraphInfo, and the problem with Open Skies Treaty disinformation.

How frustrated am I?  Extremely. Why? I had a lengthy correspondence with one of the Voice of America's award winning journalists, Fatima Tlisova, and it didn't really end well. Ms Tlisova is a former Russian dissident who sought refuge in the United States in 2007, after being repeatedly attacked and poisoned by Putin's goons, and even accused by Infowars of being a CIA asset in 2013; a dubious honour indeed! Ms Tlisova wrote this piece, and despite my best efforts explaining the background of the issues, that she was being exploited as a pawn by government factions with underlying special interests, without the well being of Americans in their mind, the resulting article is only marginally better than how it began. This is not from a lack of trying; Ms Tlisova was gracious and accepting of my criticism, and seemed interested in the truth, but the final edit was made by her editor, and I'm not thrilled with the result. Let's not dwell on the past, let's take apart the current article, as it has been edited by the (nameless) Voice of America editor.

It's been many years that I've been following the Open Skies Treaty flights of the RuAF over Canada and the United States, as well as the flights Canada flies over Russia. I've also been following the problems it has had, mainly between Russia and the United States, and the tit-for-tat retaliation the latest round of threats and posturing has brought on. I was extremely surprised to see an article published by the Voice of America disparaging the treaty, out of the blue, mid-August.

“One thing is completely clear. The State Department does not fabricate charges of Russian arms control violations. They typically do the opposite,” an expert told us. Read the #FactCheck on the Open Skies Treaty https://t.co/TcxpCCHmKs

— Polygraph (@PolygraphInfo) August 23, 2018

Please follow this link and read it over, we're going to pull it apart. Got it? Good.

The stated purpose of Polygraphinfo, by Voice of America, is to debunk disinformation from the Russians.  That's a noble pursuit, one I unquestionably agree with, and even encourage. Well, that is until it starts spitting out disinfomation itself, from factions of the American government, but I'm getting ahead of myself. Have a boo at this 1982 paper from Duke University, and this 2017 article from a  former VOA journalist for background on The Voice of America itself.

Let me just right off the bat re-write this entire article. Yes, the whole thing; it's really really simple to make it completely and unquestionably accurate, to a level that even the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs would approve. Can't believe it? Watch me!

Russia says they are in full compliance with the Treaty on Open Skies; True or Flase?

FALSE

According to the United States Department of State, Russia is in violation of two provisions of the treaty; one regarding a 500km flight distance restriction over Kaliningrad, and another requiring that flight plans stay 10km inside Russian territory along its border with the Georgian regions of South Ossetia and Abkhazia

ref: 2018 Report on Adherence to and Compliance With Arms Control, Nonproliferation, and Disarmament Agreements and Commitments; Bureau of Arms Control, Verification and Compliance; Washington, DC (April 2018)

It's really that simple. Say up front this is all based on the US State Department, and is only their view; stop speaking for the OSCC or 32 other countries, the US State Department does not speak for them.

For some unknown reason, the Voice of America wants to re-hash American propaganda that I've already debunked, in 2016, especially about a digital electo-optical sensor that she claimed was "illegal" and of too high a resolution to be allowed under the treaty. I told Ms Tlisova that if I didn't know better she'd been given an old slide deck from LtGen Stewart himself, or the staffer who penned it for him. Why? Because the talking points contained in the article are kissing cousins to the talking points provided to the USMC 3-Star General, so he could parrot them to Congress in the spring of 2016. That testimony, along with that of Adm. Haney (the then commander of USSTRATCOM), compelled me to request an interview with the section head of the Royal Canadian Air Force team that conducts Canadian overflights over Russia, on the record, and debunk almost everything they said, which I published via my blog in the fall of 2016. 

Let's do this paragraph by paragraph.

Russia is in violation of the Treaty on Open Skies, because this report said so?

"The claim is false – Russia’s violations of the Treaty are documented in the annual compliance reports that are publicly available on the U.S. State Department website." -VOA

The United States is one or 34 countries who are signatory to the Open Skies Treaty. Rather than name them all, the article glosses over how many by grouping and naming only a few "NATO allies, Eastern European members of the former Warsaw Pact, Russia, Ukraine, Belarus and Georgia."

Let me spell that out a little better. Here are all the countries who are signatory, because they are all equally important to the treaty, and are above being skimmed over.

Belarus	The French Republic	Kingdom of the Netherlands	Turkey
Belgium	The Republic of Georgia	Norway	Ukraine
Bosnia and Herzegovina	Germany	Poland	The United Kingdom
Bulgaria	Greece	Portugal	The United States
Canada	Hungary	Romania
Croatia	Iceland	The Russian Federation
The Czech Republic	Italy	Slovakia
Denmark	Latvia	Slovenia
Estonia	Lithuania	Spain
Finland	Luxembourg	Sweden

There is no Canadian-nice way to say this; there is no special designation in the treaty for the United States. There is no head of the table that the United States sits at in Vienna, where the Open Skies Consultative Commission (OSCC) is located. The OSCC is made of of 34 state parties that are all working together on equal footing. Each votes for provisions of the treaty. There is dissent among allies, and adversaries; it's a democracy. The United States has one vote, out of thirty four. The United States can write their "compliance report" and publish it, and I'm glad they do since I use it as a historical record of the past year of activities, but I also know it's purely an American document, an American point of view, with no ratification from any of the 33 other countries, no approvals from anyone else before it was published, and no talk of what countries were in favour, or against, the American official positions stated in it. It is not an official document from the OSCC. I don't believe everything the American government tells me, with good reason. That doesn't make me anti-American, that makes me Canadian, and highly skeptical of anything that is stated by the American government. If history is an indication, you should be too. The most patriotic thing I can do is question what I'm being told by a foreign government, demand proof, and background information. The Voice of American tells you that the "truth" is in the American report, that is unilateral, and only from one of the 34 countries who are signatory to the treaty. That is ridiculous, American-centric, self-serving, egotistical twaddle.
So no, Voice of America, the "proof" is not in the State Department document; that is the opinion of a part of the American Government that does not represent the rest of the signatory countries.
Mileage may vary. Let's move on.

Altitude restriction over Moscow? 

"The U.S. says the Russian government sets distance limits on flights over the Kaliningrad Oblast, imposes altitude restrictions for the Moscow region, denies permission for Open Skies aircraft to fly within 10 kilometers of the Russian border with South Ossetia and Abkhazia." -VOA

This is where it gets interesting. While the article links to a compliance report, it links to last year's compliance report, which has been superseded since April 2018, four months before the VOA article was published. Using the latest compliance report would have removed one of three alleged-violations by the Russians, as reported by the 2017 State Department compliance report. Was this an oversight? Was this article prepared last year, but never published? Was the VOA provided a draft of this article with leftovers from previous talking points? I don't know, but I pointed it out, and the editor who reviewed my comments at the Voice of America declined to remove it.
Was this a talking point the VOA board of directions insisted they needed to put out for an upcoming event? While it was arguably a violation, it is no longer a violation; so says this year's compliance report, published by the United States Department of State.

There's a area over Moscow called "UUP-53" that the Russians insist can't be controlled by their air traffic control (ATC), something like a blind spot on their radar, perhaps it's behind a big building or hill, I have no idea. In 2017 the Americans came to the conclusion they'd drop the issue, because they are now considering the same thing, as are their allies, for flight safety reasons.

The same thing Russia has been claiming for years. Well that's awkward.

"Russia’s imposition of a minimum altitude for all air traffic over Moscow, in the region designated as UUP-53, continued and impacted one observation flight in 2016. The United States discussed this concern with States Party in 2016, including Russia’s assertion that the altitude restriction is linked to safety of flight, and it became clear that a number of States Party impose altitude restrictions for reasons of flight safety. The United States, Russia, and other interested States Party intend to explore altitude restrictions as part of a broader discussion of air traffic control procedures and Open Skies Treaty implementation." -United States Department of State, April 2017

Not surprisingly, no mention of this issue can be found in the April 2018 compliance report, because they dropped it. Better still, at no time did Russia prohibit flights over UUP-53, they just required the flights to fly at a higher altitude. Unfortunately, wet film cameras, and their lenses, are configured to produce treaty mandated 30cm resolution at a specific height. Flying higher means a different camera needs to be used, perhaps just a different lens; either way, not all countries had the camera necessary to do the higher flight, but since all countries pool their imagery, it wouldn't matter who took the pictures, everyone would see them anyway. To reiterate, no flights over Moscow have ever been prohibited, they just need to fly higher, for safety, which doesn't affect the quality of the imagery, when you use the right camera.

What's the 500km bit about over Kaliningrad?

"The U.S. says the Russian government sets distance limits on flights over the Kaliningrad Oblast, imposes altitude restrictions for the Moscow region, denies permission for Open Skies aircraft to fly within 10 kilometers of the Russian border with South Ossetia and Abkhazia." -VOA

True, Russia does impose a 500km limit for flights over Kaliningrad, which is about the size of Connecticut, and have done so since 2012, because.. hang on, I'll let the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs explain why. Importantly, this is the same reason I'd heard off the record, over a year before, so I was pretty excited to hear it directly from the Russian MFA spokesperson Maria Zakharova, corroborating what I'd heard already (not from a Russian source either).

(Here is the translation of the relevant part)

First, Russia has imposed restrictions, allegedly unlawfully, on observation flights over the Kaliningrad Region. According to the United States, this precludes effective observation of Russia’s territory during the approved number of flights. Moreover, NATO countries have accused Russia of a desire to “conceal” military facilities near Kaliningrad from Open Skies cameras.
It is much simpler than this, though. Some of our partners, who have the right to make observation flights at a maximum distance of 5,500 kilometres, used this right over the Kaliningrad Region, flying over it far and wide, which created problems in the limited airspace of the region and hindered the operation of Khrabrovo International Airport. We did not manage to convince our partners to show a reasonable degree of restraint. This is why we had to minimise spending by restricting the maximum flight distance over the Kaliningrad Region to 500 kilometres. This is not contrary to the OST or the signatories’ subsequent decisions. I would like to point out that this has not changed the total flight distance of 5,500 km and hence coverage of Russia’s territory. The flight range of 500 km over the Kaliningrad Region is sufficient for observing any part of the region, even the most distant areas, during observation flights. In other words, this restriction has not affected observation effectiveness.
-Maria Zakharova, Spokesperson, Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, September 28, 2017 (original here)

Let me elaborate further; The US, Canada, or any country, can fly 5500 km over Russia (maximum distance per flight) and take pictures anywhere they want, with a certified camera, on a certified plane, with RuAF members aboard their plane as observers. Missile facilities, tank factories, ICBM silos, Naval bases - anywhere, as long as the max distance travelled is less than 5500 km. Russia is a really big place, and if you don't get all of what you want in 5500 km, you can come back the next week, next month, or next year, and do it again (and fill out all the paperwork to do so, of course). What Ms Zakharova is alluding to is a flight by one of the signatory parties which performed a "lawnmower" pattern over Kaliningrad, burning thousands of kilometres over one spot the size of Connecticut. Because of the "lawnmower pattern", commercial and private flight was heavily disrupted. Planes couldn't take off, or land, because the Open Skies Treaty flight kept looping back, and forth - treaty flights take precedence for ATC; everyone had to get out of their way. After this perfectly treaty-legal flight, Russia brought it up and protested at the next meeting of the OSCC. They couldn't get a satisfying resolution to their concerns; specifically that another State couldn't just do an entire aerial surveillance of the entire territory and shutdown their airspace, therefore imposed a unilateral 500 km restriction, using "flight safety" as a reason, IIRC. I can't really argue with that, since watching Russian flight patterns over Canada and the United States, and getting the post-flight reports of those flights via Access to Information requests, does confirm their flights are between military bases, naval bases, rail hubs, and that sort of thing. They don't just fly thousands of miles carpeting all of Nova Scotia in one day. They cover large distances to see multiple sites, spread all across one area or another during two or three days of flights.

So yes, Russia has imposed a limit over Kaliningrad, they feel it's justified, and they feel it's a safety issue. We can disagree, but there really needs to be an OSCC voice involved, not just an American statement that it's a violation. What do the other 32 nations, who aren't complaining about it, saying?  Well, Canada for one, from an operational point of view, isn't bothered by the sub-limit. I asked  Royal Canadian Air Force Lieutenant-Colonel Steeve Veillette, the section head of the Canadian Department of National Defence Strategic Joint Staff Arms Control and Verification (4); the team which flies Canadian Open Skies Treaty missions over other signatory states, and facilitates their flights over Canada.

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.

-Interview with Lieutenant-Colonel Veillette, Steffan Watkins, Vessel of Interest (Blog) 2016-10-06

The buck stops with him, and he says it's no big deal. I'm inclined to believe him, over a USMC 3-Star General who compares digital cameras vs wet film to 1080p vs Polaroids.
Go on, watch the video, General Stewart's testimony is horrifyingly terrible and poorly informed.

What's this 10km limit with Georgia?

"The U.S. says the Russian government sets distance limits on flights over the Kaliningrad Oblast, imposes altitude restrictions for the Moscow region, denies permission for Open Skies aircraft to fly within 10 kilometers of the Russian border with South Ossetia and Abkhazia." - VOA

Yes, I'm still going over the same paragraph... I know - think of how I feel!

The Open Skies Treaty is meant to allow countries to fly over each others' territory, and make sure they're not about to invade or build a WMD, not spy on those countries' neighbours. There is a provision in the treaty that states that flights must stay inside the overflown country's border, by 10 km, when the flight path is adjacent to a country which is not part of the Open Skies Treaty.
Turkey shares a border with Syria, Iraq, and Iran. I'm sure Iran doesn't want an American observation plane overflying Turkey, 1 km from their border; when you look "down" from that flight path, you'd get a lot of Iran in the picture. That is why the 10 km provision is there. Simple, right?

Now we complicate things; Russia recognizes the Georgian regions of South Ossetia and Abkhazia as independent states, but Georgia, the United States, and pretty much everyone else, doesn't. By Russia recognizing them as countries, they require flights stay 10 km inside Russia when flight plans for Open Skies trips are near their borders. By my very rough estimates, that's ~250 km of border. Russia is requiring, according to their interpretation of the rules, that flight plans stay inside 10 km of those 250 km of border. Georgia claims that humouring Russia about this 10 km limit is recognition of South Ossetia and Abkhazia's independence, and greatly object to any such agreement. This argument, over time, has become baseless, specifically since 2014, as the same issue exists over Crimea, which is not recognized as being part of Russia by many, but no signatory countries ask for an Open Skies Treaty flights over Crimea, as they would have to ask Ukraine for permission, but really Russia controls that airspace. Neither Crimea, South Ossetia, or Abkhazia are Open Skies Treaty-Related issues. Countries are not overflying Crimea as part of the Open Skies Treaty, and it does not mean they approve of Russia's annexation. While the Georgia issue is quite relevant to Russia and Georgia, it should not block all flights everywhere - oh yeah, which is exactly what has happened.

All Open Skies Treaty flights were stopped by Georgia starting January 1st 2018, grossly violating everything the Open Skies Treaty stands for - WAY beyond any "restrictions" Russia has ever done.

Every year the Open Skies Treaty signatories bid for quotas to overfly each other at the end of the year. Signatories who already have a quota to overfly another country get preference to renew their quota and keep the status quo, and if they don't want to keep flying with their quota, they release it so another country can pick it up. Any other country can take their quota if they desire overflying the other country. Russia requested, as part of the quota process, to overfly Georgia, but Georgia, because of their unresolved border issues, has since 2013 refused any and all overflights of Russian Air Force Planes, including the Open Skies Treaty-approved one. That's been easy to do, since Russia didn't have a quota to overfly Georgia, until the end of 2017, when the OSCC was signing off on the 2018 quotas and there was an available opportunity for Russia, which they took, completely legitimately and within the procedures of the Open Skies Treaty, but, Georgia won't sign off. Despite the Voice of America bleating like a wounded goat about Russian alleged violations of the Open Skies Treaty which 1) required flights to be done at a higher altitude or 2) required a distance sub-limit, Georgia has blocked the entire treaty, preventing all flights, everywhere, while the United States has turned a blind eye, because there's nothing the United States would like more than prevent Russia from overflying the United States. ..and you know what? They've got away with it.

Let me repeat that:

There has not been a single Open Skies Treaty overflight of any country in 2018, not one. Georgia has stopped all flights due to their own political reasons that have absolutely nothing to do with the Open Skies Treaty, or 32 signatory nations.  Georgia will not sign-off on the 2018 flight quotas, therefore no flights can take place. This has been reported sparingly in the Russian media, and absolutely not at all in the American media, yet.

What about the Voice of America article?

Oh yeah; this blog post started with me, reading over the article that was published by the Voice of America, seeing red because the Voice of America was parroting talking points from years ago, with outdated information that I'd already debunked. Where out of left field did this come from? The claim made by the original edit of the article was that the digital electro optical sensor used by the RuAF was beyond the resolution allowed by the treaty, and that the camera was somehow illegal. These claims are factually completely false. The digital electro-optical sensor was approved aboard the Tu-154 the Russians use for their Open Skies Treaty flights over the United States and Canada by the OSCC.  The camera is a OSDCAM 4060, in case you want the specifications to compare for yourself. It should be quite self-evident that the camera used over the United States and Canada, last year, would have to be certified and approved, or it wouldn't have been flying over the country. I stopped writing about the digital electro-optical sensor years ago, because the whole argument was over - moot - the Tu-154 was flying overhead with the digital camera in use. It's quite incredible that the VOA would out of the blue bring this up again, and write an article full of factual inaccuracies, and bias - or maybe I shouldn't have expected anything more from the State Department's propaganda wing. I do give them credit, they did change the article after I resoundingly proved that they were completely wrong to call the digital electro-optical sensor illegal under the Open Skies Treaty. However, it was the least they could do, short of nothing at all.

MOAR READING

Here is your fill of Open Skies Treaty blog posts, which seem to still be relevant today:

A Journalist's Primer on the Open Skies Treaty
Cutting through misinformation about the Open Skies Treaty
Open Skies Treaty overflight; Russia over Canada 2016
Two Russian Open Skies Treaty aerial observation missions over the USA in June 2017
Russian Open Skies observation flights are doing nothing unexpected over Canada
Open Skies Treaty overflight of the United States by the RuAF Sept 25-29 2017
Russian Open Skies Treaty overflight of the USA, August 2017 edition
Russian Observation flights over the United States, again. (May 18-19 2017)

I'll remind you that the US Government suppresses as much information as possible about the Open Skies Treaty, keeping all imagery, flight plans, mission plans, or even when past missions have been performed over the United States a secret, as a matter of policy. The Royal Canadian Air Force and the Canadian Government do not, proving this is a partisan American issue, not a treaty-secret.  Still, everything I've found has been very difficult to source through open source methods. It's not an accident either, the American government want the American public kept in the dark about the treaty, since it had been working quite well, despite the Republican push to kill all treaties and open up the purse strings for defence spending on new missile technology.