CURRENT ISSUES IN THE MUTUAL AND BALANCED FORCE REDUCTION (MBFR) NEGOTIATIONS

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP80B01500R000100040030-7
• Release Decision: RIPPUB
• Original Classification: S
• Document Page Count: 4
• Document Creation Date: December 12, 2016
• Document Release Date: September 24, 1998
• Sequence Number: 30
• Publication Date: August 9, 1974
• Content Type: REPORT

Approved For Relea@ 2001/0 RDP8OBO15QOOO1OOO4OO3O-7
No FOREIGN DISSEM
9 August 1974
CURRENT ISSUES IN THE MUTUAL AND BALANCED
FORCE REDUCTION (MBFR) NEGOTIATIONS
The Mutual and Balanced Force Reduction talks have been
conducted over the last year in Vienna between representatives
of NATO and Warsaw Pact countries. The objectives from the West's
point of view are to reduce the force levels deployed in Europe
in such a way as to reduce the likelihood of war and to reduce
the disproportion in the size of the forces of the two sides in
Europe.
The reductions are to be from those forces now positioned
in Belgium, the Netherlands, Luxembourg and West Germany, of
NATO and Poland, Czechoslovakia and East Germany of the Warsaw
Pact. The nations involved are the seven countries mentioned
above, plus the US, Canada, and the UK, who have forces in West
Germany, Belgium, and the Netherlands; and the Soviets,
Since the initial proposals were introduced there have been
no substantial compromises suggested by either side, but there
have been a number of minor concessions by both sides which sug-
gest that some agreement is both possible and likely. The
positions as they now stand are outlined below:
NATO APPROACH WARSAW PACT APPROACH
I. Time Phasing of Reductions
Only US and Soviet forces would
be reduced in phase one.
The West has modified its original
proposal during the course of
negotiations and has advanced the
possibility that (1) there would
be no increase of NATO or Warsaw
Pact ground forces between phase
one and phase two; (2) that US
and Soviet reductions in phase
one would be followed by the
second phase reductions after a
"fixed period of time," (3) that
phase one reduction would be sub-
ject to review after a reasonable
period of time, (4) that non-US
NATO participants (except Luxem-
bourg) would reduce their forces
in the second phase.
All forces would reduce in
each phase and that re-
duction would take place over
a three year period with an
initial reduction in 1975 of
20,000 men from both sides.
During the course of the
negotiations the east has modified
its original position, by ad-
vancing the proposal that all
parties would make symbolic re-
ductions, but that US and
Soviet reductions could be
implemented before the other
parties actually reduced their
forces. According to the terms
of this proposal the British
and Canadians might have to
reduce at the same time as
the US and Soviet forces because
they are, like the Soviets and
Americans, forces stationed on
foreign soil.
Approved For Release 20 DP8OBO15OOROOO1OOO4OO3O-7
Nn WPM IIISSF
 Approved For Releap 200 A-RDP80B0150R000100040030-7
NO FOREIGN DISSEM
II. Comprehensiveness
NATO seeks to have reductions
made only in ground forces.
The US would reduce 15% of its
ground forces presently in the
reductions area -- about 29,000
soldiers. Soviet reductions
would amount to a tank army,(five
divisions, including about 68,000
Soviet soldiers and 1,700 battle
tanks).
There has been discussion within
the private councils of NATO on
a US proposal to reduce, in ad-
dition to the above, some of the
US nuclear support to NATO,
presently located in the reductions
area. The form of the nuclear
reductions proposal (which has
still not yet been made public
in Vienna) includes reduction
of up to 1,000 nuclear warheads,
36 Pershing missile launchers and
54 F-4 fighter aircraft. The
British and West Germans are ap-
prehensive over introduction of
the nuclear option.*
The Warsaw Pact proposal
specifies reduction of ground
and air forces and includes
nuclear weapons.
They have suggested in the
course of the negotiations
that a first step might apply
only to ground forces, and
that air and nuclear reductions
might be deferred. The Pact
negotiators have suggested that
they might be willing to accept
an aggregate ceiling applied
to each side instead of explicit
national sub ceilings for forces
in the reduction area.
*Although the Allies do not completely oppose the inclusion of air/
nuclear elements, they would Like either to present a smaller
package than envisaged by the US or to ask a higher price for it.
The Allies are particularly concerned about the reduction of F-4s
because of their dual-capability and the danger that their in-
clusion might enlarge the scope of the negotiations to cover air
forces generally. Some Allies have suggested including only war-
heads and possibly Pershings in phase one. The FRG and UK have
indicated that they would Like to use the air/nuclear package
to obtain reciprocal ceilings and possibly reductions of similar
Pact elements.
Approved For Release 2001/ : IA-RDP80BO1500R000100040030-7
NO FOREIGN DJSSE.
 Approved For Releae 200 IA-RDP80B015,QR000100040030-7
NO FOREIGN DISSEM
III. E c u i tV
The NATO Allies are pressing
for a common ceiling on ground
force manpower which could pro-
duce equity of results, i.e.,
that a ground force manpower
ceiling be set on each side at,
for instance, 700,000 soldiers
in the reduction area. This ap-
proach has been called the com-
mon ceiling approach.
The Warsaw Pact proposal is
for equal percentage or equal
aggregate reduction which
would maintain the existing
ratio of forces in-the reduction
areas.
The east has not yet indicated
any flexibility with respect
to this provision of their
reduction proposal.
Approved For Release 2001YU3F04'EGIA-RDP80B01500R000100040030-7
NO FOREIGN DISSEM
 Approved For Releaw 2001 / RDP80BO15Q 1000100040030-7
NO FOREIGN DISSEM
SELECTED COMPARATIVE FORCE LEVELS
OF NATO AND WARSAW PACT FORCES IN
THE PROPOSED REDUCTIONS AREA
NATO
Warsaw Pact
Ground Forces Manpower
791,000
952,000
Air Forces Manpower
196,000
208,000
Total Manpower
987,000
1,160,000
Combat Aircraft
2,000
3,700
Tanks in Active Units
6,000
16,000
Tanks in Storage
2,100
Total Tanks
18,100
25X1 DOe
-_c nn
Approved For Release 0F9J0 1 A;-IU80B01500R000100040030-7