The memo deals with the reorganization of political control and of the "command chain" with respect to NATO's nuclear deterrent (opinions of the UK and France, Italian and German criticism).
There are 3 attachments: 1) Multilateral Nuclear Force. Italian stance with regards to British proposals (2 pages); 2) British position on Multilateral Force - Message from Washington on 4th December (5 pages); 3) Reorganization of the Atlantic nuclear deterrent (12 pages).

Rossi details the activities that have taken place in Paris during the week from June 8th, to June 13th.

This report addresses the failure of NATO to meet the agreed-upon threshold for conventional weapons buildup.

Discussion of the relative roles of the United States, Great Britain, Germany and France in NATO and a proposal to revise the role of NATO as the threat of a Soviet attack increases.

Italy's permanent representative to NATO Alessandrini writes to PM Andreotti in preparation for the upcoming Paris summit. He shares general remarks about the state of the alliance and current issues in international relations focusing on the German question, Cuba, and Sino-Soviet relations.

A report on the discussions which occurred at a meeting of the Atlantic Council, during which the relative military powers of the Soviet Block and Western Block were compared. The different positions and threats posed to various NATO nations were also discussed. Finally, the report laid out plans for nuclear, submarine, and aerial weapons development to ensure that the Soviet Block’s military power never exceeds that of the Western block.

Summary of NATO’s nuclear defense strategy, stressing the importance of utilizing both conventional and nuclear weapons and refraining from using more nuclear power than is absolutely necessary to combat Soviet aggression.

Canadian officials warned of disagreement to come between the Europeans and the Americans over the “zero option,” the longstanding proposal to reduce both US and Soviet INF to zero. This dispatch from Brussels reported “substantial unhappiness” amongst the Europeans that the United States and the Soviet Union would discuss disarmament “even if neither of them believed in it.” Nuclear deterrence had prevented war in Europe for the preceding four decades, and US-Soviet discussions of disarmament only made it even more difficult to convince public opinion of deterrence’s continued importance

In a flurry of cables from February 1986, Canadian assessments focused on a chronic issue within NATO: consultation within the alliance. As this dispatch from Brussels concluded, paraphrasing Winston Churchill, “NATO nuclear collective consultation is the worst form, except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.”

In a flurry of cables from February 1986, Canadian assessments focused on a chronic issue within NATO: in consultation within the alliance. The Special Consultative Group was used as a forum to “air views of allies,” hold briefings on the current state of negotiations, and to share a new negotiating position right before it was tabled. Canadian officials also warned of disagreement to come between the Europeans and the Americans over the “zero option,” the longstanding proposal to reduce both US and Soviet INF to zero.