JCIC-XXVII: (U) BILATERAL MEETING ON UKRAINIAN

1. (U) This is JCIC-XXVII-022.



2. (U) Meeting Date: June 7, 2005
Time: 11:30 A.M. - 12:30 P.M.
Place: U.S. Mission, Geneva

SUMMARY



3. (S) A Ukraine-initiated bilateral meeting was held at the
U.S. Mission on June 7, 2005, to discuss Ukrainian proposals
regarding eliminations of SS-24s. Ukraine related that it
was seeking funding from countries other than the United
States under the Global Partnership Program to support the
use of the water washout method to remove solid fuel from
SS-24 ICBMs, and inquired whether the United States would
object to such an arrangement. The U.S. Delegation stated it
could see no START Treaty objection. Ukraine also asked
whether the United States might reconsider its decision to
not support this work if the financial burden on the United
States was lessened. Finally, on its proposal to re-use
SS-24 solid-rocket motor cases, Ukraine offered that it could
increase the number of holes it would make in the rocket
motor case to "convince the pessimists" that the case could
not be re-used for its original purpose. Ukraine stated that
it would like to discuss these issues further at the second
half of JCIC-XXVII.

UKRAINE MOVING AHEAD ON WATER WASHOUT



4. (S) At a bilateral meeting at the U.S. Mission on June 7,
2005, Shcherba stated that Ukraine had already begun to
dispose of solid-rocket fuel from SS-24 ICBMs, and that it
still wanted to use the water washout method, despite the
U.S. decision not to fund such activity. Ukraine was seeking
funding from other countries using its status as a recipient
of Global Partnership assistance, but had run into
difficulties. Countries that might provide funding to
Ukraine, aware of the bilateral U.S.-Ukraine relationship
under the Cooperative Threat Reduction (CTR) Program, had
wondered whether the United States would object to their
cooperation with Ukraine. Shcherba inquired whether the
United States would object, and whether the United States
would reconsider funding this effort should the financial
burden on the United States be lessened.



5. (S) Shcherba also noted that Ukrainian experts would
attend a U.S.-proposed demonstration of open detonation
methods, but he had serious doubts whether this method was
acceptable to Ukraine. The opinion of Ukrainian experts was
that there was no alternative to the water washout method.

U.S. RESPONSE



6. (S) Look stated that the U.S. JCIC Delegation was not the
right group of experts to address this issue, as it did not
control the CTR Program that had direct authority over the
assistance for the elimination of Ukrainian SS-24 ICBMs. He
stated he would report this information back to the
appropriate officials in Washington. He noted that the
United States would have no START Treaty-related problem with
other countries assisting Ukraine in this situation; the U.S.
interest was in the elimination of systems, not who paid for
them. He reiterated the U.S. position that open detonation
methods could be ecologically and financially sound.



7. (S) Noting that Shevtsov had said on a previous occasion
that Ukraine was proceeding with a pilot plan using water
washout methods, Look asked whether that meant Ukraine was
close to having washed out SS-24 rocket motor cases that
would then need to be eliminated. Shevtsov replied that this
was correct. On Ukraine's proposal to drill holes in the
solid-rocket motor cases to allow their re-use as containers
for radiological or toxic waste, Shevtsov volunteered that
Ukraine could increase the number of holes made in the rocket
motor cases, and Ukraine was prepared to submit details to
"convince the pessimists" that the rocket motor case could
not be re-used for its original purpose.

WRAPPING UP



8. (S) Ukraine stated that it would like to discuss these
issues further at the second half of JCIC-XXVII. Also,
Ukraine would look carefully at the U.S.-drafted Trident II
Coordinated Plenary Statement and respond through diplomatic
channels. Look encouraged the Ukrainians to continue the
dialogue with appropriate CTR officials on the elimination of
its SS-24s. He also thanked Ukraine for participating in the
Trident II RVOSI demonstration, and urged Ukraine to use
diplomatic channels during the intersession period to
maximize the productivity of the JCIC.



9. (S) The Ukrainian Delegation, noting that Look had
informally suggested that his personal view was that the
second part of the session could occur in late October or
early November, expressed reservations about holding it any
later than that due to holidays. Look stated his goal was to
keep the length of the session to as short as possible and
certainly less than two weeks.



10. (U) Documents exchanged: None.



11. (U) Participants:

U.S.

Dr. Look
Mr. Buttrick
Mr. Dunn
Mr. Foley
Mr. Johnston
Mr. Kuehne
Ms. Kottmyer
Mr. Mullins
Mr. Singer
Mr. Smith
Mr. Tiersky
Mr. French (Int)
Dr. Hopkins (Int)

Ukraine

Mr. Shcherba
Dr. Shevtsov
Mr. Dotsenko
MGen Fedotov
Col Taran



12. (U) Look sends.
Moley