START FOLLOW-ON NEGOTIATIONS, GENEVA

S E C R E T GENEVA 001034

SIPDIS

DEPT FOR T, VC AND EUR/PRA
DOE FOR NNSA/NA-24
CIA FOR WINPAC
JCS FOR J5/DDGSA
SECDEF FOR OSD(P)/STRATCAP
NAVY FOR CNO-N5JA AND DIRSSP
AIRFORCE FOR HQ USAF/ASX AND ASXP
DTRA FOR OP-OS OP-OSA AND DIRECTOR
NSC FOR LOOK
DIA FOR LEA

E.O. 12958: DECL: 11/18/2019
TAGS: KACT MARR PARM PREL RS US START
SUBJECT: START FOLLOW-ON NEGOTIATIONS, GENEVA
(SFO-GVA-VII): (U) CONVERSION OR ELIMINATION WORKING GROUP
MEETING, NOVEMBER 11, 2009

Classified By: A/S Rose E. Gottemoeller, United States
START Negotiator. Reasons: 1.4(b) and (d).


1. (U) This is SFO-GVA-VII-011.


2. (U) Meeting Date: November 11, 2009
Time: 11:30 A.M. - 12:50 P.M.
Place: U.S. Mission, Geneva

--------------
SUMMARY
--------------


3. (S) The second Conversion or Elimination (CorE) Working
Group meeting of Session VII, chaired by U.S. chair Mr.
Elliott and Russian chair Colonel Ryzhkov, addressed
procedures for CorE of ICBM silo launchers and heavy bombers.
The sides agreed on some text pertaining to silo launchers,
and the Russian side promised to study the streamlined text
proposed by the U.S. side for the remaining provisions
discussed. The sides disagreed on whether silo launchers
should be filled with dirt or gravel, as the United States
had proposed. The Russian Delegation said the United States
needed to take geography and climatology into consideration.
The sides also clarified the term "tail" and "tail section"
in reference to elimination of heavy bombers. Both sides
agreed that the entire "tail section" could be removed.


4. (U) Subject summary: Preliminary Matters, Filling a Silo
with Gold, A Tail is a Tail, and, Overlap with General
Provisions.

--------------
PRELIMINARY MATTERS
--------------


5. (S) Elliott first offered to review the latest
U.S.-proposed draft of Subsection VI in Section III of the
Protocol, "Other Procedures for Removal from Accountability."
The U.S. side had taken into account Russian suggestions to
streamline repetitive wording on notifications, and hoped the
subsection could be agreed and sent to conforming. Ryzhkov
noted the new proposed text was concise and clear. The
Russian Delegation would review it, and would reconsider its
own proposed text. The Russian Delegation also provided new
proposed text for Paragraph 1 of Subsection I, "General
Provisions."

--------------
FILLING A SILO WITH GOLD
--------------


6. (S) The sides agreed to certain provisions governing
elimination for silo launchers of ICBMs in Subsection 3 of
Section III in the Protocol to the Treaty as follows.

Begin text:


2. The elimination of silo launchers of ICBMs shall be
carried out using any of the following procedures:

a. The silo door shall be removed, dismantled, or
destroyed, and the silo headworks and the silo shall


be destroyed by excavation to a depth of no less than
eight meters or by explosion to a depth of no less than
than six meters.

c. Other procedures developed by the Party
conducting the elimination.End text.


7. (S) The two sides did not reach agreement on the second
option (Subparagraph b) for silo elimination involving
removal of the silo door and subsequent filling of the silo.
The Russian-proposed text required filling the silo with
earth; the U.S. side specified filling the silo with gravel.
Elliott explained that the U.S. side believed soil would be
too easily removed, since water could simply be added and the
resulting sludge pumped out. The U.S. side believed that
adding gravel was more consistent with a permanent
elimination since it would be more difficult to remove.
Finally, because gravel would take longer to remove, such a
process would be visible by national technical means of
verification.


8. (S) Ryzhkov objected to Elliott's argument, entreating
the U.S. side to consider the realities of Russian climate
and geography. Some areas of Russia did not have gravel
readily available, and the material would have to be trucked
in from the Ural Mountains. In these parts of Russia,
construction of a gravel road one kilometer in length would
cost 1 million dollars. Filling a silo with gravel would be
like filling it with gold, Ryzhkov opined. He pointed out
that many U.S. silos in Colorado (sic) and Wyoming were
located near mountains, where gravel was easy to obtain.


9. (S) Ryzhkov clarified further that when the Russian side
used the word "earth," it meant more than just soil. It also
meant to include the debris (stroimusor in Russian) from the
adjacent above-ground structures that would be demolished in
conjunction with the silo elimination. The resultant rubble
would then be pushed into the silo to facilitate subsequent
cultivation of the land in the area.


10. (S) In response to Elliott's scenario of adding water to
a dirt-filled silo and pumping the mud out to reclaim the
silo, Ryzhkov pointed out that the Russian silo field in
Dombarovskiy was in a desert, where water was scarce and,
therefore, very expensive. Finally, he pointed out that in
locations like Uzhur earth could not be easily removed
because the climate was one of permafrost, with the ground
frozen year-round.


11. (S) Elliott agreed to leave this portion of the silo
elimination procedure bracketed, and pledged that the United
States would go back and consider language that would capture
the full scope of the intended Russian elimination process.
He stated that the United States was in agreement with Russia
that the key step for this procedural option was removal of
the silo door. (Begin comment: Such a step exposes the silo
to the environment, which would over time render it
inoperable. End comment.)


12. (S) Elliott closed the discussion on silo elimination by
presenting U.S.-proposed text for post-elimination grading.
He also read U.S. provisions for inspection of any silo
eliminated using the so-called "wild-card" procedure


determined by the eliminating Party at a future date. He
explained that, for those procedures that were undefined in
the treaty, the United States insisted on the right to
inspect the completion of elimination procedures. In the
case of silo elimination procedures specified in the
Protocol, national technical means of verification would be
adequate.


13. (S) Ryzhkov agreed to study the new streamlined
U.S.-proposed language for silo elimination procedures, which
had consolidated several paragraphs and deleted others to
prevent duplication with the General Provisions for Section
III. The U.S. side agreed to convey text later that day for
Russian review.

--------------
A TAIL IS A TAIL
--------------


14. (S) The two sides moved on to a discussion of Subsection
V in Section III of the Protocol to the treaty, covering CorE
of heavy bombers. Elliott read through and explained the new
U.S.-proposed text for the section, which again had
consolidated some provisions and deleted others to prevent
duplication with the General Provisions for Section III.


15. (S) When presenting the U.S-proposed text for procedures
for heavy bomber elimination, Elliott explained the reason
why the United States used the wording "tail section" rather
than "tail" as proposed by the Russian side. The U.S. side
wanted to make sure that both horizontal and vertical control
surfaces on the rear of the heavy bomber were cut off, and
was concerned that this would not be clear if only "tail"
were specified.


16. (S) Ryzhkov responded that the Russian term used in this
instance referred to the entire section of the aircraft that
included both sets of control surfaces mentioned by Elliott,
and that the clarification was unnecessary. (Begin comment:
Later analysis of the original Russian text showed that it
should have been translated "tail section" in English. End
comment.)


17. (S) The Russian side assessed that the streamlined
U.S.-proposed text was substantially the same as the Russian
proposal, but pledged to study the wording more carefully.
Again, the U.S. side agreed to provide a hard copy of its
text later in the day.

--------------
OVERLAP WITH GENERAL PROVISIONS
--------------


18. (S) The Russian side expressed overall concern that the
updated U.S.-proposed text had unnecessarily repeated some
provisions covered by the General Provisions Subsection for
Section III. Specifically, both Ryzhkov and Mr. Smirnov felt
that the General Provisions for pre- and post-conversion
steps pertaining to procedures developed by the converting
Party could be applied to each portion of Section III that
addressed conversion. Smirnov summarized the process for
"other procedures developed by the converting Party":
notification of intent to convert, discussion in the


Bilateral Consultative Commission with agreement on the
procedure to be used, conversion of the item, and a
post-conversion demonstration. The Russian side pledged to
make a close comparison between the General Provisions to the
relevant U.S.-proposed language in Subsections III and V.


19. (S) Elliott replied that, in principle, the U.S. side
agreed with the Russian side on the notion of moving
repetitive language to the General Provisions. However, the
U.S. side wanted to ensure that the requirements were
perfectly clear in the case of each item being CorE.


20. (U) Documents exchanged.

- U.S.:

-- U.S.-proposed Joint Draft Text: Protocol Section III
Subsection VI "Other Procedures for Removal from
Accountability," (in the original English with unofficial
Russian translation),dated November 11, 2009.

- Russia:

-- Russian-proposed Joint Draft Text: Protocol Section
III: Conversion or Elimination Procedures (Chapeau) and
Paragraph 1 for Subsection I "General Provisions," (in the
original Russian),dated November 11, 2009; and

-- Russian-proposed Joint Draft Text: Treaty Article VII
(in the original Russian with unofficial English
translation),dated November 11, 2009.


21. (U) Participants:

U.S.

Mr. Elliott
LCDR Brons
Mr. Broshar
Lt Col Goodman
Mr. Dwyer
Col Fryer
Mr. Hanchett
Mr. McConnell
Ms. Purcell
LT Sicks
Dr. Hopkins (Int)

RUSSIA

Col Ryzhkov
Mr. Smirnov
Ms. Vodopolova
Mr. Voloskov
Ms. Komshilova (Int)


22. (U) Gottemoeller sends.
GRIFFITHS