Identifier
Created
Classification
Origin
09GENEVA1062
2009-11-24 19:34:00
SECRET
Mission Geneva
Cable title:
START FOLLOW-ON NEGOTIATIONS, GENEVA
VZCZCXYZ0002 OO RUEHWEB DE RUEHGV #1062/01 3281934 ZNY SSSSS ZZH O 241934Z NOV 09 FM USMISSION GENEVA TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC IMMEDIATE 0289 RUEAIIA/CIA WASHINGTON DC IMMEDIATE RUEKDIA/DIA WASHINGTON DC IMMEDIATE RUEKJCS/CJCS WASHINGTON DC IMMEDIATE RUEKJCS/VCJCS WASHINGTON DC IMMEDIATE RUEKJCS/JOINT STAFF WASHINGTON DC IMMEDIATE RHEHNSC/NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL WASHINGTON DC IMMEDIATE RUEKJCS/SECDEF WASHINGTON DC IMMEDIATE RUEHNO/USMISSION USNATO IMMEDIATE 5458 RHMFISS/DEPT OF ENERGY WASHINGTON DC IMMEDIATE RHMFISS/DTRA ALEX WASHINGTON DC IMMEDIATE RUESDT/DTRA-OSES DARMSTADT GE IMMEDIATE RUENAAA/CNO WASHINGTON DC IMMEDIATE RHMFISS/DIRSSP WASHINGTON DC IMMEDIATE INFO RUEHTA/AMEMBASSY ASTANA PRIORITY 2635 RUEHKV/AMEMBASSY KYIV PRIORITY 1645 RUEHMO/AMEMBASSY MOSCOW PRIORITY 6847
S E C R E T GENEVA 001062
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: 11/24/2019
TAGS: KACT MARR PARM PREL RS US START
SUBJECT: START FOLLOW-ON NEGOTIATIONS, GENEVA
(SFO-GVA-VII): (U) MOU WORKING GROUP MEETING, NOVEMBER 10,
2009
REF: GENEVA 0976 (SFO-GVA-VI-037)
Classified By: A/S Rose E. Gottemoeller, United States
START Negotiator. Reasons: 1.4(b) and (d).
S E C R E T GENEVA 001062
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: 11/24/2019
TAGS: KACT MARR PARM PREL RS US START
SUBJECT: START FOLLOW-ON NEGOTIATIONS, GENEVA
(SFO-GVA-VII): (U) MOU WORKING GROUP MEETING, NOVEMBER 10,
2009
REF: GENEVA 0976 (SFO-GVA-VI-037)
Classified By: A/S Rose E. Gottemoeller, United States
START Negotiator. Reasons: 1.4(b) and (d).
1. (U) This is SFO-GVA-VII-010.
2. (U) Meeting Date: November 10, 2009
Time: 3:30 - 6:10 P.M.
Place: Russian Mission, Geneva
--------------
SUMMARY
--------------
3. (S) This was the first meeting of the Memorandum of
Understanding (MOU) Working Group (WG) for this session and
the eighth meeting of the MOU WG overall. The WG conducted a
review of the MOU Joint Draft Text (JDT) and its Annexes to
update and confirm the current positions of both Parties.
There were no substantial changes to the number of brackets
that exists in the documents, but both sides came away with a
better understanding of the other's current position.
4. (S) The Russian side agreed to move three items (two of
them related to the Russian third counting rule of deployed
and non-deployed launchers) currently in the "Aggregate
Numbers" section to the "Additional Aggregate Numbers"
section of the document. They also agreed to provide
coordinates for a mobile launcher "base," and stated that a
base is roughly equivalent to a deployment area under START,
although they left open the relationship between what the
United States had understood as a re stricted area and what
they are now calling a basing area, saying they would clarify
the relationship later.
5. (S) The Russian side still considers B-52G's, and by
example the Peacekeeper, as existing types, declarable in the
MOU, notwithstanding the package deal and counter offer
provided to the U.S.
6. (U) Subject Summary: MOU Review, Discrimination, Not
Transparency--and Tail Numbers, Back to the MOU Review, Heavy
Bombers and Existing Types; Bases, Deployment Areas, Basing
Areas, Re stricted Areas, And Fixed Structures; and, Closing.
--------------
MOU REVIEW
--------------
7. (S) General Orlov opened the meeting, saying the Ad Hoc
Group meeting earlier in the day was a good one and he agreed
with Assistant Secretary Gottemoeller that we are in the
final stages. He mentioned that any agreements on MOU
matters that could not be reached here in Geneva would have
to be taken to higher levels to resolve and implied it would
be much more desirable to be able to work things out here.
He stated that Ambassador Antonov agreed with Gottemoeller on
the new treaty structure and Orlov demonstrated to Mr. Trout
that he was familiar with that structure.
8. (S) Orlov began the review of the MOU, starting with the
chapeau, noting the bracketed text in the first sentence. The
focus of discussion was the use of the text, "items subject
to the limitations provided in this Treaty," by the United
States to characterize the contents of the MOU, vice the
Russian term "strategic offensive arms" (SOA). Orlov
inquired what was meant by the term "items," and Trout
explained that not everything addressed in the MOU was an SOA
(for example, certain facilities, fixed structures, etc.) and
that is why the United States was using the more general term
"items." Although Orlov said he did not agree with the U.S.
brackets, he also said he was not going to be stubborn about
it. However, Orlov did not remove the brackets at the table.
Colonel Pischulov mentioned that, in the Conversion or
Elimination (CorE) WG, the United States initially used the
term "items and facilities," but has since agreed to use the
term SOA instead. (Begin comment: This statement by
Pischulov was not entirely correct. The CorE WG still
maintains their verbiage and has bracketed the Russian text
referring to SOA. End comment.) Trout agreed that we should
be consistent across the treaty, and said that he would
consider how this was being addressed in other places in
START Follow-on text.
9. (S) Orlov moved to Section I (Aggregate Numbers) of the
MOU, and questioned the U.S. words that link "associated
launchers" with ICBMs and SLBMs. Trout mentioned that we had
to retain that linkage in the text, as we have received
nothing that has changed our current position and guidance.
Orlov accepted this, noting that the differences would not be
resolved at this meeting and moved to the next U.S. bracket,
which was the word "nuclear" in front of "warheads." Orlov
said that Russia had accepted the U.S. proposal to count and
verify conventional SOAs and, therefore, the United States
should agree to drop the word "nuclear" prior to warheads in
this SOA limit. Trout responded that there was no agreement
on the package solution; therefore, there was no agreement on
any individual element of the package. Also, the United
States had agreed to count non-nuclear warheads as nuclear
warheads. So the word "nuclear" would have to remain
bracketed.
10. (S) Orlov moved down the text to the last three items in
paragraph 1 of Section I (Aggregate Limits),which were
Russian-proposed items, namely: "Deployed Launchers of ICBMS
and SLBMS", "Non-Deployed ICBMS, Non-Deployed SLBMS and
Non-Deployed Heavy Bombers", and "Non-deployed Launchers of
ICBM's and SLBM's." He stated that they were moving those
three items to paragraph 2 of Section I (Additional Aggregate
Numbers),because paragraph 1 was meant to reflect the
aggregate limits called for in Article II and those three
items did not relate to Article II limits. Continuing, Orlov
noted that remaining in paragraph 2 of Section I were six
bracketed U.S. items. He asked whether there was any change
in the U.S. position, and Trout stated there was not.
--------------
DISCRIMINATION, NOT
TRANSPARENCY--AND TAIL NUMBERS
--------------
11. (S) Orlov asked Trout whether agreement would be reached
on mobile launcher issues, to which Trout responded that he
believed the decision would have to be made at higher levels.
Orlov replied: "Mr. Trout, with all due respect, providing
any additional information on mobile launchers is not
transparency, it is discrimination." He stated that the
United States wanted to put "red flags" on mobile launchers,
and drew a comparison to an experience he said a Russian
citizen had when crossing the monitoring territory at
Votkinsk. Orlov said that this person had said that the way
the Americans were staring at him, when he walked by, he felt
as though he was naked.
12. (S) Trout mentioned that the United States had made an
offer to back off its position on Votkinsk if Russia would
agree to provide notifications prior to the departure of
missile motors from the production facility and unique
identifiers. In trade, the United States had offered to
provide tail numbers of U.S. heavy bombers (HB). Orlov
dismissed the provision of tail numbers as a meaningless
gesture. He mentioned a "big boss" asked him if it was
important to know tail numbers, to which Orlov responded that
it would be good, but the aircraft were already known to them
and what was important was the quantity of aircraft. Orlov
did not consider the U.S. offer to provide tail numbers to be
an equal exchange for the notification that the United States
requested for impending deliveries at production facilities.
--------------
BACK TO THE MOU REVIEW
--------------
13. (S) Orlov returned to the earlier discussion regarding
moving three items from paragraph 1 of Section I to paragraph
2. Since the Russian side had moved them to the second
paragraph as the United States had requested, Orlov asked
whether the United States would now remove the brackets from
these items. Trout mentioned that at the moment it was not
acceptable, as these three items were contrary to the current
guidance from Washington. Orlov stated that he understood,
and he would not ask Trout to "sell his country."
14. (S) The discussion then proceeded to the wording of the
title of Section II: "ICBMS, ICBM Launchers, and
((Nuclear))1 Warheads on ICBMS." After some discussion, it
was understood by both sides that the English use of the word
"on" and the Russian words "located on" had exactly the same
meaning. Trout noted that the State Department experts on
conforming treaty text and the U.S. delegation lawyer, Mr.
Brown, had reviewed this language and agreed these English
and Russian terms conformed.
15. (S) Orlov explained that the brackets on the opening
chapeau in Section II could mostly be removed, with only "and
their associated launchers" remaining bracketed. He also
said that the Section III chapeau would have the same
brackets.
16. (S) In Section IV, Pischulov did not agree with the
addition of the U.S.-bracketed text "or associated with."
The United States added this to the title so that the MOU
section on heavy bombers accounted for not just the warheads
actually located on the bombers, but warheads in storage
areas "associated with" the heavy bombers. Trout stated that
this related to the issue discussed in the morning Ad Hoc
Group meeting regarding warheads in storage areas. Trout
mentioned that if we solve the counting rules with respect to
heavy bombers, then we will solve the brackets.
Nevertheless, Orlov complained that while Russia was removing
brackets the United States was adding brackets.
17. (S) In that light, Trout noted to Orlov that maybe the
category "Training Heavy Bombers" should be removed, since
neither the United States nor Russia had training heavy
bombers. Orlov stated Russia did not have such heavy bombers
and agreed to drop the category.
18. (S) Turning to Space Launch Facilities, Section V, Orlov
noted that the addition of this section was a U.S. proposal,
and he said the Russian side was "working on it" and would
provide an answer, although no timeframe for a response was
discussed.
19. (S) Orlov inquired why the signature block at the end of
the MOU was bracketed. Trout mentioned that it was simply
because this was just one section of the Protocol and at this
time neither side knew if Presidential signatures would
appear on this section. Orlov said he understood. This led
to a discussion of the structure of the START Follow-on
treaty.
20. (S) Trout explained that the three-tiered structure of
the new treaty, which Gottemoeller and Antonov had agreed to
that morning, would require changing what we are calling the
subsections of the sections to the Protocol and the Annexes.
At the moment, it appeared we would call them subsections.
However, the contents of what we were discussing would not be
affected. Orlov agreed.
--------------
HEAVY BOMBERS AND
EXISTING TYPES
--------------
21. (S) Orlov asked what our proposed title was for Annex C,
and Trout said it was "Heavy Bomber Nuclear Armaments
Technical Data." Orlov said he felt he could accept that,
but would think about it. Orlov said he wanted to confirm
what the U.S. side had told him the last time about agreeing
to include data on eliminated facilities in Annex D, "Other
Data Required by the Treaty," was still true, and Trout
confirmed that it was.
22. (S) Trout returned to the Annex B title, and said that
the United States wanted to use "Heavy Bomber Distinguishing
Features" vice "Heavy Bomber Technical Data." Trout
explained that the only heavy bombers which exist in both
nuclear and non-nuclear configuration are the B-1Bs. The
B-52H and B-2B type heavy bombers only exist in a nuclear
configuration. Therefore, the only aircraft for which
distinguishing features matter is the B-1B. And, the only
information needed to distinguish between the nuclear and
non-nuclear versions of the B-1B are the three categories the
United States listed: "Externally Observable Features,"
"Distinguishing Features Under Wing/Fuselage," and
"Distinguishing Features of Weapons Bay." Orlov would not
agree to the changes so the brackets on the Russian text
remain.
23. (S) This discussion raised the issue of what would be
considered "existing types" under the treaty. Orlov made it
clear that Russia expected the United States to continue to
count the B-52G as an existing type, subject to all
applicable provisions of the treaty, until they were all
eliminated. Trout stated that this was not consistent with
the package offered by the United States in Moscow. The
United States would acknowledge the existence of the B-52G
and that they would be eliminated through a joint statement,
side agreement, or declaration. He stated that they would be
eliminated in seven years using the simplified elimination
procedures detailed in this treaty and, in the interim, would
not be considered a treaty-accountable item.
24. (S) Orlov vigorously objected, commenting he could not
explain to his superiors that, although the United States had
launchers when the treaty entered into force, the United
States would not count them and not include technical data
for them.
--------------
BASES, DEPLOYMENT AREAS,
BASING AREAS,RE STRICTED
AREAS, AND FIXED STRUCTURES
--------------
25. (S) Trout asked Orlov to confirm something the U.S. side
had heard at a previous meeting, namely, the concept of a
mobile ICBM launcher base, within which was a basing area,
maintenance area, and some fixed structures. He asked
whether the mobile launchers assigned to that base would have
to stay within the boundary of that base. Orlov immediately
understood the underlying issue and said that coordinates for
the mobile ICBM base would be provided. Orlov stated that
what was decided previously was that the previous deployment
area was equal to the proposed mobile ICBM bases. Trout
asked Orlov to confirm that a basing area would be the same
as a re stricted area under START. Orlov said no, not quite,
and that they were working on this and would inform us later
of the answer.
26. (S) A discussion then ensued regarding fixed structures
on a mobile launcher base. Trout asked how the United States
would know what structures should be inspected if there were
no mobile ICBM launchers in the re stricted area. Orlov
asked whether Trout thought the inspectors would not know
what to inspect. Trout said overhead imagery identifies
fixed structures so it was important to keep track of these
items. Orlov said it was his responsibility to explain to
"my authorities" what we were asking for, and Trout said
anything that could hold a missile.
--------------
CLOSING
--------------
27. (S) Trout asked whether the Russian side had developed
their version of a JDT. Orlov replied that they had, and
passed a Russian language version to the U.S. side. Trout
agreed to study the document and look to see if more brackets
could be removed, although he believed most remaining
brackets were related to issues being addressed in the
package deal. Depending on the outcome of the review of the
Russian JDT and further review of subjects discussed at this
meeting, Trout said he would let Orlov know whether he
believed a short follow-up meeting was in order.
28. (U) Documents exchanged.
- Russia:
-- Section II, Database for Strategic Offensive Arms
29. (U) Participants:
U.S.
Mr. Trout
Lt Col Blevins
LTC LaGraffe
LCDR Brons
Mr. Broshar
Mr. Coussa
Mr. Dwyer
Col Fryer
Mr. Hanchett
Dr. Hopkins (Int)
RUSSIA
Gen Orlov
Col Pischulov
Ms. Vodopolova
Mr. Voloskov
Mr. Shevchenko
Ms. Evarovskaya (Int.)
30. (U) Gottemoeller sends.
GRIFFITHS
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: 11/24/2019
TAGS: KACT MARR PARM PREL RS US START
SUBJECT: START FOLLOW-ON NEGOTIATIONS, GENEVA
(SFO-GVA-VII): (U) MOU WORKING GROUP MEETING, NOVEMBER 10,
2009
REF: GENEVA 0976 (SFO-GVA-VI-037)
Classified By: A/S Rose E. Gottemoeller, United States
START Negotiator. Reasons: 1.4(b) and (d).
1. (U) This is SFO-GVA-VII-010.
2. (U) Meeting Date: November 10, 2009
Time: 3:30 - 6:10 P.M.
Place: Russian Mission, Geneva
--------------
SUMMARY
--------------
3. (S) This was the first meeting of the Memorandum of
Understanding (MOU) Working Group (WG) for this session and
the eighth meeting of the MOU WG overall. The WG conducted a
review of the MOU Joint Draft Text (JDT) and its Annexes to
update and confirm the current positions of both Parties.
There were no substantial changes to the number of brackets
that exists in the documents, but both sides came away with a
better understanding of the other's current position.
4. (S) The Russian side agreed to move three items (two of
them related to the Russian third counting rule of deployed
and non-deployed launchers) currently in the "Aggregate
Numbers" section to the "Additional Aggregate Numbers"
section of the document. They also agreed to provide
coordinates for a mobile launcher "base," and stated that a
base is roughly equivalent to a deployment area under START,
although they left open the relationship between what the
United States had understood as a re stricted area and what
they are now calling a basing area, saying they would clarify
the relationship later.
5. (S) The Russian side still considers B-52G's, and by
example the Peacekeeper, as existing types, declarable in the
MOU, notwithstanding the package deal and counter offer
provided to the U.S.
6. (U) Subject Summary: MOU Review, Discrimination, Not
Transparency--and Tail Numbers, Back to the MOU Review, Heavy
Bombers and Existing Types; Bases, Deployment Areas, Basing
Areas, Re stricted Areas, And Fixed Structures; and, Closing.
--------------
MOU REVIEW
--------------
7. (S) General Orlov opened the meeting, saying the Ad Hoc
Group meeting earlier in the day was a good one and he agreed
with Assistant Secretary Gottemoeller that we are in the
final stages. He mentioned that any agreements on MOU
matters that could not be reached here in Geneva would have
to be taken to higher levels to resolve and implied it would
be much more desirable to be able to work things out here.
He stated that Ambassador Antonov agreed with Gottemoeller on
the new treaty structure and Orlov demonstrated to Mr. Trout
that he was familiar with that structure.
8. (S) Orlov began the review of the MOU, starting with the
chapeau, noting the bracketed text in the first sentence. The
focus of discussion was the use of the text, "items subject
to the limitations provided in this Treaty," by the United
States to characterize the contents of the MOU, vice the
Russian term "strategic offensive arms" (SOA). Orlov
inquired what was meant by the term "items," and Trout
explained that not everything addressed in the MOU was an SOA
(for example, certain facilities, fixed structures, etc.) and
that is why the United States was using the more general term
"items." Although Orlov said he did not agree with the U.S.
brackets, he also said he was not going to be stubborn about
it. However, Orlov did not remove the brackets at the table.
Colonel Pischulov mentioned that, in the Conversion or
Elimination (CorE) WG, the United States initially used the
term "items and facilities," but has since agreed to use the
term SOA instead. (Begin comment: This statement by
Pischulov was not entirely correct. The CorE WG still
maintains their verbiage and has bracketed the Russian text
referring to SOA. End comment.) Trout agreed that we should
be consistent across the treaty, and said that he would
consider how this was being addressed in other places in
START Follow-on text.
9. (S) Orlov moved to Section I (Aggregate Numbers) of the
MOU, and questioned the U.S. words that link "associated
launchers" with ICBMs and SLBMs. Trout mentioned that we had
to retain that linkage in the text, as we have received
nothing that has changed our current position and guidance.
Orlov accepted this, noting that the differences would not be
resolved at this meeting and moved to the next U.S. bracket,
which was the word "nuclear" in front of "warheads." Orlov
said that Russia had accepted the U.S. proposal to count and
verify conventional SOAs and, therefore, the United States
should agree to drop the word "nuclear" prior to warheads in
this SOA limit. Trout responded that there was no agreement
on the package solution; therefore, there was no agreement on
any individual element of the package. Also, the United
States had agreed to count non-nuclear warheads as nuclear
warheads. So the word "nuclear" would have to remain
bracketed.
10. (S) Orlov moved down the text to the last three items in
paragraph 1 of Section I (Aggregate Limits),which were
Russian-proposed items, namely: "Deployed Launchers of ICBMS
and SLBMS", "Non-Deployed ICBMS, Non-Deployed SLBMS and
Non-Deployed Heavy Bombers", and "Non-deployed Launchers of
ICBM's and SLBM's." He stated that they were moving those
three items to paragraph 2 of Section I (Additional Aggregate
Numbers),because paragraph 1 was meant to reflect the
aggregate limits called for in Article II and those three
items did not relate to Article II limits. Continuing, Orlov
noted that remaining in paragraph 2 of Section I were six
bracketed U.S. items. He asked whether there was any change
in the U.S. position, and Trout stated there was not.
--------------
DISCRIMINATION, NOT
TRANSPARENCY--AND TAIL NUMBERS
--------------
11. (S) Orlov asked Trout whether agreement would be reached
on mobile launcher issues, to which Trout responded that he
believed the decision would have to be made at higher levels.
Orlov replied: "Mr. Trout, with all due respect, providing
any additional information on mobile launchers is not
transparency, it is discrimination." He stated that the
United States wanted to put "red flags" on mobile launchers,
and drew a comparison to an experience he said a Russian
citizen had when crossing the monitoring territory at
Votkinsk. Orlov said that this person had said that the way
the Americans were staring at him, when he walked by, he felt
as though he was naked.
12. (S) Trout mentioned that the United States had made an
offer to back off its position on Votkinsk if Russia would
agree to provide notifications prior to the departure of
missile motors from the production facility and unique
identifiers. In trade, the United States had offered to
provide tail numbers of U.S. heavy bombers (HB). Orlov
dismissed the provision of tail numbers as a meaningless
gesture. He mentioned a "big boss" asked him if it was
important to know tail numbers, to which Orlov responded that
it would be good, but the aircraft were already known to them
and what was important was the quantity of aircraft. Orlov
did not consider the U.S. offer to provide tail numbers to be
an equal exchange for the notification that the United States
requested for impending deliveries at production facilities.
--------------
BACK TO THE MOU REVIEW
--------------
13. (S) Orlov returned to the earlier discussion regarding
moving three items from paragraph 1 of Section I to paragraph
2. Since the Russian side had moved them to the second
paragraph as the United States had requested, Orlov asked
whether the United States would now remove the brackets from
these items. Trout mentioned that at the moment it was not
acceptable, as these three items were contrary to the current
guidance from Washington. Orlov stated that he understood,
and he would not ask Trout to "sell his country."
14. (S) The discussion then proceeded to the wording of the
title of Section II: "ICBMS, ICBM Launchers, and
((Nuclear))1 Warheads on ICBMS." After some discussion, it
was understood by both sides that the English use of the word
"on" and the Russian words "located on" had exactly the same
meaning. Trout noted that the State Department experts on
conforming treaty text and the U.S. delegation lawyer, Mr.
Brown, had reviewed this language and agreed these English
and Russian terms conformed.
15. (S) Orlov explained that the brackets on the opening
chapeau in Section II could mostly be removed, with only "and
their associated launchers" remaining bracketed. He also
said that the Section III chapeau would have the same
brackets.
16. (S) In Section IV, Pischulov did not agree with the
addition of the U.S.-bracketed text "or associated with."
The United States added this to the title so that the MOU
section on heavy bombers accounted for not just the warheads
actually located on the bombers, but warheads in storage
areas "associated with" the heavy bombers. Trout stated that
this related to the issue discussed in the morning Ad Hoc
Group meeting regarding warheads in storage areas. Trout
mentioned that if we solve the counting rules with respect to
heavy bombers, then we will solve the brackets.
Nevertheless, Orlov complained that while Russia was removing
brackets the United States was adding brackets.
17. (S) In that light, Trout noted to Orlov that maybe the
category "Training Heavy Bombers" should be removed, since
neither the United States nor Russia had training heavy
bombers. Orlov stated Russia did not have such heavy bombers
and agreed to drop the category.
18. (S) Turning to Space Launch Facilities, Section V, Orlov
noted that the addition of this section was a U.S. proposal,
and he said the Russian side was "working on it" and would
provide an answer, although no timeframe for a response was
discussed.
19. (S) Orlov inquired why the signature block at the end of
the MOU was bracketed. Trout mentioned that it was simply
because this was just one section of the Protocol and at this
time neither side knew if Presidential signatures would
appear on this section. Orlov said he understood. This led
to a discussion of the structure of the START Follow-on
treaty.
20. (S) Trout explained that the three-tiered structure of
the new treaty, which Gottemoeller and Antonov had agreed to
that morning, would require changing what we are calling the
subsections of the sections to the Protocol and the Annexes.
At the moment, it appeared we would call them subsections.
However, the contents of what we were discussing would not be
affected. Orlov agreed.
--------------
HEAVY BOMBERS AND
EXISTING TYPES
--------------
21. (S) Orlov asked what our proposed title was for Annex C,
and Trout said it was "Heavy Bomber Nuclear Armaments
Technical Data." Orlov said he felt he could accept that,
but would think about it. Orlov said he wanted to confirm
what the U.S. side had told him the last time about agreeing
to include data on eliminated facilities in Annex D, "Other
Data Required by the Treaty," was still true, and Trout
confirmed that it was.
22. (S) Trout returned to the Annex B title, and said that
the United States wanted to use "Heavy Bomber Distinguishing
Features" vice "Heavy Bomber Technical Data." Trout
explained that the only heavy bombers which exist in both
nuclear and non-nuclear configuration are the B-1Bs. The
B-52H and B-2B type heavy bombers only exist in a nuclear
configuration. Therefore, the only aircraft for which
distinguishing features matter is the B-1B. And, the only
information needed to distinguish between the nuclear and
non-nuclear versions of the B-1B are the three categories the
United States listed: "Externally Observable Features,"
"Distinguishing Features Under Wing/Fuselage," and
"Distinguishing Features of Weapons Bay." Orlov would not
agree to the changes so the brackets on the Russian text
remain.
23. (S) This discussion raised the issue of what would be
considered "existing types" under the treaty. Orlov made it
clear that Russia expected the United States to continue to
count the B-52G as an existing type, subject to all
applicable provisions of the treaty, until they were all
eliminated. Trout stated that this was not consistent with
the package offered by the United States in Moscow. The
United States would acknowledge the existence of the B-52G
and that they would be eliminated through a joint statement,
side agreement, or declaration. He stated that they would be
eliminated in seven years using the simplified elimination
procedures detailed in this treaty and, in the interim, would
not be considered a treaty-accountable item.
24. (S) Orlov vigorously objected, commenting he could not
explain to his superiors that, although the United States had
launchers when the treaty entered into force, the United
States would not count them and not include technical data
for them.
--------------
BASES, DEPLOYMENT AREAS,
BASING AREAS,RE STRICTED
AREAS, AND FIXED STRUCTURES
--------------
25. (S) Trout asked Orlov to confirm something the U.S. side
had heard at a previous meeting, namely, the concept of a
mobile ICBM launcher base, within which was a basing area,
maintenance area, and some fixed structures. He asked
whether the mobile launchers assigned to that base would have
to stay within the boundary of that base. Orlov immediately
understood the underlying issue and said that coordinates for
the mobile ICBM base would be provided. Orlov stated that
what was decided previously was that the previous deployment
area was equal to the proposed mobile ICBM bases. Trout
asked Orlov to confirm that a basing area would be the same
as a re stricted area under START. Orlov said no, not quite,
and that they were working on this and would inform us later
of the answer.
26. (S) A discussion then ensued regarding fixed structures
on a mobile launcher base. Trout asked how the United States
would know what structures should be inspected if there were
no mobile ICBM launchers in the re stricted area. Orlov
asked whether Trout thought the inspectors would not know
what to inspect. Trout said overhead imagery identifies
fixed structures so it was important to keep track of these
items. Orlov said it was his responsibility to explain to
"my authorities" what we were asking for, and Trout said
anything that could hold a missile.
--------------
CLOSING
--------------
27. (S) Trout asked whether the Russian side had developed
their version of a JDT. Orlov replied that they had, and
passed a Russian language version to the U.S. side. Trout
agreed to study the document and look to see if more brackets
could be removed, although he believed most remaining
brackets were related to issues being addressed in the
package deal. Depending on the outcome of the review of the
Russian JDT and further review of subjects discussed at this
meeting, Trout said he would let Orlov know whether he
believed a short follow-up meeting was in order.
28. (U) Documents exchanged.
- Russia:
-- Section II, Database for Strategic Offensive Arms
29. (U) Participants:
U.S.
Mr. Trout
Lt Col Blevins
LTC LaGraffe
LCDR Brons
Mr. Broshar
Mr. Coussa
Mr. Dwyer
Col Fryer
Mr. Hanchett
Dr. Hopkins (Int)
RUSSIA
Gen Orlov
Col Pischulov
Ms. Vodopolova
Mr. Voloskov
Mr. Shevchenko
Ms. Evarovskaya (Int.)
30. (U) Gottemoeller sends.
GRIFFITHS