START FOLLOW-ON NEGOTIATIONS, GENEVA

S E C R E T GENEVA 001184

SIPDIS

DEPT FOR T, VCI 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: 12/17/2019
TAGS: KACT MARR PARM PREL RS US START
SUBJECT: START FOLLOW-ON NEGOTIATIONS, GENEVA
(SFO-GVA-VII): (U) MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING WORKING
GROUP MEETING, DECEMBER 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-125.


2. (U) Meeting Date: December 11, 2009
Time: 10:00 A.M. - 11:20 A.M.
Place: Russian Mission, Geneva

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


3. (S) The Memorandum of Understanding Working Group (MOUWG)
chairs, Mr. Trout and Gen Orlov, met at the Russian Mission
on December 11. Orlov discussed the new general provisions
section, which was mostly agreed to, while Trout took the
opportunity to discuss issues relating to data exchange. The
upcoming Presidential telephone call was also brought up,
with Orlov commenting that the central limits would be a main
topic but the heavy bomber counting attribution number would
not. Trout also addressed the Russian proposal to merge
space launch facilities with test ranges. End Summary.


4. (U) SUBJECT SUMMARY: Presidential Phone Call; General
Provisions Look Good, Except for the Data Exchange; START
Annex J; Bracketed Text and Other Issues; and Closing
Comments.

--------------
PRESIDENTIAL PHONE CALL
--------------


5. (S) Orlov began the meeting by briefly commenting on the
upcoming Presidential telephone call scheduled for Friday,
December 12 or Saturday, December 13. He stated that there
were some large issues to be decided, such as the central
numerical limits and the third deployed and non-deployed
launcher limit. Trout, referring to the 1500 total warheads,
one heavy bomber warhead attribution proposal with 1600 total
warheads, and three heavy bomber warhead attribution
proposal, specifically asked whether this was going to be a
topic for the telephone call. Orlov replied that the limits
would but not exact numerical heavy bomber attribution
proposals, arguing that this was for the delegations to
decide with appropriate guidance from their capitals.

--------------
GENERAL PROVISIONS LOOK GOOD,
EXCEPT FOR THE DATA EXCHANGE
--------------


6. (S) Orlov turned to Section I, General Provisions, and
discussed some issues with the recent document. After
resolving some translation issues, Orlov turned to the
paragraph stating the requirement to exchange data that was
current as of signature, 45 days after the treaty was signed,
noting that this paragraph was bracketed as the Russians did
not want to exchange data at this time. He clarified,
however, that Ryzhkov was flying to Geneva over the weekend
and that a better explanation of this position could be
provided with Ryzhkov present. Orlov also restated the
Russian position regarding the data to be exchanged at


signature, saying that oly the aggregate numbers would be
provided. The rest of the document would just be categories.
Trout reiterated the U.S. position of using July 2009 data
to populate the database at signature. Orlov commented that
this data had already been exchanged back in July so why
would we want to exchange it again. After a few more
clarifications by both Trout and Orlov, Orlov again stated
that Ryzhkov would have more to offer regarding this subject.



7. (S) Pischulov brought up the subject of fixed test
launchers with respect to providing coordinates, arguing that
the use of the term "fixed" was not consistent with the rest
of the database. After some discussion, and an argument that
the SLBM section used the term test launchers, it was agreed
to delete the word "fixed," with both sides agreeing that
this clause did not apply to mobile test launchers.


8. (S) Pischulov addressed some other minor details in the
document with LT Lobner, all of which, after some discussion,
were agreed.

--------------
START ANNEX J
--------------


9. (S) Orlov moved on to the former START Annex J, asking
which group would be responsible for completing this
document. Trout pointed out that Dr. Warner and Col Ilin had
discussed working on this document in the Inspection Protocol
Working Group (IPWG). Trout pointed out, however, that the
IPWG was very busy and that perhaps it would be better if the
MOUWG worked on this document. Lobner added that some of the
paragraphs from this Annex had already been moved into
different sections by the IPWG, as well as into the general
provisions section of the database. Orlov concluded saying
that the document needed one owner and that he would talk to
Ilin, suggesting Trout talk to Warner to settle this issue.
Trout agreed.

--------------
BRACKETED TEXT AND OTHER ISSUES
--------------


10. (S) Trout turned to Section IX, Other Data Required by
the Treaty, and agreed to delete the last two remaining
paragraphs exclusive for mobile missiles. Lobner and
Pischulov briefly discussed "version" versus "variant," with
Lobner arguing that although references to support equipment
and fixed structures had been deleted in some cases,
references to mobile launchers had not. Consequently, the
technical term to refer to differences for these launchers
was "version" and not "variant."


11. (S) Trout asked about the Russian position on space
launch facilities and test ranges, and it was confirmed that
the Russian position had not changed. Trout firmly stated
that the United States rejected the Russian proposal to merge
these facilities into one type.


12. (S) Regarding conforming, Trout discussed the
possibility of sending Section VII, ICBM and SLBM Technical
Data, to the Conforming Group. Orlov agreed that this was a


possibility and that he would review the text to see whether
the section could be sent.


13. (S) Trout referred to the recent Russian document that
did not list the RS-24 as an existing type. Orlov clarified
by stating this was an error; the RS-24 would be declared as
an existing type.

--------------
CLOSING COMMENTS
--------------


14. (S) Orlov wrapped up the meeting asking Trout's opinion
on two items. First, he asked whether some of the larger
issues could be decided in the next few days and could the
MOUWG finish the document in 2-3 days. Trout said that he
believed it was possible. Second, Orlov asked about travel
plans, referencing a return to Geneva in January. Trout
stated that he believed the delegation would re-assemble
sometime during the week of January 11. Orlov and Trout
agreed that another scheduled meeting was not necessary at
this time but as soon as guidance changed on either side they
would set up a meeting.


15. (U) Documents provided: None.


16. (U) Participants:

UNITED STATES

Mr. Trout
LT Lobner
Mr. French (Int)

RUSSIA

Gen Orlov
Col Pischulov
Ms. Evarovskaya (Int)


17. (U) Gottemoeller sends.
GRIFFITHS