START FOLLOW-ON NEGOTIATIONS, GENEVA (SFO-GVA-V):

S E C R E T GENEVA 000795 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: 09/29/2019 TAGS: KACT MARR PARM PREL RS US START SUBJECT: START FOLLOW-ON NEGOTIATIONS, GENEVA (SFO-GVA-V): (U) START FOLLOW-ON NEGOTIATIONS, FIRST MEETING OF THE MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING WORKING GROUP, SEPTEMBER 23, 2009 REF: A. GENEVA 0745 (SFO-GVA-IV-011) ¶B. STATE 97473 (SFO-V GUIDANCE-002: U.S. NON-PAPER WITH PROPOSALS FOR THE START FOLLOW-ON TREATY MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING) Classified By: A/S Rose E. Gottemoeller, United States START Negotiator. Reasons: 1.4(b) and (d). ¶1. (U) This is SFO-GVA-V-009. ¶2. (U) Meeting Date: September 23, 2009 Time: 10:30 A.M. - 12:00 P.M. Place: U.S. Mission, Geneva -------------- SUMMARY -------------- ¶3. (S) During a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) Working Group (WG) meeting, conducted on September 23, 2009 at the U.S. Mission, the Russian and U.S. Delegations each explained their proposed versions of the MOU. The Parties agreed they had different approaches regarding the structure and extent of data to be exchanged, although both were generally based on existing START categories of data. ¶4. (S) The Russians explained that their proposal included much of the data provided under START, although the structure of the MOU and the form in which data was provided was substantially different. Additionally, the Russian position conferred the development of Annex J to the START MOU to the Inspection Working Group. They raised some topics in the WG that the United States did not envision being discussed (e.g., counting rules and treaty limits). ¶5. (S) The Russians indicated certain definitions, delivered in the August 31-September 3 session (REF A),had already been modified when the United States questioned why Russia did not include data in the MOU on launch weight that was included in their previously provided definition for "new type" of ICBM and SLBM. General Orlov explained that a new definition was provided in the Russian-proposed Annex of September 22, 2009. (Begin comment: At the time of the meeting, the Russian Annex had only recently been received and had not yet been translated. End comment.) 
 -------------- THE IMPORTANCE OF OUR WORK -------------- ¶6. (S) Mr. Trout welcomed the Russian Delegation to the U.S. Mission for the first MOU WG meeting, and noted that the U.S. non-paper, "U.S. Proposals for the START Follow-on Treaty Memorandum of Understanding," was delivered in Moscow on September 22, 2009 (REF B). Trout explained that the United States was ready to present the non-paper to the Russian Delegation but first invited Orlov to offer his presentation regarding the proposed Russian MOU. Orlov noted the importance of the MOU WG and was anxious to proceed with the meeting and also set an agenda for following meetings. Trout explained that, while the United States had received the proposed Russian Annex on September 22, 2009, it was not yet translated into English. -------------- PROPOSED RUSSIAN MOU -------------- ¶7. (S) Orlov described the Russian proposal for the four MOU sections and four annexes, which he said reflected the U.S.-proposed counting rules and the new relationship between the Parties. ¶8. (S) Orlov said the first section addressed aggregate numbers related to strategic offensive arms, specifically deployed IBMs, SLBMs, and heavy bombers (HB); deployed launhers of ICBMs and SLBMs; warheads on deployed ICBM, SLBMs, and HBs; non-deployed ICBMs, SLBMs, andHBs; and finally non-deployed launchers of ICBMs and SLBMs. He also reiterated the three proposed Russian maximum treaty limits. ¶9. (S) The second section addressed aggregate data for ICBMs and SLBMs, the warheads on ICBMs and SLBMs, and launchers of ICBMs and SLBMs. He noted that this section was broken down into two parts, one covering ICBMs and the other covering SLBMs. Included is data about ICBM and SLBM bases and related facilities (e.g., storage facilities, repair facilities, test ranges, training areas, conversion or elimination facilities, and production facilities). ¶10. (S) The third section addressed aggregate numbers of HBs and the warhads on them. Orlov made the point that warheadsnot on a depoyed HB would not count against the wahead limit. He explained that deployed HBs are hose equipped for nuclear armaments and based atair bases. Non-deployed HBs are those at storag facilities for HBs, repair facilities, conversin or elimination facilities, test HBs and training HBs. Data on HB bases and related facilities, siilar to the previous section, are also included. ¶11. (S) The fourth section addressed static diplays of ICBMs, SLBMs, launchers of ICBMs and SLMs, and HBs. The Russian proposal did not include missile launch weight or weight of missile stages. The Russians stated that they preserved the main parts of the START MOU and tailored their proposed MOU to the new counting rules. ¶12. (S) The four annexes, ICBM and SLBM Technical Data, Heavy Bomber Technical Data, Long-Range Nuclear ALCM Technical Data, and Other Data Required by the Treaty, were discussed briefly, but in no significant detail. -------------- CLARIFYING THE RUSSIAN PROPOSAL -------------- ¶13. (S) The Russians also clarified that if an SLBM were removed from an SSBN tube, the launch tube becomes non-deployed. Consequently, it is possible to have both deployed and non-deployed launchers on the same SSBN with both launchers counting toward the proposed limit of 600 ICBM and SLBM launchers. ¶14. (S) Orlov noted, in response to a question from Mr. Taylor about points of entry and site diagrams, that the Inspection Protocol (IP) WG would be responsible for such information vice the MOU WG. Trout said that this was a surprise to the U.S. Delegation. When asked about not including missile launch weight in the MOU and how that was consistent with the Russian definition of "new type" defined in the August 31, 2009 "Proposals of the Russian Side for the Wording of the Provisions of the New Treaty on Strategic Offensive Arms Regarding Terms and Their Definitions" (REF B),Orlov said they now have a new version of the definitions that does not include a reference to launch weight. ¶15. (S) Mr. DeNinno stated that the proposed Russian MOU only made note of coordinates for individual bases. He asked whether Russia planned to include coordinates for individual silo launchers organized by silo groups. Colonel Petrov clarified that coordinates for individual bases and data about facilities will continue to be exchanged, similar to START. DeNinno noted that Russian MOU Annexes A, B and C referenced technical characteristics. He asked whether Russia planned to move data on technical characteristics into these annexes instead of listing these characteristics under the current START Annex F. Petrov confirmed this point and clarified that the Russian proposal is organized much differently than the current START MOU. Orlov responded that data reported under START will still be reported. ¶16. (S) Trout, in response to the new position that some previous MOU sections were not anticipated by the Russians to be worked in this WG, asked whether there were other parts of the current MOU that the Russians believed other WGs should address. Orlov said he proposed to his Head of Delegation that Russian Delegates should rotate through WGs to get a better feel for the whole task and make it easier to achieve a combined text. Trout thanked the Russians for their proposal and said the United States would study the Russian position. -------------- PROPOSED U.S. MOU -------------- ¶17. (S) Trout delivered points from the U.S. Non-Paper on the START MOU (REF B) to explain the U.S.-proposed approach to the MOU. He said the U.S. approach draws from previous experience with the START Treaty. He handed the Russian Delegation the official English language version of the non-paper and an unofficial courtesy copy in Russian. ¶18. (S) In summary, Trout concluded that the United States has worked to retain much of the format of the START MOU and its annexes while modifying it in appropriate places to reflect the central limits of the U.S.-proposed Treaty Article II, Subparagraphs (a) and (b). The United States also tried to delete extraneous data and update data to reflect changes in technology. ¶19. (S) Trout concluded his talking points and asked whether the Russian Delegation had any questions. Orlov noted that the Parties had different approaches to the new MOU. Petrov asked whether the U.S. position was to provide warhead data at each base in two forums, one in the MOU, and the other at the base during an inspection. Trout responded in the affirmative. Orlov offered that both sides should exchange written questions to review and Trout concurred with the proposal. ¶20. (U) Documents exchanged. - U.S.: -- U.S. Non-Paper Containing Proposals for the START Follow-on Treaty Memorandum of Understanding. ¶21. (U) Participants: U.S. Mr. Trout Ms. Bosco Mr. Colby Mr. DeNinno Mr. Evans Col Hartford LT Lobner Mr. Taylor Ms. Gesse (Int) Russua Gen Orlov Col Ilin Col Kamenskiy Mr. Luchaninov Gen Pischulov Col Petrov Gen Poznihir Mr. Vorontsov Ms. Komshilova (Int) ¶22. (U) Gottemoeller sends. GRIFFITHS