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