Identifier
Created
Classification
Origin
09GENEVA860
2009-10-09 07:59:00
SECRET
Mission Geneva
Cable title:  

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

Tags:  KACT MARR PARM PREL RS US START 
pdf how-to read a cable
VZCZCXYZ0000
OO RUEHWEB

DE RUEHGV #0860/01 2820759
ZNY SSSSS ZZH
O 090759Z OCT 09
FM USMISSION GENEVA
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC IMMEDIATE 9610
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 4997
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 2182
RUEHKV/AMEMBASSY KYIV PRIORITY 1184
RUEHMO/AMEMBASSY MOSCOW PRIORITY 6380
S E C R E T GENEVA 000860 

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: 09/21/2019
TAGS: KACT MARR PARM PREL RS US START
SUBJECT: START FOLLOW-ON NEGOTIATIONS, GENEVA (SFO-GVA-V):
(U) THIRD MEETING OF THE START FOLLOW-ON CONVERSION OR
ELIMINATION AND NOTIFICATIONS WORKING GROUP MEETING,
SEPTEMBER 29, 2009

REF: A. STATE 99070-99072 (SFO-V-GUIDANCE-003:
U.S.-PROPOSED DRAFT START FOLLOW-ON
ELIMINATION PROTOCOL)

B. GENEVA 00811 (SFO-GVA-V-024)

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

S E C R E T GENEVA 000860

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: 09/21/2019
TAGS: KACT MARR PARM PREL RS US START
SUBJECT: START FOLLOW-ON NEGOTIATIONS, GENEVA (SFO-GVA-V):
(U) THIRD MEETING OF THE START FOLLOW-ON CONVERSION OR
ELIMINATION AND NOTIFICATIONS WORKING GROUP MEETING,
SEPTEMBER 29, 2009

REF: A. STATE 99070-99072 (SFO-V-GUIDANCE-003:
U.S.-PROPOSED DRAFT START FOLLOW-ON
ELIMINATION PROTOCOL)

B. GENEVA 00811 (SFO-GVA-V-024)

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


1. (U) This is SFO-GVA-V-027.


2. (U) Meeting Date: September 29, 2009
Time: 10:00 a.m. - 1:00 p.m.
Place: Russian Mission, Geneva

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


3. (S) The third meeting of the Conversion or Elimination
Working Group (C or E) WG was held at the Russian Mission on
September 29, 2009. The U.S. chair provided charts outlining
differences on elimination between START I, U.S.-proposed
text for the START Follow-on Elimination Notification (Ref
A),and Russian-proposed text on elimination (Ref B),
unofficial Russian translation of the U.S. Elimination
Protocol.


4. (S) The U.S. side explained that the sides continue to
have different philosophies on how to conduct elimination
activities--the Russian side favors less specificity in
actual procedures than does the United States. The U.S. side
noted the importance of ensuring verification of those
actions. The Russian delegation raised the issue of
financial costs involved in eliminating systems, but also
recommended the United States spend whatever is necessary to
ensure we use unambiguous methods. The Russian side also
continued to object to what they perceive to be special U.S.
interest in mobile missile elimination verification.


5. (S) The U.S. side noted that we likely have more in
common than the different sizes (lengths) of the respective

U.S. and Russian proposals would suggest. Many key phrases
used are similar. The U.S. proposal goes into greater
detail, but the concepts are quite similar.

--------------
OPENING SALVOS
--------------


6. (S) Both sides began the third meeting of the C or E WG
by noting each side had reviewed the other's respective
proposals and were prepared to ask questions. Mr. Elliott
suggested that the respective Parties' positions may not be
as different as some might think. Elliott handed over charts
outlining the differences between START, U.S.- and
Russian-proposed C or E procedures.


7. (S) The following text was handed over to the Russian
delegation; however, it was not discussed during this
meeting. Each charts' four columns were Column One: Item,
Column Two: START, Column Three: U.S. SFO and Column Four:
Russian SFO.




Begin Text:

Slide One, Column One:

Elimination of Heavy Bomber for Nuclear Armaments.

Slide One, Column Two:

All of the following:

(a) The tail section with tail surfaces shall be severed from
the fuselage at a location obviously not an assembly joint;

(b) The wings shall be separated from the fuselage at any
location by any method; and

(c) The remainder of the fuselage shall be severed into two
pieces, within the area of attachment of the wings to the
fuselage, at a location obviously not an assembly joint.
To convert a heavy bomber so that it is no longer equipped
for nuclear armaments, all weapons bays equipped to carry
nuclear armaments shall be modified so as to render them
incapable of carrying nuclear armaments. All external
attachment joints for nuclear armaments and all external
attachment joints for pylons for nuclear armaments shall be
removed or modified so as to render them incapable of
carrying nuclear armaments;

Verification by NTM and inspection.

Slide One, Column Three:

Any of the following:

(a) The tail section with tail surfaces shall be separated
from the fuselage at a location that is obviously not an
assembly joint using any method;

(b) All weapons bays and all external attachment areas for
pylons shall be modified as to render them incapable of
employing nuclear armaments;

(c) All internal and external launcher assemblies shall be
modified so as to render them incapable of employing nuclear
armaments; or

(d) Other procedures, developed by the possessing Party, that
render the heavy bomber incapable of being utilized for its
original purpose in a manner that the other Party can
confirm, shall be recorded within the framework of the BCC.

Prior to the elimination of the first heavy bomber of each
type...conduct a one-time demonstration.

Verification by NTM and inspection

Slide One, Column Four:

Elimination of heavy bombers shall be carried out using
procedures to be determined by the Party conducting the
elimination, which provide for removal or destruction of the



basic design elements and which ensure that a heavy bomber is
rendered inoperable.

Conversion of heavy bombers shall be carried out in such a
way that the converted heavy bombers have external or
functional differences indicating that they cannot perform
functions involving the armaments with which they were
equipped prior to conversion.

Verification by NTM and Visit

Slide Two, Column One:

Elimination of Silo Launchers of ICBMs

Slide Two, Column Two:

All of the following:

(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 six meters; and

(b) Following completion of the procedures provided for in
subparagraph (a) of this paragraph, the silo may be filled to
the level of the bottom of the hole created by the excavation
or explosion...the resultant hole may be graded during the
180-day period...but not filled with earth until expiration
of the 90-day period.

Conversion from one accountable type to another accountable
type.

Verification by NTM/Notification

Slide Two, Column Three:

Any of the following:

(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 six meters;

(b) The silo door shall be removed, dismantled or destroyed
and the silo shall be completely filled with gravel. The
silo door shall not be reinstalled; or

(c) Other procedures, developed by the possessing Party, that
render the silo launcher incapable of being utilized for its
original purpose in a manner that the other Party can
confirm, shall be recorded within the framework of the BCC.

Prior to the elimination of the first launcher of each type
of ICBMs using procedures provided for in subparagraph 5(c),
possessing Party shall conduct a one-time demonstration.

For a nuclear-capable to nuclear-capable conversion, only a
notification is required.

Verification by NTM and inspection




Slide Two, Column Four:

Elimination of ICBM launchers shall be carried out using
procedures to be determined by the Party conducting the
elimination, which provide for rendering them incapable of
launching ICBMs.

Conversion of ICBM launchers shall be carried out in such a
way that the converted launchers cannot thereafter contain
ICBMs of the type for which they were intended prior to
conversion and that they have external or functional
differences.

Verification by visit and NTM

Slide Three, Column One:

Elimination of Mobile Launchers of ICBMs

Slide Three, Column Two and Column Three:

Elimination process for mobile launchers of ICBMs and mobile
training launchers:

(a) The erector launcher mechanism and leveling supports
shall be removed from the launcher chassis;

(b) The framework of the erector launcher mechanism on which
the ICBM is mounted and erected shall be cut at locations
that are not assembly joints into two pieces of approximately
equal size;

(c) Missile launch support equipment, including external
instrumentation compartments, shall be removed from the
launcher chassis;

(d) The mountings of the erector launcher mechanism and of
the launcher leveling supports shall be cut off the launcher
chassis and each such mounting shall be cut at a location
that is not an assembly joint into two pieces of
approximately equal size; and

(e) A portion of the self-propelled launcher chassis, at
least 0.78 meters in length, shall be cut off aft of the rear
axle and that portion shall be cut into two pieces of
approximately equal size; and no component, including those
removed in accordance with the procedures provided for in
this paragraph, shall be mounted, welded, or attached by any
other means to an eliminated launcher chassis so as to
increase the length of such a chassis.

Upon completion of these elimination procedures for mobile
launchers of ICBMs, the vehicle may be used only for purposes
not inconsistent with the provisions of the Treaty.

Verification by inspection.

Slide Three, Column Four:

Elimination of ICBM launchers shall be carried out using
procedures to be determined by the Party conducting the



elimination, which provide for rendering them incapable of
launching ICBMs.

Verification by NTM and visit.

Slide Four, Column One:

Elimination of SLBM Launchers

NOTE: There are no conversion procedures for SLBM launchers
in the START C or E Protocol.

Slide Four, Column Two:

Any of the following:

(a) The missile section shall be removed from the submarine;

(b) The missile launch tube(s),and all elements of their
reinforcement, including hull liners and segments of circular
structural members between the missile launch tubes, as well
as the entire portion of the pressure hull, the entire
portion of the outer hull, and the entire portion of the
superstructure through which all the missile launch tubes
pass and that contain all the missile launch-tube
penetrations shall be removed from the submarine. Missile
launch tube(s) that have been removed shall be cut into two
pieces of approximately equal size and shall remain in the
open in the vicinity of the submarine until completion of the
elimination procedures, after which they may be removed from
the elimination facility;

Verification by NTM

Slide Four, Column Three:

Any of the following:

(a) As in START

(b) As in START

(c) The launchers height or diameter shall be reduced in a
manner such that the launcher can no longer contain the
smallest SLBM deployed by the possessing Party;

(d) Critical components required to launch an SLBM that can
be confirmed by the inspecting party, shall be removed. Such
critical components may include but are not limited to gas
generator(s) and related launcher sub-systems; or

(e) Other procedures, developed by the possessing Party, that
render the SLBM launcher incapable of being utilized for its
original purpose in a manner that the other Party can
confirm, shall be recorded within the framework of the BCC.

Prior to the elimination of the first launcher of each type
of SLBM launcher using procedures provided for in
subparagraph 5(c),5(d),and 5(e),the possessing Party will
conduct a one-time demonstration.

For a nuclear-capable to nuclear-capable conversion, only a



notification is required.
Verification by NTM and inspection

Slide Four, Column Four:

Elimination of SLBM launchers shall be carried out using
procedures to be determined by the Party conducting the
elimination, which provide, inter alia and which ensure that
the SLBM launchers being eliminated are rendered incapable of
launching SLBMs.

Conversion of SLBM launchers shall be carried out in such a
way that the converted launchers cannot thereafter contain
SLBMs of the type for which they were intended prior to
conversion and that they have external or functional
differences.

Verification by NTM and visit.

Slide Five, Column One:

Elimination of ICBMs for Silo Launchers of ICBMs and SLBMs

NOTE: There are no elimination procedures for ICBMs and
SLBMs in the START C or E Protocol

Slide Five, Column Two:

Treaty Article III Paragraph 7

ICBMs for silo launchers of ICBMs and SLBMs shall be subject
to the limitations provided for in this Treaty until they
have been eliminated by rendering them inoperable, precluding
their use for their original purpose, using procedures at the
discretion of the Party possessing the ICBMs or SLBMs.

Notification

Slide Five, Column Three:

Treaty Article III Paragraph 7

ICBMs for silo launchers of ICBMs and SLBMs shall be subject
to the limitations provided for in this Treaty until they
have been eliminated by rendering them inoperable, precluding
their use for their original purpose, using procedures at the
discretion of the Party possessing the ICBMs or SLBMs, or
otherwise cease to be subject to the limitations provided for
in this Treaty, in accordance with procedures provided for in
the Conversion or Elimination Protocol or as agreed between
the Parties within the framework of the Bilateral
Consultative Commission.

Notification

Slide Five, Column Four:

Elimination of ICBMs and SLBMs shall be carried out using
procedures to be determined by the Party conducting the
elimination, which ensure that they are rendered inoperable,
precluding their use for their original purpose.



Verification by NTM for solid-propellant ICBMs and SLBMs

Slide Six, Column One:

Elimination of ICBMs for Mobile Launchers of ICBMs

Slide Six, Column Two and Column Three:

Prior to the confirmatory inspection :

(a) shall remove the missile's reentry vehicle or vehicles;

(b) may remove the electronic and electromechanical devices
of the missile's guidance and control system from the missile
and its launch canister;

(c) may remove the missile from its launch canister, remove
the missile attachment devices from the launch canister,
disassemble the missile into stages and the self-contained
dispensing mechanism, and detach rocket motor nozzles and
interstage skirts of the missile from stages;

(d) may remove propellant from stages;

(e) may remove or actuate auxiliary pyrotechnic devices
installed on the missile and its launch canister;

(f) may remove penetration aids, including devices for their
attachment and release;

Elimination process for ICBMs for mobile launchers of ICBMs:

(a) If solid fuel has not been removed from stages, the
stages shall be destroyed by explosive demolition or burned;

(b) Rocket motor nozzles and cases, as well as the interstage
skirts of a missile remaining after completion of the
procedures provided for in subparagraphs 2(c),2(d) and 4(a)
of this Section, or after the completion of static testing
provided for in paragraph 3 of Section VI of this Protocol,
shall be crushed, flattened, cut into two pieces of
approximately equal size, or destroyed by explosion; and

(c) The self-contained dispensing mechanism, as well as the
front section, including the reentry vehicle platform and the
front section shroud, shall be crushed, flattened, cut into
two pieces of approximately equal size, or destroyed by
explosion.


5. Elimination process for launch canisters of ICBMs
for mobile launchers of ICBMs:

(a) The body of the launch canister shall be crushed,
flattened, or destroyed by explosion; or

(b) If the body of the launch canister is composed of
segments, each of the segments shall be cut into two pieces
at a location that is not an assembly joint. A launch
canister, the body of which is of unitary construction, shall
be cut into two pieces of approximately equal size, or cut
into three pieces in such a manner that pieces no less than
1.5 meters long are cut from the ends of the body of such a



launch canister.

Verification by inspection

Slide Six, Column Four:

Elimination of ICBM launchers shall be carried out using
procedures to be determined by the Party conducting the
elimination, which provide for rendering them incapable of
launching ICBMs.

Verification by NTM and visit

End Text.


8. (S) Ryzhkov suggested that the two parties have
fundamentally different approaches. Ryzhkov noted that to
Russia, elimination means the launchers and facilities can no
longer be used for its intended purposes and would no longer
be subject to the treaty. Conversion means the items can no
longer be used for its intended purpose but remain subject to
the terms of the treaty.

--------------
HEAVY BOMBERS AND DAVIS-MONTHAN AFB
--------------


9. (S) Elliott asked whether converted items would no longer
be subject to numerical limits, but would be subject to
verification. Ryzhkov said yes. Elliott asked whether this
would apply to the category of former heavy bombers? Does
converting bombers to a non-nuclear configuration make them
former heavy bombers? Ryzhkov demurred, not using the term
former heavy bomber, saying instead that they would be heavy
bombers converted to a non-nuclear configuration. He went on
to say conversion procedures could also be used to convert
them back, and visits to confirm that this had not happened
would be an important aspect of the protocol. Elliott then
asked how Russia would treat non-flyable B-52 bombers at
Davis Monthan. Ryzhkov answered that any heavy bomber is
subject to the treaty until the moment it has been
eliminated. Elliott noted the importance of agreeing in the
appropriate treaty article the existing types of heavy
bombers, and by doing so, determine the status of B-52Gs.
Ryzhkov responded, saying he wasn't speaking of counting
rules, but rather of including heavy bombers in reporting
data as non-deployed items.

--------------
RUSSIAN DELEGATION EXPLAINED THEIR APPROACH
--------------


10. (S) Rzyhkov elaborated on the approach used by the
Russian Delegation in developing their proposed conversion
and elimination annex. He relayed that there were three
aspects used throughout their annex: 1) the fundamental
principle of rendering an item inoperable for its intended
purpose is applied across all strategic offensive arms (SOA);
2) harmonization, in that the same procedures would be used
for the same types of SOA; and 3) simplification in that both
parties should not be limited to a specific list of
procedures.




--------------
RUSSIA: ICBMS AND SLBMS
--------------


11. (S) Ryzhkov then moved the discussion to ICBMs and SLBMs
stating that Russia advocated flexibility in determining what
method to use to eliminate SOAs. Ryzhkov regularly
emphasized the similarities of U.S and Russian ICBMs and
SLBMs such as each have solid-propellant fuel and number of
stages. Ryzhkov made the point that if each party's
solid-propellant ballistic missiles are the same then the
elimination procedures for both Parties should also be the
same. Additionally, each party should be allowed to select
their own methods, preferably simplified procedures, deleting
those START I methods now considered to be unnecessary. For
example, Ryzhkov inquired as to why specify filling silos
with gravel? He said that gravel can be expensive in certain
parts of Russia, so why not use soil? Rzyhkov asserted that
a Party selecting their own procedures would give Russia the
flexibility to do eliminations economically.


12. (S) Elliott responded by expressing an understanding of
their position, and suggested some procedures could be
developed now, and some later, with the important principle
being one of successfully removing the item from
accountability. Ryzhkov responded by saying if the
respective Party gets to select its own procedure, then we
are in agreement. Some procedures should be mandatory, for
example, removal of the silo door, and some should be at the
discretion of the Party, such as soil versus gravel, and when
decided upon by the eliminating Party, informing the other
Party of the method used, and perhaps discussed in the BCC.
Elliott suggested the list of examples could be expanded, any
of which would be acceptable. Ryzhkov said the U.S.-proposed
text as written doesn't come across that way, it says the
Parties must agree to procedures. Elliott suggested that the
Parties consider having a list of elimination methods.
Ryzhkov questioned the need for a list. Elliott said that
appropriate level of Protocol detail and specific procedures
are important for the U.S. ratification process.

--------------
I'M GLAD YOU ASKED ME THAT QUESTION
--------------


13. (S) Ryzhkov asked why the United States insisted on
requiring mobile ICBMs such as the Russian SS-25 to have
different elimination procedures than the U.S. Minuteman III?
Elliott highlighted that the original intent was to create a
treaty to follow the START Treaty with a degree of certainty
and transparency for both sides. It was not to discriminate
against one side or the other side. However, due to the
characteristics of the mobile missiles these items raise
verification challenges. NTM can verify the elimination of
ICBM silos and SLBM submarines. Elliott maintained that the
intent is not to discriminate between U.S. and Russian weapon
systems, but to verify the elimination of systems that, due
to their differences, have different verification
requirements,regardless of which Party possesses them.

-------------- -




THE IMPORTANCE OF OPTIONS TO DUMA RATIFICATION
-------------- -


14. (S) After a break, Ryzhkov returned to the importance of
Russia having the flexibility to choose elimination methods,
expressing a concern that if specific elimination procedures
that are different for each Party are mandated, it may be
difficult to ratify the treaty. He also spoke of using three
levels of text in the treaty (treaty articles, protocols, and
annexes). Elliott noted the possibility of using three
levels of text was being discussed in the Inspection Protocol
Working Group but it required further analysis for its
applicability for this working group.


15. (S) Elliott then introduced the subject of
demonstrations, using them as a confidence building measure
that would also contribute to verification. Ryzhkov said it
could be problematic, as with the conversion of a heavy
bomber to a non-nuclear configuration. He asserted that
eliminations should be no problem. Ryzhkov said that
conversion and demonstration should be aimed at confirming
the heavy bomber was converted to another kind of SOA. For
example, when one side opts to use the changing of electrical
cables to accomplish a conversion, the other side will have a
lot of problems confirming the conversion. The Parties
should use procedures, regardless of cost, to accomplish
convincing the other Party that the conversion has been
completed. Elliott agreed--the same applies for mobile
missiles. Mr. Smirnov noted the Russian preference for NTM,
not inspections. He asked why the United States needed
inspectors to observe the process of elimination and why does
the United States want to retain the detailed elimination
provisions for mobile missiles? Elliot said that for some
systems like a silo launcher of ICBMs or submarine, NTM will
work, however, for other, smaller systems it won't work. One
possibility for smaller systems is an exhibition
demonstration when the elimination is complete. Elliott
noted that the United States was trying to keep things simple
too, as in the case of B-52s, simply cutting off the tail.


16. (S) Elliott asked what the Russian delegation envisions
as the basic design elements of heavy bombers? Rzyhkov
pointed out that the tail, wings or fuselage of the aircraft
can all be characterized as basic design elements of heavy
bombers. Smironov interjected that both the United States
and Russia had the same basic text but must bear in mind a
set of procedures to be selected.

--------------
THE NEXT STEP
--------------


17. (S) Elliott provided Ryzhkov with a U.S.-Proposed joint
draft text on the Elimination Protocol in both U.S. and
Russian languages, suggesting both Parties find common
language. Ryzhkov recommended the U.S. delegation study the
Russian proposal, suggest changes, and that the Russian
delegation would do the same for the U.S. version.


18. (S) Documents exchanged:

U.S.:




- Charts Illustrating Comparative Elimination
Requirements Under START, U.S. and Russian proposals for the
Elimination Protocol;

- Unofficial Russian Translation of the U.S.
Elimination Protocol; and

- U.S.-proposed Text for the Elimination Protocol
(Begin comment: Document will be provided in a SEPTEL. End
comment.)


19. (S) Participants:

U.S.

Mr. Elliott
Mr. Siemon
Lt Col Comeau
LTC Leyde
Lt Col Goodman
Mr. Dwyer
Mr. Strauss
Dr. Fraley
Mr. Hanchett
LCDR Brons
Mr. McConnell
Ms. Purcell
Ms. Gross (Int)

RUSSIA

Col Ryzhkov
Col Izrazov
Ms. Kotkova
Col Novikov
Mr. Smirnov
Mr. Leontiev
Col Zaitsev
Col Ilin
Gen Venevtsev
Mr. Kostyuchenko
Ms. Komshilova (Int)


20. (U) Gottemoeller sends.
RICHTER