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

S E C R E T GENEVA 000981

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: 11/06/2019
TAGS: KACT MARR PARM PREL RS US START
SUBJECT: START FOLLOW-ON NEGOTIATIONS, GENEVA (SFO-GVA-VI):
(U) MEETING OF THE TREATY TEXT AND DEFINITIONS WORKING
GROUP DEFINITIONS SUBGROUP, OCTOBER 28, 2009

REF: GENEVA 0956 (SFO-GVA-VI-026)

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


1. (U) This is SFO-GVA-VI-036.


2. (U) Meeting Date: October 28, 2009
Time: 3:00 - 6:00 P.M.
Place: Russian Mission, Geneva

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


3. (S) A meeting of the Treaty Text and Definitions Working
Group (TTDWG) Definitions Subgroup was held at the Russian
Mission on October 28, 2009. The Definitions Subgroup
discussed 13 definitions from Group II (terms common to both
sides, but containing minor, non-substantive differences).
The Russian Delegation explained that this was a new treaty
for a new relationship, and there was no need to define one
term that would in turn define another term that would
actually appear in treaty text. In several instances, the
Russians appeared to be walking back from their initial
starting positions, adding to their list of superfluous
definitions those terms that they had originally proposed in
their own version of the treaty.


4. (U) SUBJECT SUMMARY: In Reviewing the Terms - Less is
More; and, The List of Terms Discussed.

--------------
IN REVIWING THE
TERMS - LESS IS MORE
--------------


5. (S) The Russian Delegation opened the meeting by
explaining that their goal for the meeting was to reduce the
number of terms that required a definition in the new treaty.
They made repeated arguments that centered on contrasting
the new relationship between the United States and Russia
verus the relationship in effect at the time of the sgning
of the START Treaty. They felt two decade of practice using
these terms had elevated them to the point where all persons
involved knew or uderstood their meaning. With both sides
having uch vast experience, what was the need for so many
terms and definitions? On more than one occasio, they
walked back from their initial position an recommended a
term (such as "inspected Party," inspecting Party," and
"inspection site") that tey had originally proposed for the
treaty be scrpped as superfluous.

--------------
THE LIST OF TERMS DISCUSSEE
--------------


6. (S) Prior to commencing discussion of Group II terms
(terms common to both sides, but containing minor,
non-substantive differences),Admiral Kuznetsov interrpted
the opening remarks to say he wanted to disuss the term
Training Facility. (Begin comment: This term was agreed in
the previous meeting of the working group (REFRWL). End



comment.) He reported that the work of the Memorandum of
Understanding (MOU) Working Group was developing along the
path where it might be necessary to have a new term for a
heavy bomber used as a ground trainer. With that in mind, he
said it would be necessary to add additional language to the
training facility term, including a facility where ground
trainers of heavy bombers are based. Having said his piece,
Kuznetsov allowed the sides to continue the review of Group
II terms.


7. (S) Following are the list of terms that were discussed
during this meeting . (Begin comment: For this meeting,
both groups worked off the Russian version of the Joint Draft
Text, which was alphabetized in the Russian language. End
comment.)

-- "Air Base." Kuznetsov proposed to exclude references
to categories of facilities (i.e., production facilities,
flight test center, and training facility). Mr. Siemon noted
that the additional categories helped to sharpen the focus
toward the heavy bombers that needed to be counted and
precluding establishment of additional categories of
facilities in the MOU that might be needed if not further
defined in a term. Kuznetsov observed that the requisite
categories were already in the MOU, thus obviating the need
for further definition.

-- "Deployed Heavy Bomber." Kuznetsov was unswerving in
his opinion that all heavy bombers could be attributed to one
air base or another, hence the desire to add the words "and
attributed to relevant air bases." He opined this added
language would align with the direction that the MOU Working
Group was headed. Mr. Dean pointed out that the goal of the
Definitions Subgroup should be to distill any term to its
most basic form to ensure it would be applicable throughout
the treaty text. In response to his question on when such
language would be necessary, Kuznetsov immediately responded,
with bombers awaiting conversion and elimination at
Davis-Montham Air Force Base. It became clear that there was
a difference in how deployed heavy bombers would be counted,
and both sides agreed to do more homework on the term.

-- "Each Year." Kuznetsov said the Russian Delegation
felt this term to be superfluous, but if it was necessary, it
should be based on the calendar year for simplicity and to
align with the Russian fiscal year. Siemon pointed out that
the term were necessary to determine when to provide data and
to conduct inspections. Dean added a caution that if the
entry into force was other than January 1 and the treaty year
based on January 1, problems would ensue from a scenario
based on compressed obligations. In one interpretation, an
entire quota of inspections might have to be executed in the
span of a few months. Kuznetsov suggested asking Dr. Warner
and Colonel Ilin to review and comment.

-- "Range." Kuznetsov noted both sides were in virtual
agreement with exception of the use of aircraft versus heavy
bomber in subparagraph c. Siemon noted it was a nested term
from the START Treaty that was used as a building block for
defining what would constitute a heavy bomber. Ms. Kotkova
opined terms used solely for defining other terms was
unnecessary and should be avoided. Dean responded that these
were precise terms used to spell out the exact obligations to


be incurred by the Parties. Mr. Connell observed that both
sides had already agreed to nested terms in subparagraphs a
and b of this very definition. An ALCM's range needed to be
determined before it could be considered to be a long-range
ALCM, and a ballistic missile's range needed to be determined
before it could be declared to be an ICBM or SLBM. Kuznetsov
determined to assume the problem away, proclaiming both sides
already knew what constituted a heavy bomber or ICBM, and
there was no need for further terms.

-- "Inspected Party" and "Inspecting Party." Siemon
noted both sides were in virtual agreement, and this term
could be agreed as soon as the Inspection Protocol Working
Group had determined the kinds of inspections to be included
in this treaty. This elicited an unexpected response from
Kotkova, who observed that this term was completely
unnecessary--even though the Russian side had also proposed
the term--and wondered out loud if anyone had any doubts as
to who had which role (i.e., Inspected Party or Inspecting
Party) during an inspection. Kuznetsov also chimed in to ask
what would happen if such a term was not included in the new
treaty. Siemon replied he would consider Kuznetsov's
comments and discuss this with the other members of the
delegation.

-- "Category." Kuznetsov also thought this term could
be dropped, as the MOU and Notifications have to update all
"categories" of SOA, yet there was a term that defined only
the categories of heavy bombers. Siemon argued that the term
would allow for a logical presentation of the data as it
appeared in the MOU. Kuznetsov retorted there were no
categories for ICBM, SLBM, mobile missiles and yet this
material could be logically arrayed in the MOU. He then
suggested maybe the term, if it really was needed, could be
broadened to include other forms of SOA.

-- "Air-Launched Cruise Missile (ALCM)." Kuznetsov
reiterated the Russian position to drop the U.S.-proposed
language listing the start date when ALCMs would be counted
and the requirement that they be test flown from an aircraft.
Siemon noted this language had been agreed in START and was
designed to ensure sea-launched cruise missiles (SLCMs) that
had been tested from an aircraft prior to December 31, 1986,
were not considered to be ALCMs. Kuznetsov was again quick
to assume the problem away, stating the MOU would only carry
ALCM data anyway, and nobody would remember or recall any
tests that were done more than 25 years ago.

-- "Aircraft." Kuznetsov remarked how he had made his
point clear about terms that simply defined other terms. Mr.
Luchaninov observed how nested terms could be taken ad
infinitum, and you could find yourself defining lift,
atmosphere, and even the earth's surface. Dean pointed out
how the term was also important in shaping the prohibitions
listed in Article V, to which Kuznetsov retorted, "that's
your prohibitions." Digressing to address Article V,
Kuznetsov felt the prohibitions listed in SALT, INF, and
START I were based on crazy notions by people possessing rich
imaginations. (Begin comment: Kuznetsov was referring to
bans on "exotic" weapons in Article V. End comment.)

-- "Flight Test." Kuznetsov explained that the Russian
side wanted to improve the wording of this term from how it


was written in the START Treaty. He wanted to tighten the
wording to indicate what he thought everyone already knew,
which was that the term was about ICBMs and SLBMs, and nobody
cared about applying it to ALCMs. Siemon replied the United
States wanted a general term and preferred the language taken
from START. He pointed out a flight test of a ballistic
missile or prototype would lead to the determination if it
was to be termed an ICBM or SLBM. Kuznetsov appeared
unmoved, remarking "we've already identified our logic."
Siemon also inquired whether the Russian side would continue
notifications of ballistic missile launches conducted under
existing agreements, to which Kuznetsov responded that
prototypes would be considered by the Russian side in the
framework of the definitions of ICBM and SLBM.

-- "Inspection Site." Kotkova asked whether both sides
really felt such an obvious term still needed a definition.
Siemon reminded her the term would find its relevance in how
sites were specified and how they would be handled in the
subsequent tier two documents.

-- "Repair Facility." Kuznetsov observed both sides
could readily agree to this term if subparagraph c could be
modified to add the term "Former Heavy Bomber" to the
definition text. Col Novikov provided the explanation,
stating the Russian Federation possessed a number of aircraft
that either were once heavy bombers or had a similar
airframe. As a result, they needed a term to permit such an
aircraft to be serviced and maintained at a bomber facility.

-- "Former Heavy Bomber." Kuznetsov took advantage of
the discussion on repair facilities to then raise the issue
of Former Heavy Bombers. He reminded everyone that the term
was in the list of proposed Russian definitions and would be
included in the final list. Siemon noted that it was not in
the U.S. version, and pointed out that the decision on
whether it stayed or not would depend in large part on the
definition of a heavy bomber and the related heavy bomber
counting rules. He also related that discussion of such
would be held in the Ad Hoc Group meetings.


8. (U) Documents exchanged. None.


9. (U) Participants:

U.S.

Mr. Siemon
Lt Col Comeau
Mr. Connell
Dr. Dreicer
Mr. Dean
Mrs. Zdravecky
Dr. Hopkins (Int)

RUSSIA

Adm Kuznetsov
Ms. Fuzhenkova
Col Kamenskiy
Ms. Kotkova
Mr. Luchaninov
Ms. Melikbekian


Col Novikov
Mr. Gayduk (Int)


10. (U) Ries sends.
GRIFFITHS