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

S E C R E T GENEVA 000990

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: 11/06/2019
TAGS: KACT MARR PARM PREL RS US START
SUBJECT: START FOLLOW-ON NEGOTIATIONS, GENEVA (SFO-GVA-VI):
(U) MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING WORKING GROUP MEETING,
OCTOBER 30, 2009

REF: GENEVA 0989 (SFO-GVA-VI-040)

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


1. (U) This is SFO-GVA-VI-046.


2. (U) Meeting Date: October 30, 2009
Time: 4:00 - 5:00 P.M.
Place: U.S. Mission, Geneva

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


3. (S) On October 30, 2009, the Memorandum of Understanding
(MOU) Working Group (WG) met at the U.S. Mission for the
third meeting this session (seventh meeting overall) to
continue a line-by-line review of the U.S.-proposed Joint
Draft Text (JDT) of the MOU Annexes, provided at a previous
MOU WG meeting on October 29, 2009 (REFTEL). The sides
confirmed that disagreements still existed in Annexes A, B, C
and D. The sides did agree that Annex J could continue being
worked in the MOU WG but that it would be moved to the third
tier of the Inspection Protocol document.


4. (U) Subject Summary: Russia to Respond to U.S.-Proposed
Package Deal; MOU Annex A; MOU Annex B; MOU Annex C, MOU
Annex D; MOU Annex J; and, The Value of the Ad Hoc Group.

--------------
RUSSIA TO RESPOND TO
U.S.-PROPOSED PACKAGE DEAL
--------------


5. (S) Mr. Trout opened the meeting and welcomed the Russian
Delegation. He stated that, based on previous discussions,
the MOU Annexes would be placed in the third tier of the
treaty documents.


6. (S) General Orlov interrupted Trout's remarks to inform
the WG that the Russian WG members would depart the meeting
early to attend a meeting at the Russian Mission to discuss
the U.S. package deal proposal provided to Russia in Moscow
on October 28, 2009. He said the Russian side would respond
to the package deal soon.

--------------
MOU ANNEX A
--------------


7. (S) Trout confirmed that Annex A (ICBM and SLBM Technical
Data) of the U.S.-proposed JDT would still retain Russian
brackets around the categories of "Greatest Throw Weight,"
"Launch Weight," "Length Used for Confirming a New Type,"
"Weight of Fully Loaded Stage," all categories associated
with "Fixed Structures for Mobile Launchers of ICBMs," and
the footnote on data for new types of ICBMs and SLBMs. Orlov
stated that the Russian side would study the bracketed text
and respond later.

--------------
MOU ANNEX B


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


8. (S) Reviewing Annex B (Heavy Bomber Technical Data),
Trout noted that the WG had not yet agreed on whether to use
the U.S.-proposed phrase "Nuclear Armaments" or the
Russian-proposed phrase "Long-Range Nuclear ALCMs." Trout
said the U.S. side would agree to drop the brackets in the
columns to Annex B around "Variant of a Type." The column
would read "Bomber type and variant of a type."


9. (S) Col Pischulov asked why the U.S. side did not want to
provide distinguishing features for the U.S. section "Heavy
Bombers Equipped for Nuclear Armaments." Mr. Rust replied
that the United States only intended to declare
distinguishing features when it was necessary to
differentiate between variants or categories of bombers of
the same type. He said that in the case when there was only
a single category for a type of heavy bomber, there was no
need for this information. He noted that this provision was
a carryover from START where there was a requirement for this
information.


10. (S) Orlov referred the WG to the column entitled "Bomber
Type and Variant of a Type." He noted that there were
different types and listed the B-52G, B-52H, and technical
data for pylon assemblies. Rust asked the Russian side for
their reason for including the long list of technical data in
the MOU and in what verification provisions they envisioned
using it. Orlov only stated that the title of the section
was heavy bomber technical data and therefore required
technical data in it, adding that, though the Russian side
was not asking for excessive data, the U.S. side should
consider including this data. LT Lobner asked whether the
Russian side was proposing a possible name change to the
Annex. Orlov shrugged and said that his team will study the
issue. Trout concurred and said that the U.S. side would
study this issue as well. Trout added that the U.S. side was
willing to provide distinguishing features for heavy bombers
under the section "Heavy Bombers Equipped for Non-Nuclear
Armaments."

--------------
MOU ANNEX C
--------------


11. (S) Trout moved on to Annex C (Heavy Bomber Nuclear
((Armaments))1 ((Long-Range ALCMs))2 Technical Data). He
noted that the brackets in the title of the Annex remained
because of the Russian side's insistence that heavy bomber
categories be split into "Heavy Bombers Equipped for LRNA"
and "Heavy Bombers Equipped for Nuclear Armaments Other Than
LRNA." Trout asked the Russian side whether it intended to
deploy different types of LRNA. Orlov responded that the
Russian side did not know since the treaty would cover a
10-year period.


12. (S) Trout closed the discussion on Annex C and noted
that the sides had differing views on the title of the
section for nuclear missiles with ranges less than 600 KM.
He said that the sides needed to decide whether nuclear
air-to-surface missiles should be called ALCMs or not, and
that each side should think on this issue.


--------------
MOU ANNEX D
--------------


13. (S) Moving to Annex D (Other Data Required by the
Treaty),Trout queried the Russian side whether it had
changed its position about monitored facilities or on mobile
launchers of ICBMs. Orlov smiled and said that the first
four paragraphs of this Annex will remain bracketed as U.S.
positions only.


14. (S) Regarding the category of "Other Aircraft," a
U.S.-only phrase, Orlov proposed that the name be changed to
"Inspection Aircraft." However, Col Novikov opined that the
sides could use Open Skies aircraft to transport START
Follow-on inspection teams to entry points and that the
Inspection Protocol Working Group could study this concept.
Since there was some continued debate regarding what aircraft
would be used in the treaty, and how they would be used, both
sides agreed to leave the term bracketed until further
details could be confirmed.


15. (S) Under the category of Inspection Sites, Trout asked
the Russian side to remove the category of "Flight Test
Centers" because these centers were not inspectable and
should not be listed under the inspection site category.
Orlov agreed it did not belong there, but the category needed
to be listed elsewhere. He stated the Russian side would
look into this further.

--------------
MOU ANNEX J
--------------


16. (S) Annex J (Other Requirements) was the last item on
the agenda. Both sides agreed that this data should be moved
into the third tier. Trout informed the Russian side that he
had an agreement with Dr. Warner that the MOUWG would
continue to handle Annex J, but the annex would move to the
third tier under the Inspection Protocol. Orlov concurred.

--------------
THE VALUE OF
THE AD HOC GROUP
--------------


17. (S) Trout noted that there were major issues remaining
that needed to be addressed. He suggested that an Ad Hoc
Group could address possible solutions to these issues,
especially the larger counting rules issues. Orlov said that
he proposed to his head of delegation the same idea and had
made the recommendation that both sides should decide on the
topic far enough ahead of the Ad Hoc Group meeting to have
the time to prepare for substantive discussions.


18. (U) Documents exchanged. None.


19. (U) Participants:

U.S.

Mr. Trout
Lt Col Blevins


Mr. Buttrick
Mr. Colby
Mr. Coussa
Mr. DeNinno
Dr. Dreicer
LT Lobner
Mr. McConnell
Mr. Rust
Dr. Tarrasch
Mr. Vogel
Dr. Hopkins (Int)

RUSSIA

Gen Orlov
Mr. Leontiev
Col Novikov
Mr. Pischulov
Col Voloskov
Ms. Zharkih
Mr. Gayduk (Int)


20. (U) Ries sends.
GRIFFITHS