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

S E C R E T CD GENEVA 000023

SIPDIS
DEPT FOR T, VCI AND EUR/PRA
DOE FOR NNSA/NA-24
CIA FOR WINPAC
JSCS 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: 2020/02/08
TAGS: PARM KACT MARR PREL RS US
SUBJECT: START FOLLOW-ON NEGOTIATIONS, GENEVA (SFO-GVA-VII): (U)
MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING WORKING GROUP MEETING, DECEMBER 14, 2009

REF: GENEVA XXXX (SFO-GVA-VII-142)

CLASSIFIED BY: Rose A. Gottemoeller, Assistant Secretary, Department
of State, VCI; REASON: 1.4(B),(D)


1. (U) This is SFO-GVA-VII-145.




2. (U) Meeting Date: December 14, 2009

Time: 3:30 P.M. - 5:45 P.M.

Place: Russian Mission, Geneva



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

SUMMARY

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




3. (S) The Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) Working Group (WG)
chairs, Mr. Trout and General Orlov, met at the Russian Mission on
December 14, 2009. Orlov conveyed Russian agreement to include
space launch facilities in the Database. The exchange of site
diagrams was discussed at length, with Orlov finally agreeing that
the sides should exchange site diagrams 45 days after signature.
Trout and Orlov also discussed and clarified positions regarding
heavy bombers. End summary.




4. (U) SUBJECT SUMMARY: Data Exchange Again; Space Launch
Success; General Provisions and Site Diagrams; Heavy Bomber Issues;
and Closing Comments.



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

DATA EXCHANGE AGAIN

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




5. (S) Trout asked whether the Russian side had a coordinated
position on the information to be exchanged at signature,
referencing the discussion from the previous night (Reftel) about
Russia wanting to include facilities as part of the information to
be exchanged. Orlov explained that the new Russian position was
that the names of facilities and existing types should be listed
but no numerical data provided. Trout agreed to the new position.



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

SPACE LAUNCH SUCCESS

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



6. (S) Orlov announced that the Russian side had agreed to the
category of "space launch facilities" and would now include such
facilities in the database. He noted, however, that the Russian
side believed the categories listed in Section IV should be
"non-deployed ICBMs and SLBMs" and "non-deployed launchers of ICBMs
and SLBMs," vice the U.S. construct of "ICBMs and SLBMs at space
launch facilities" and "launchers that have contained or launched
ICBMs or SLBMs." Trout replied that he would consider the new
language.



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

GENERAL PROVISIONS AND SITE DIAGRAMS

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




7. (S) Turning to the revised Section I, General Provisions, Orlov
asked about the new language regarding site diagrams. Trout
explained that the United States had moved considerably toward the
Russian side, agreeing to use START site diagrams until changed, if
desired, after entry-into-force (EIF). Orlov questioned the clause
that stated the site diagrams had to be agreed in the Bilateral
Consultative Commission (BCC) for them to become effective. After
some back and forth about how long the process would take and how
often the BCC would meet, LT Lobner commented that if the Russian
side were to agree with the original U.S. position to exchange site
diagrams 45 days after signature, the new site diagrams would not
have to go to the BCC to be agreed upon and would be available for
use by inspectors after EIF when inspections began. Later in the
meeting, Orlov stated that he agreed with the U.S. position to
provide site diagrams 45 days after signature. He also stated the
Russian side would look at the revised section and incorporate this
new change in position.



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

HEAVY BOMBER ISSUES

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




8. (S) Orlov and Trout moved on to Section V, regarding heavy
bombers, analyzing the language that referred to "nuclear
armaments" or "nuclear warheads" for deployed heavy bombers. After
much back and forth and discussion of linguistics, the Russian
position was clarified to be "nuclear warheads attributed to
deployed heavy bombers." Trout stated that the U.S. position was
"nuclear armaments for deployed heavy bombers," but that he would
relay this information to his head of delegation.




9. (S) Poznikhir engaged Trout in a conversation about the logic
of deployed and non-deployed heavy bombers, stating that it seemed
natural to have two categories. He postulated that if one listed
deployed items, one should also list non-deployed items. Orlov


asked Trout under what category test bombers would fall, deployed
or non-deployed. Trout replied that they were neither deployed nor
non-deployed, they were simply test heavy bombers. Orlov and
Poznikhir asked whether there were any changes to the U.S. position
on heavy bombers, to which Trout replied that there were none.



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

CLOSING COMMENTS

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




10. (S) Trout suggested that the group meet again the next morning
to continue working through the document. Orlov agreed to meet the
next morning and possibly in the afternoon, if necessary.




11. (U) Documents provided: None.




12. (U) Participants:



UNITED STATES



Mr. Trout

LT Lobner (RO)

Mr. French (Int)



RUSSIA



Gen Orlov

Mr. Ivanov

Col Pischulov

Gen Poznihir

Mr. Voloskov

Ms. Evarovskaya (Int)




13. (U) Gottemoeller sends.
LARSON