Identifier
Created
Classification
Origin
10GENEVA149
2010-02-26 14:09:00
SECRET
Mission Geneva
Cable title:  

GENEVA SFO-GVA-VIII: MEETING OF THE EXPANDED AD-HOC GROUP,

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

DE RUEHGV #0149/01 0571409
ZNY SSSSS ZZH
O R 261409Z FEB 10
FM USMISSION GENEVA
TO RHEFBIM/DIA IMADS WASHINGTON DC IMMEDIATE
RHEHAAA/NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL WASHINGTON DC IMMEDIATE
RHMFISS/CJCS WASHINGTON DC IMMEDIATE
RHMFISS/CNO WASHINGTON DC IMMEDIATE
RHMFISS/DEPT OF ENERGY WASHINGTON DC IMMEDIATE
RHMFISS/DTRA ALEX WASHINGTON DC IMMEDIATE
RHMFISS/JOINT STAFF WASHINGTON DC IMMEDIATE
RQAIIA/CIA WASHINGTON DC IMMEDIATE
RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC IMMEDIATE 0409
RUEHNO/USMISSION USNATO IMMEDIATE 0213
RUEKJCS/SECDEF WASHINGTON DC IMMEDIATE
INFO RUEHGV/USMISSION GENEVA
RUEHKV/AMEMBASSY KYIV 0283
RUEHMO/AMEMBASSY MOSCOW 0287
RUEHTA/AMEMBASSY ASTANA 0283
S E C R E T GENEVA 000149 

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: 2020/02/26
TAGS: PARM KACT MARR PREL RS US
SUBJECT: GENEVA SFO-GVA-VIII: MEETING OF THE EXPANDED AD-HOC GROUP,
FEBRUARY 11, 2010

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

S E C R E T GENEVA 000149

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: 2020/02/26
TAGS: PARM KACT MARR PREL RS US
SUBJECT: GENEVA SFO-GVA-VIII: MEETING OF THE EXPANDED AD-HOC GROUP,
FEBRUARY 11, 2010

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


1. (U) This is SFO-GVA-VIII-038.




2. (U) Meeting Date: February 11, 2010

Time: 10:30 a.m. to 12:00 p.m.

Place: Russian Mission, Geneva



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

SUMMARY

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




3. (S) During an Expanded Ad Hoc Group meeting held at the Russian
Mission on February 11, the two sides discussed three issues:
deployed and non-deployed heavy bombers; conversion of ICBM
launchers to launchers of missile defense interceptors; and
distinguishing features between ICBM launchers and missile defense
interceptor launchers. The Russian side proposed language for a
definition for "non-deployed heavy bomber," which included test
heavy bombers and heavy bombers located at repair facilities for
heavy bombers. They also proposed placing a limit of 15 on the
number of non-deployed heavy bombers possessed by each side.


4. (S) Converted former ICBM silo launchers being used for missile
defense interceptors at Vandenberg Air Force Base (VAFB),was
discussed in relation to paragraph 4 in Article V. The U.S. side
provided clarification why the U.S. side used the term "modified".
The Russian side raised the possible need for an agreed statement
regarding these missile defense interceptor launchers that have
already been converted, and stated that distinguishing features for
such launchers should be provided and discussed. The U.S. side
acknowledged the Russian position, but asked the Russian side to
provide its proposal in writing. It was also noted these topics
were being discussed at the Head of Delegation (HOD) level. End
summary.


5. (S) SUBJECT SUMMARY: Non-deployed Heavy Bombers; Missile
Defense and Distinguishing Features; and Other Agreed Statements.




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

NON-DEPLOYED HEAVY BOMBERS

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




6. (S) Dr. Warner noted the U.S. concept for non-deployed heavy
bombers would be to include test heavy bombers, heavy bombers in
extended maintenance at repair and production facilities, and heavy
bombers awaiting elimination at a conversion or elimination
facility. Warner said no official position had been received from
the Russian side and asked for their comments.



7. (S) Adm (ret) Kuznetsov provided the Russian-proposed
definition for the term "non-deployed heavy bomber." He asserted
that a non-deployed heavy bomber is a test heavy bomber and heavy
bomber located at a repair facility for heavy bombers. He proposed
that the following text be added to Article IV: "Total number of
non-deployed heavy bombers shall be 15." He explained that a limit
of 15 would allow for 10 test heavy bombers and a maximum of 5
heavy bombers located at repair facilities. Additionally, text
would be needed to restrict location of non-deployed bombers to
flight test centers and repair facilities, which would not be
subject to inspection. Kuznetsov noted the U.S. proposal to
include heavy bombers awaiting elimination in this definition. He
stated that this approach was not acceptable, but he noted the
U.S.-proposed agreed statement regarding heavy bombers at
Davis-Monthan Air Force Base was good. Warner said the U.S. side
would consider the Russian proposal.



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

MISSILE DEFENSE AND DISTINGUISHING FEATURES

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




8. (S) Col Ilin, referencing paragraph 4 of Article V of the
Treaty, stated that a conversion process for ICBM launchers to
missile defense interceptor launchers implied the use of
distinguishing features. He cited heavy bomber conversions and
SLBM launcher conversions as relevant examples, stating that in
both cases distinguishing features were identified. He proposed
the two sides discuss the distinguishing features associated with
the converted former ICBM launchers now used for missile defense
interceptors in the Expanded Ad Hoc Group.




9. (S) Warner replied that missile defense discussions were
occurring at the HOD level and that the discussion should remain at
that level. Ilin agreed the Expanded Ad Hoc Group should not
interfere in the HOD discussion, but that the group could assist
the HODs by agreeing on a list of distinguishing features. He also
asked why the U.S. utilized the word "modified" in paragraph 4 of
Article V and inquired as to the difference between "modified" and
"converted".




10. (S) Warner stated the U.S. side was not prepared to discuss
distinguishing features at this time, but that the issue would be
raised with the U.S. HOD. He noted that anything related to
missile defense interceptors should be limited to strategic missile
defense systems and not include theater missile defense systems,
and asserted that both sides would have systems subject to any
provisions placed in the Treaty. Warner explained the term
"modified" had been used in discussions on this matter in the Joint
Compliance and Inspection Commission (JCIC) under START since the
START Treaty placed specific parameters on the use of the term
"converted" and these procedures had not been used when the former
ICBM silos at VAFB had been converted to house missile defense



interceptors. He acknowledged that the two terms "converted" and
"modified," had the same meaning from a common sense perspective.




11. (S) Warner noted the U.S. side had provided a one-time offer
for the Russian Federation to view a modified launcher of a missile
defense interceptor, but the Russian side had rejected that offer.
Subsequent exhibition offers were made, but again rejected. He
stated such silos were part of the VAFB Space Launch Facility, and
therefore, not subject to inspection. He inquired if the Russian
side had a proposal for this topic.




12. (S) Ilin stated the Russian side proposed solving the issue in
paragraph 4 of Article V. Additionally, he said an agreed
statement, similar to those used to solve the B-1B problem and the
SSGN problem, was needed. Such an agreed statement would allow for
the demonstration of procedures used for conversion from an ICBM
silo launcher to a missile defense interceptor launcher. Those
demonstrations could also be used to confirm that the converted
launchers could not be used to launch ICBMs and subsequent Type-2
inspections could be conducted to confirm the United States had not
reconverted those launchers.




13. (S) Warner replied that the Space Launch Facility at VAFB,
where these converted launchers are located, are not subject to
inspection. Ilin replied that the base would not be inspected;
only the individual launchers would be viewed.




14. (S) Ilin stated the Russian side would provide their proposals
in writing. The issues to be discussed would be distinguishing
features for missile defense interceptor launchers as opposed to
the former ICBM silos and an agreed statement on the former ICBM
silos at the VAFB Space Launch Facility. Warner recommended that
their proposal keep the issues of distinguishing features of the
different launchers and between missile defense interceptor
missiles and ICBMs separate.



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

OTHER AGREED STATEMENTS

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




15. (S) Ilin inquired if the United States had a response to the
Russian-proposed agreed statements for telemetry and for the
transfer of D-5 missiles to the United Kingdom (UK). Mr. Elliott
replied that the U.S. side had provided the proposed text to
Washington for review, but that guidance had not yet been received.
He noted that almost all the issues raised in the Russian-proposed
UK transfer agreed statement were already covered in the existing
Treaty and Protocol and therefore questioned the need for it. Ilin
responded that the Russian side would review the proposed agreed
statement and the current texts.



16. (U) Documents provided:



-- Russian proposal on language for the term "non-deployed heavy
bomber", dated February 11, 2010.


17. (U) List of Participants:



UNITED STATES



Dr. Warner

Mr. Albertson

Mr. Brown

Lt Col Comeau

Mr. Dean

Mr. Elliott

Dr. Fraley

Amb Ries

LT Sicks (RO)

Mr. Siemon

Mr. Taylor

Ms. Zdravecky

Ms. Gesse (Int)



RUSSIA



Col Ilin

Mr. Koshelev

Adm Kuznetsov

Mr. Luchaninov

Mr. Orlov

Mr. Poznikhir

Mr. Venetsev


Ms. Komshilova (Int)




18. Gottemoeller sends.
KING