|10GENEVA191||2010-02-27 16:55:00||SECRET||Mission Geneva|
VZCZCXYZ0000 OO RUEHWEB DE RUEHGV #0191/01 0581655 ZNY SSSSS ZZH O R 271655Z FEB 10 FM USMISSION GENEVA TO 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 RUEAIIA/CIA WASHINGTON DC IMMEDIATE RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC IMMEDIATE 0521 RUEHNO/USMISSION USNATO IMMEDIATE 0324 RUEKJCS/SECDEF WASHINGTON DC IMMEDIATE INFO RUEHGV/USMISSION GENEVA RUEHKV/AMEMBASSY KYIV 0394 RUEHMO/AMEMBASSY MOSCOW 0398 RUEHTA/AMEMBASSY ASTANA 0394
S E C R E T GENEVA 000191
1. (U) This is SFO-GVA-VIII-075.
2. (U) Meeting Date: February 23, 2010
Time: 4:00 P.M. - 5:15 P.M.
Place: U.S. Mission, Geneva
3. (S) At the Definitions Working Group meeting co-chaired by Mr.
Siemon and ADM (Ret) Kuznetsov on February 23, the sides discussed
Russian-proposed language for treaty Article IV, paragraph 8, that
revised the locational restriction for non-deployed heavy bombers.
The sides also agreed on the following terms: "nuclear armaments,"
"heavy bomber equipped for nuclear armaments," "heavy bomber
equipped for non-nuclear armaments," "non-deployed launcher of
ICBMs," "non-deployed launcher of SLBMs," "rocket motor case,"
"solid rocket motor," "solid-fueled ICBM," and "solid-fueled SLBM."
The sides briefly noted five other terms that remained for
discussion in the near future. End summary.
4. (U) SUBJECT SUMMARY: Article IV Regarding Non-Deployed Heavy
Bombers; and Terms and Definitions Discussed.
ARTICLE IV REGARDING NON-DEPLOYED HEAVY BOMBERS
5. (S) Kuznetsov handed over a copy of a paper that had been
provided by the Russian delegation during an Expanded Ad Hoc
meeting earlier that day, with a proposal for Article IV, paragraph
8, on locational restrictions for non-deployed heavy bombers.
8. Non-deployed heavy bombers shall be based only at heavy bomber
flight test centers and shall be located only at repair or
production facilities for heavy bombers.
6. (S) Kuznetsov explained that the proposal built on direction
from the Russian Head of Delegation and on the definition for
non-deployed heavy bomber that had been nearly agreed in the
Definitions Working Group. He also noted that some slight changes
to the previous version of this text had been made at Moscow's
direction. He drew the attention of the U.S. delegation to the
concept that the non-deployed heavy bombers were "located" at
repair facilities, not "based" there. They would, Kuznetsov said,
remain attributed to the airbase from which they had come.
7. (S) Kuznetsov pointed out that it was not important when the
bomber switched from one category of the database to another since
there would be a notification to that effect. He clarified that a
movement notification would be provided when the heavy bomber went
to the repair facility; the notification would include a comment
indicating the change in its deployed status.
8. (S) Siemon remarked that the U.S. delegation had initially
considered using the term "located" for the restriction, but had
decided that "based" was more accurate. Siemon concurred ON the
provision of a notification for the movement of the heavy bomber to
or from the repair facility. But, Siemon continued, using the
criteria of where the heavy bomber was "based" provided a clearer
picture of what would be going on with the bombers. He illustrated
his point, saying that if there was a bomber that left Minot for a
repair facility, the inventory of heavy bombers at Minot would go
down by one and the inventory at the repair facility would go up by
one. Doing so would reflect that the heavy bomber was "based" at
the repair facility. "Based" was more permanent than "located."
Moreover, for the U.S. side, heavy bombers would be in repair for a
long time. Kuznetsov added that the period of repair was longer
for Russian heavy bombers than for U.S. bombers.
9. (S) Kuznetsov continued that each air base had a unit of heavy
bombers; a heavy bomber went from the production facility to its
airbase, where it would be attributed for some dozen years
although, he acknowledged, whole units sometimes moved to other
airbases. Some regular repair or maintenance could be conducted at
the air base; however, heavy bombers would sometimes go to the
repair facility for longer term repair that could last a year.
During that period, it would remain attributed to its home air base
and would be only provisionally at the repair facility. Russia
wanted to be able to remove that heavy bomber from accountability
under the deployed delivery vehicle and warhead limits. It would
also not be subject to inspection, he asserted, because it would be
non-deployed. After the end of the maintenance period, the heavy
bomber would return to its home air base. Maybe in the U.S.
system, Kuznetsov observed, the heavy bomber would go to a
different air base than the one at which it had started.
10. (S) Kuznetsov stated that the repair and production facilities
would, of course, be listed in the database. If some heavy bombers
were at those facilities, the database would reflect them as being
there. When the repair was completed, the heavy bombers would go
back and appropriate notifications would be provided.
11. (S) Siemon asked whether the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU)
data for the air base would be reduced when the heavy bomber went
to the repair facility, or would the heavy bomber stay listed in
the database as being based at the air base? Kuznetsov said the
bomber would go to the repair facility. Mr. Dean cautioned about
changing the deployed status of a bomber every time it moved to
another facility. Kuznetsov reiterated that when the repair was
done, the bomber would go back to the air base and not be
permanently at the repair facility.
12. (S) Before ending this part of the meeting, Siemon sought
clarification that the new Russian proposal did not affect the
agreed definitions of deployed or non-deployed heavy bomber.
Kuznetsov provided a paper with slightly revised definitions,
showing that "test heavy bomber" had not changed, but "deployed
heavy bomber" and "non-deployed heavy bomber" had changed and
included "located" instead of "based" at a repair facility. Siemon
said the U.S. delegation would respond to the proposal promptly.
TERMS AND DEFINITIONS DISCUSSED
13. (S) Turning back to definitions, Kuznetsov quickly indicated
that the Russian delegation could agree to drop the reference to
the range of 600 kilometers for air-to-surface missiles as proposed
by the U.S. side and the sides agreed to the following definitions:
The term "nuclear armaments" means, for heavy bombers, long-range
nuclear ALCMs, nuclear air-to-surface missiles, or nuclear bombs.
The term "heavy bomber equipped for nuclear armaments" means a
heavy bomber equipped for long-range nuclear ALCMs, nuclear
air-to-surface missiles, or nuclear bombs.
The term "heavy bomber equipped for non-nuclear armaments" means a
heavy bomber that is not equipped for long-range nuclear ALCMs,
nuclear air-to-surface missiles, or nuclear bombs.
14. (S) Kuznetsov also announced that, since the sides had agreed
to the definition of soft-site launcher, the Russian delegation
could agree to the following terms:
The term "non-deployed launcher of ICBMs" means an ICBM test
launcher, an ICBM training launcher, an ICBM launcher located at a
space launch facility, or an ICBM launcher, other than a soft-site
launcher, that does not contain a deployed ICBM.
The term "non-deployed launcher of SLBMs" means an SLBM launcher,
other than a soft-site launcher, which is used for testing or
training, or an SLBM launcher that does not contain a deployed
15. (S) Kuznetsov also gave Russian concurrence and the sides
agreed to the following terms:
The term "rocket motor case" means the casing of an ICBM or SLBM
that remains when the propellant is removed.
The term "solid rocket motor" means that part of the stage that
consists of the case filled with solid propellant.
16. (S) For the following terms, Kuznetsov stated that the Russian
side wanted to separate the definition into two terms instead of
using "or" and the sides agreed to the following:
The term "solid-fueled ICBM" means an ICBM for which the stages are
equipped with solid rocket motors.
The term "solid-fueled SLBM" means an SLBM for which the stages are
equipped with solid rocket motors.
17. (S) Siemon and Kuznetsov jointly reviewed the remaining agenda
for the Definitions Working Group by running through a few
remaining terms that would be discussed at a future meeting:
"submarine base," "relocation," "ICBM base," "basing area," and
"launch" versus "flight test."
18. (U) Documents provided:
-- Russian proposal for Article III, paragraph 8, dated February
23, in Russian and unofficial English.
-- Russian proposal for definitions of deployed heavy bomber,
non-deployed heavy bomber, and test heavy bomber, dated February
23, in Russian and unofficial English.
19. (U) Participants:
Lt Col Comeau
Ms. Zdravecky (RO)
Ms. C. Smith (Int)
Ms. Komshilova (Int)
20. (U) Gottemoeller sends.