VZCZCXYZ0000
OO RUEHWEB

DE RUEHGV #0795/01 2721052
ZNY SSSSS ZZH
O 291052Z SEP 09
FM USMISSION GENEVA
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC IMMEDIATE 9349
RUEAIIA/CIA WASHINGTON DC IMMEDIATE
RUEKDIA/DIA WASHINGTON DC IMMEDIATE
RUEKJCS/CJCS WASHINGTON DC IMMEDIATE
RUEKJCS/VCJCS WASHINGTON DC IMMEDIATE
RUEKJCS/JOINT STAFF WASHINGTON DC IMMEDIATE
RHEHNSC/NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL WASHINGTON DC IMMEDIATE
RUEKJCS/SECDEF WASHINGTON DC IMMEDIATE
RUEHNO/USMISSION USNATO IMMEDIATE 4768
RHMFISS/DEPT OF ENERGY WASHINGTON DC IMMEDIATE
RHMFISS/DTRA ALEX WASHINGTON DC IMMEDIATE
RUESDT/DTRA-OSES DARMSTADT GE IMMEDIATE
RUENAAA/CNO WASHINGTON DC IMMEDIATE
RHMFISS/DIRSSP WASHINGTON DC IMMEDIATE
INFO RUEHTA/AMEMBASSY ASTANA PRIORITY 1953
RUEHKV/AMEMBASSY KYIV PRIORITY 0950
RUEHMO/AMEMBASSY MOSCOW PRIORITY 6143

S E C R E T GENEVA 000795 
 
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: 09/29/2019 
TAGS: KACT MARR PARM PREL RS US START
SUBJECT: START FOLLOW-ON NEGOTIATIONS, GENEVA (SFO-GVA-V): 
(U) START FOLLOW-ON NEGOTIATIONS, FIRST MEETING OF THE 
MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING WORKING GROUP, SEPTEMBER 23, 
2009 
 
REF: A. GENEVA 0745 (SFO-GVA-IV-011) 
     ¶B. STATE 97473 (SFO-V GUIDANCE-002: U.S. NON-PAPER 
        WITH PROPOSALS FOR THE START FOLLOW-ON 
        TREATY MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING) 
 
Classified By:  A/S Rose E. Gottemoeller, United States 
START Negotiator.  Reasons:  1.4(b) and (d). 
 
¶1.  (U) This is SFO-GVA-V-009. 
 
¶2.  (U) Meeting Date:  September 23, 2009 
                Time:  10:30 A.M. - 12:00 P.M. 
               Place:  U.S. Mission, Geneva 
 
------- 
SUMMARY 
------- 
 
¶3.  (S) During a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) Working 
Group (WG) meeting, conducted on September 23, 2009 at the 
U.S. Mission, the Russian and U.S. Delegations each explained 
their proposed versions of the MOU.  The Parties agreed they 
had different approaches regarding the structure and extent 
of data to be exchanged, although both were generally based 
on existing START categories of data. 
 
¶4.  (S) The Russians explained that their proposal included 
much of the data provided under START, although the structure 
of the MOU and the form in which data was provided was 
substantially different.  Additionally, the Russian position 
conferred the development of Annex J to the START MOU to the 
Inspection Working Group.  They raised some topics in the WG 
that the United States did not envision being discussed 
(e.g., counting rules and treaty limits). 
 
¶5.  (S) The Russians indicated certain definitions, delivered 
in the August 31-September 3 session (REF A), had already 
been modified when the United States questioned why Russia 
did not include data in the MOU on launch weight that was 
included in their previously provided definition for "new 
type" of ICBM and SLBM.  General Orlov explained that a new 
definition was provided in the Russian-proposed Annex of 
September 22, 2009.  (Begin comment:  At the time of the 
meeting, the Russian Annex had only recently been received 
and had not yet been translated.  End comment.) 
 
-------------------------- 
THE IMPORTANCE OF OUR WORK 
-------------------------- 
 
¶6.  (S) Mr. Trout welcomed the Russian Delegation to the U.S. 
Mission for the first MOU WG meeting, and noted that the U.S. 
non-paper, "U.S. Proposals for the START Follow-on Treaty 
Memorandum of Understanding," was delivered in Moscow on 
September 22, 2009 (REF B).  Trout explained that the United 
States was ready to present the non-paper to the Russian 
Delegation but first invited Orlov to offer his presentation 
regarding the proposed Russian MOU.  Orlov noted the 
importance of the MOU WG and was anxious to proceed with the 
meeting and also set an agenda for following meetings.  Trout 
explained that, while the United States had received the 
proposed Russian Annex on September 22, 2009, it was not yet 
 
 
 
translated into English. 
 
-------------------- 
PROPOSED RUSSIAN MOU 
-------------------- 
 
¶7.  (S) Orlov described the Russian proposal for the four MOU 
sections and four annexes, which he said reflected the 
U.S.-proposed counting rules and the new relationship between 
the Parties. 
 
¶8.  (S) Orlov said the first section addressed aggregate 
numbers related to strategic offensive arms, specifically 
deployed IBMs, SLBMs, and heavy bombers (HB); deployed 
launhers of ICBMs and SLBMs; warheads on deployed ICBM, 
SLBMs, and HBs; non-deployed ICBMs, SLBMs, andHBs; and 
finally non-deployed launchers of ICBMs and SLBMs.  He also 
reiterated the three proposed Russian maximum treaty limits. 
 
¶9.  (S) The second section addressed aggregate data for ICBMs 
and SLBMs, the warheads on ICBMs and SLBMs, and launchers of 
ICBMs and SLBMs.  He noted that this section was broken down 
into two parts, one covering ICBMs and the other covering 
SLBMs.  Included is data about ICBM and SLBM bases and 
related facilities (e.g., storage facilities, repair 
facilities, test ranges, training areas, conversion or 
elimination facilities, and production facilities). 
 
¶10.  (S) The third section addressed aggregate numbers of HBs 
and the warhads on them.  Orlov made the point that warheadsnot on a depoyed HB would not count against the wahead 
limit.  He explained that deployed HBs are hose equipped for 
nuclear armaments and based atair bases.  Non-deployed HBs 
are those at storag facilities for HBs, repair facilities, 
conversin or elimination facilities, test HBs and training 
HBs.  Data on HB bases and related facilities, siilar to the 
previous section, are also included. 
 
¶11.  (S) The fourth section addressed static diplays of 
ICBMs, SLBMs, launchers of ICBMs and SLMs, and HBs.  The 
Russian proposal did not include missile launch weight or 
weight of missile stages.  The Russians stated that they 
preserved the main parts of the START MOU and tailored their 
proposed MOU to the new counting rules. 
 
¶12.  (S) The four annexes, ICBM and SLBM Technical Data, 
Heavy Bomber Technical Data, Long-Range Nuclear ALCM 
Technical Data, and Other Data Required by the Treaty, were 
discussed briefly, but in no significant detail. 
 
--------------------- 
CLARIFYING THE RUSSIAN 
PROPOSAL 
---------------------- 
 
¶13.  (S) The Russians also clarified that if an SLBM were 
removed from an SSBN tube, the launch tube becomes 
non-deployed.  Consequently, it is possible to have both 
deployed and non-deployed launchers on the same SSBN with 
both launchers counting toward the proposed limit of 600 ICBM 
and SLBM launchers. 
 
 
 
 
 
¶14.  (S) Orlov noted, in response to a question from Mr. 
Taylor about points of entry and site diagrams, that the 
Inspection Protocol (IP) WG would be responsible for such 
information vice the MOU WG.  Trout said that this was a 
surprise to the U.S. Delegation.  When asked about not 
including missile launch weight in the MOU and how that was 
consistent with the Russian definition of "new type" defined 
in the August 31, 2009 "Proposals of the Russian Side for the 
Wording of the Provisions of the New Treaty on Strategic 
Offensive Arms Regarding Terms and Their Definitions" (REF 
B), Orlov said they now have a new version of the definitions 
that does not include a reference to launch weight. 
 
¶15.  (S) Mr. DeNinno stated that the proposed Russian MOU 
only made note of coordinates for individual bases.  He asked 
whether Russia planned to include coordinates for individual 
silo launchers organized by silo groups.  Colonel Petrov 
clarified that coordinates for individual bases and data 
about facilities will continue to be exchanged, similar to 
START.  DeNinno noted that Russian MOU Annexes A, B and C 
referenced technical characteristics.  He asked whether 
Russia planned to move data on technical characteristics into 
these annexes instead of listing these characteristics under 
the current START Annex F.  Petrov confirmed this point and 
clarified that the Russian proposal is organized much 
differently than the current START MOU.  Orlov responded that 
data reported under START will still be reported. 
 
¶16.  (S) Trout, in response to the new position that some 
previous MOU sections were not anticipated by the Russians to 
be worked in this WG, asked whether there were other parts of 
the current MOU that the Russians believed other WGs should 
address.  Orlov said he proposed to his Head of Delegation 
that Russian Delegates should rotate through WGs to get a 
better feel for the whole task and make it easier to achieve 
a combined text.  Trout thanked the Russians for their 
proposal and said the United States would study the Russian 
position. 
 
----------------- 
PROPOSED U.S. MOU 
----------------- 
 
¶17.  (S) Trout delivered points from the U.S. Non-Paper on 
the START MOU (REF B) to explain the U.S.-proposed approach 
to the MOU.  He said the U.S. approach draws from previous 
experience with the START Treaty.  He handed the Russian 
Delegation the official English language version of the 
non-paper and an unofficial courtesy copy in Russian. 
 
¶18.  (S) In summary, Trout concluded that the United States 
has worked to retain much of the format of the START MOU and 
its annexes while modifying it in appropriate places to 
reflect the central limits of the U.S.-proposed Treaty 
Article II, Subparagraphs (a) and (b).  The United States 
also tried to delete extraneous data and update data to 
reflect changes in technology. 
 
¶19.  (S) Trout concluded his talking points and asked whether 
the Russian Delegation had any questions.  Orlov noted that 
the Parties had different approaches to the new MOU.  Petrov 
asked whether the U.S. position was to provide warhead data 
 
 
 
at each base in two forums, one in the MOU, and the other at 
the base during an inspection.  Trout responded in the 
affirmative.  Orlov offered that both sides should exchange 
written questions to review and Trout concurred with the 
proposal. 
 
¶20.  (U) Documents exchanged. 
 
- U.S.: 
 
    -- U.S. Non-Paper Containing Proposals for the START 
Follow-on Treaty Memorandum of Understanding. 
 
¶21. (U) Participants: 
 
U.S. 
 
Mr. Trout 
Ms. Bosco 
Mr. Colby 
Mr. DeNinno 
Mr. Evans 
Col Hartford 
LT Lobner 
Mr. Taylor 
Ms. Gesse (Int) 
 
Russua 
 
Gen Orlov 
Col Ilin 
Col Kamenskiy 
Mr. Luchaninov 
Gen Pischulov 
Col Petrov 
Gen Poznihir 
Mr. Vorontsov 
Ms. Komshilova (Int) 
 
¶22.  (U) Gottemoeller sends. 
GRIFFITHS