This record is a partial extract of the original cable. The full text of the original cable is not available.

S E C R E T SECTION 01 OF 08 GENEVA 001339 
 
SIPDIS 
 
DEPT FOR T, AC, NP, VC, EUR AND S/NIS 
DOE FOR AN-1 
JCS FOR J5/DDIN AND J5/NAC 
SECDEF FOR OSD/ISP AND OSD/SACC 
NAVY FOR CNO-N514 AND DIRSSP 
DTRA FOR SA AND DIRECTOR 
NSC FOR MILLER 
DTRA FOR OSA 
DIA FOR RAR-3 
 
E.O. 12958: DECL: 06/02/2015 
TAGS: PARM KACT US RS UP BO KZ START JCIC INF
SUBJECT: JCIC-XXVII:  (U) WORKING GROUP MEETING ON GROUND 
TRANSPORTATION (GT) NOTIFICATION FORMATS, REPLACEMENT OF 
RUSSIAN RADIATION DETECTION EQUIPEMENT (RDE), AND RUSSIAN 
RESPONSE TO SS-25 RVOSI RDE PROPOSAL, MAY 27, 2005 
 
REF: A. STATE 81372 (JCIC-DIP-05-006) 
     ¶B. STATE 71185 
     ¶C. GENEVA 3033 (JCIC-XXVI-048) 
     ¶D. STATE 60736 
 
Classified By:  Dr. George W. Look, U.S. Representative to 
the Joint Compliance and Inspection Commission (JCIC). 
Reason: 1.4 (b) and (d). 
 
¶1.  (U) This is JCIC-XXVII-009. 
 
¶2.  (U) Meeting Date:  May 27, 2005 
                Time:  10:30 A.M. - 12:30 P.M. 
               Place:  U.S. Mission, Geneva 
 
SUMMARY 
 
¶3.  (S) A Working Group Meeting was held at the U.S. Mission 
on May 27, 2005, to discuss the U.S.-proposed exchange of 
letters relating to adding suffixes to Ground Transportation 
(GT) Notification Formats 144 (REF A); replacement of Russian 
Radiation Detection Equipment (RDE) at the Washington and San 
Francisco Points Of Entry (POEs) (REF B); and the Russian 
response to the U.S. recommendation to use Intermediate-Range 
Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty RDE equipment and procedures to 
resolve U.S. concerns over the use of an oversized cover 
during START SS-25 RVOSI inspections (REF C).  All Parties 
were represented. 
 
¶4.  (S) On GT, Parties were in general agreement to exchange 
letters that would codify adding a suffix to the Format 144 
GT resupply notifications.  However, the Russian Delegation 
provided a draft Format 144A (U.S. Notification of Intent to 
Use GT Vehicles), as well as a draft Format 144B (Russian 
Confirmation of the Provision of GT Services).  The latter 
contained estimated border-crossing locations and dates.  The 
U.S. Delegation disagreed with the Russian Delegation's view 
that specific truck border-crossing information added value 
to the process, and stated that it is not a requirement for 
existing notifications and is not needed. 
 
¶5.  (S) With respect to the replacement of Russian RDE 
currently being stored at the Washington and San Francisco 
POEs, Russia accepted the U.S. view that the Russian proposal 
did not update all appropriate provisions of Annex B to the 
Inspection Protocol.  Russia had not decided how or when the 
new RDE would be delivered to U.S. territory. 
 
¶6.  (S) The Russian Federation rejected the U.S. proposal 
made during JCIC-XXVI to use INF RDE procedures during SS-25 
RVOSIs. 
 
FORMAT 144 IN THE RNRRC 
 
¶7.  (S) Fedorchenko opened the working group meeting and 
stated that the five previously resupply shipments to the 
portal monitoring facility at Votkinsk using the standard 
miscellaneous NRRC Format 144 notifications highlighted the 
need for an alternate notification format.  He recounted the 
history of this issue, stating that the initial 
Russian-proposed resolution was to create entirely new 
message formats so that GT notifications could be separated 
from other, more critical, Format 144 notifications. 
Further, Fedorchenko noted that the United States was 
generally in agreement with the idea that GT notifications 
should be differentiated from other Format 144 notifications 
and had proposed that letters be exchanged among 
representatives of the three countries concerned which 
provided for the use of suffixes to the already existing 
Format 144; for example, a 144A, B, and C, rather than 
producing totally new NRRC notifications. 
 
¶8.  (S) According to Fedorchenko, receiving a Format 144 
notification caused panic within the Russian Nuclear Risk 
Reduction Center (RNRRC) as watch officers tried to decipher 
the who, what, and where from the message text, and then 
tried to notify the correct agency within the Russian 
Government.  Fedorchenko complained that he was often 
awakened at home to be notified of a routine Votkinsk 
resupply shipment.  Fedorchenko reaffirmed that the purpose 
of adding a suffix to the current Format 144 was to 
differentiate it from other, higher priority, NRRC 
notification messages.  He concluded by stating that the 
Russian Federation agreed to the exchange of letters during 
this session as long as Belarus consented to the approach. 
 
TEMPLATED FORMAT 144s FOR GT RESUPPLY SHIPMENTS 
 
¶9.  (S) Fedorchenko provided the other Parties with drafts of 
new Format 144A and 144B notifications (texts of both are 
contained in para 19).  He stated that the Russian Delegation 
would not be submitting a Format 144C because it only 
pertained to Belarus.  Fedorchenko stated that the Parties 
should work toward initiating the first use of the new 
formats for the resupply mission to be conducted at the end 
of the year since it was too late to use them for the 
upcoming resupply mission.  Mullins asked whether the 144A 
and 144B notifications corresponded to the 40-day and 20-day 
GT notifications currently being used.  Fedorchenko responded 
that the 144A corresponded to the U.S. 40-day preliminary 
notification, and the 144B corresponded to the Russian 
confirmation of the provision of GT services.  He then 
requested a change to the U.S.-proposed letter stating that 
the last sentence of the second paragraph had a misleading 
parenthetical phrase ("144A, 144B, 144C,...").  He explained 
that the three periods at the end could lead a reader to 
conclude that there would be more than three GT notification 
formats (i.e., 144H, 144I, etc.).  Mullins agreed to consider 
the change. 
 
RUSSIANS REQUEST BORDER-CROSSING 
INFORMATION FOR GT 
 
¶10.  (S) Mullins asked whether anything had been added to or 
deleted from the formats that were currently in use. 
Fedorchenko stated that there was no way for the Russian and 
Belarusian MODs to track the shipments once they departed 
Darmstadt, Germany.  To them, this was a flaw in the process 
because their guidelines dictate they coordinate with a 
number of different agencies within and outside of their 
borders (law enforcement, border patrol, etc.) during the 
shipment.  He stated that the RNRRC currently only knew when 
the shipment would depart Darmstadt and when it would arrive 
at Votkinsk.  Russia believed it was important that the RNRRC 
know when and where the shipment would cross national 
borders.  As such, the Russian-proposed Format 144B contained 
truck border-crossing information related to the estimated 
time and location that the truck would cross a nation's 
borders which was in addition to the information currently 
conveyed between the Parties. 
 
¶11.  (S) Mullins stated that it was the belief of the United 
States, as expressed during the NRRC consultations conducted 
in March 2005 (REF D), that, since the Russian Federation was 
using a Russian trucking company, border-crossing information 
would be readily available from Department 162 at Votkinsk. 
For example, the truck driver could advise of any deviation 
to the actual border-crossing point due to road conditions. 
Further, any requirement to provide updated border-crossing 
information could be viewed as an additional obligation on 
the part of the United States, which would be impossible to 
fulfill since the information was not within U.S. control. 
He also made it clear that the United States did not want to 
conclude letters and then find out that there were 
significant differences between the Parties of what was 
expected, such as the additional information in the 
Russian-provided formats. 
 
¶12.  (S) Fedorchenko stated it would not be proper to 
coordinate with the various agencies within Russia based upon 
information received from a truck driver.  He also clarified 
that the information contained in the Format 144B would not 
be the exact border-crossing location and date, but rather a 
planned location and date.  If there was a deviation, there 
would be no need for an update of that information by any of 
the Parties.  Mullins asked, if the border-crossing 
information was just for planning purposes, what was the use 
of putting the information in the Format 144B?  As an 
example, if the loading of cargo in Germany was estimated to 
take one day, but took up to three days, then what was gained 
from including estimated time for border-crossings?  Mullins 
asked Fedorchenko to consider the U.S.-proposed letter which 
could be discussed again later in the session.  He further 
stated that the United States wanted to resolve the issue 
without changing the GT arrangement.  Fedorchenko stated that 
there was a mutual understanding of the issue and that 
Belarus would need to consent to the proposal. 
 
BELARUSIAN RESPONSE TO GT ISSUE 
 
¶13.  (S) Grinevich stated that Belarus was complying fully 
with the GT arrangement, as stated in their original letter 
on ground transportation dated March 20, 2002.  It had 
reviewed the 144 suffix issue, supported the U.S.-proposed 
letter and was prepared to exchange letters on this topic 
this session.  He further stated that Belarus concurred with 
the Russian position. 
 
NEW RDE AND UPDATED DOCUMENTATION 
 
¶14.  (S) Fedorchenko opened the discussion on the replacement 
of Russian RDE by stating that the RDE currently located at 
the Washington and San Francisco POEs was outdated and had 
reached the end of its shelf life.  It needed to be replaced 
with more modern RDE.  He handed over an updated 
Russian-proposed draft agreement to Mullins, stating that it 
was in the best interest of all Parties to have an agreement 
negotiated as soon as possible.  He acknowledged that the 
U.S. Delegation had reviewed the original Russian draft and 
accepted the suggested changes.  Mullins asked whether the 
proposed agreement now included MOU Annex 8 references which 
were left out of the original proposal.  Fedorchenko 
confirmed that changes had been made to the RDE equipment 
lists for RVOSI inspections and long-range non-nuclear ALCM 
exhibitions stating that the draft agreement was now ready to 
send to conforming. 
 
BATTERIES 
 
¶15.  (S) Mullins stated that one minor issue remained in the 
technical manual for the new equipment.  The manual mentioned 
a battery-operated item, however, the proposed equipment list 
did not include spare batteries.  In a number of instances in 
Annex 8, equipment lists included spare batteries and the 
Parties should be consistent.  After some discussion about 
how to list the spare batteries, Fedorchenko agreed to 
include them in the equipment lists in the draft agreement. 
 
REMOVAL OF OLD RDE 
 
¶16.  (S) Mullins stated that, since the old RDE was being 
replaced, the United States assumed the old RDE would be 
removed from the territory of the United States when the new 
RDE was delivered.  Fedorchenko confirmed that after 
agreement was reached, the next inspection teams into the 
Washington and San Francisco POEs would remove the old 
equipment.  Mullins turned the discussion over to Smith to 
address specific delivery issues. 
 
DELIVERY OF NEW RDE EQUIPMENT 
 
¶17.  (S) Smith asked whether the new RDE would be delivered 
by an inspection team in conjunction with a normal START 
inspection or by a special delivery team not associated with 
a START inspection.  Fedorchenko stated that the new RDE 
would be delivered by a team containing RDE experts due to 
the need to conduct training and to answer any technical 
questions that may come up during the initial equipment 
examination.  He stated that the RNRRC was contemplating two 
options.  Option one was to have an inspection team deliver 
the new RDE and option two, the preferred option, was for a 
team of technical experts to deliver the new RDE.  Smith 
stated that DTRA was prepared to support either option. 
Fedorchenko stated that the type of team used to deliver the 
RDE would be driven by the availability of funds within the 
RNRRC to support an extra team just to deliver RDE. 
 
RUSSIA REJECTS INF RDE PROCEDURES FOR SS-25 RVOSIs 
 
¶18.  (S) Fedorchenko gave the floor to Stefanovich of the 
Russian MOD to discuss the U.S. proposal to use INF RDE 
equipment and procedures during SS-25 RVOSIs.  Stefanovich 
stated that Russia could not accept the U.S. proposal for 
several reasons: 
 
    -- It would increase the time required to complete the 
RVOSI; 
 
    -- It would demand additional security and organizational 
measures which would increase costs; and 
 
    -- It would cause a significant decrease in readiness of 
the road-mobile launcher and its base. 
 
He further asserted that the INF RDE procedures were shown to 
be imperfect on short-range and intermediate-range missiles. 
The procedures could not be used to determine the number of 
reentry vehicles on an SS-25 ICBM.  He stated that the new 
Karusel RDE was available for use, but that he would not give 
technical details on it because he knew the United States was 
already aware of it.  He opined that, although the current 
START RDE would not be useful for SS-25 RVOSI procedures, if 
the United States had such confidence in it, the United 
States might find it useful in verifying the accuracy of the 
Karusel RDE.  Mullins stated that the Russian position would 
be provided to the U.S. Head of Delegation. 
 
TEXTS OF RUSSIAN-PROPOSED FORMATS 144A AND 144B 
19,  (S) Begin text of Draft Format 144A: 
                                  Official Translation 
 
                                  DRAFT 
 
SUBJECT:  NOTIFICATION OF INTENTION TO USE GROUND 
          TRANSPORTATION TO TRANSPORT CARGO 
 
¶1. ANC/STR XX-XXX/144A 
 
¶2. REFERENCES: A) ANC/STR XX-XXXX/XXX 
               B) RNC/STR XX-XXXX/XXX 
               C) JCIC MATERIALS 
 
¶3. CONTENT: 
 
   A) MONITORED FACILITY:  (blank underline) 
 
   B) POINT OF DEPARTURE:  (blank underline) 
 
   C) INFORMATION ON CARGO ROTATION: 
 
      ¶1. TYPE AND NUMBER OF GROUND TRANSPORTATION VEHICLES 
         REQUIRED TO SHIP CARGO FROM MONITORED FACILITY: 
 
         ¶A. 1) TYPE:   (blank underline) 
 
            2) NUMBER: XX 
 
         ¶B. 1) TYPE:   (blank underline) 
 
            2) NUMBER: XX 
 
      ¶2. ANTICIPATED DATE OF ARRIVAL OF VEHICLE AT MONITORED 
         FACILITY: XX.XX.XX 
 
      ¶3. APPROXIMATE NUMBER, WEIGHT, AND DIMENSIONS OF 
         SEPARATE PALLETIZED OR OVERSIZE UNITS OF CARGO, 
         INCLUDING MODULAR STRUCTURES, TO BE TRANSPORTED 
         TO POINT OF DEPARTURE: 
 
      NUMBER  WEIGHT(KG)  LENGTH(CM)  WIDTH(CM)  HEIGHT(CM) 
 
      ¶A. .... ..........  ..........  .........  .......... 
 
      ¶B. ...  ..........  ..........  .........  .......... 
 
      ¶4. HAZARDOUS CARGO REQUIRING SPECIAL SAFETY MEASURES 
         DURING TRANSPORTATION FROM MONITORED FACILITY TO 
         POINT OF DEPARTURE: 
 
         ¶A. MATERIAL: (blank underline) 
 
         ¶B. AMOUNT:   XX 
 
         ¶C. SPECIAL SAFETY MEASURES REQUIRED DURING 
            TRANSPORTATION:  (blank underline) 
 
   D) INFORMATION ON CARGO ROTATION: 
      ¶1. TYPE AND NUMBER OF GROUND TRANSPORTATION VEHICLES 
         REQUIRED TO TRANSPORT CARGO TO MONITORED FACILITY: 
 
         ¶A. 1) TYPE:   (blank underline) 
 
            2) NUMBER: XX 
 
         ¶B. 1) TYPE:   (blank underline) 
 
            2) NUMBER: XX 
 
      ¶2. ANTICIPATED DATE OF ARRIVAL OF VEHICLE AT POINT 
         OF DEPARTURE: XX.XX.XX 
 
      ¶3. APPROXIMATE NUMBER, WEIGHT, AND DIMENSIONS OF 
         SEPARATE PALLETIZED OR OVERSIZE UNITS OF CARGO, 
         INCLUDING MODULAR STRUCTURES, TO BE TRANSPORTED 
         TO MONITORED FACILITY: 
 
      NUMBER  WEIGHT(KG)  LENGTH(CM)  WIDTH(CM)  HEIGHT(CM) 
 
      A.....  ..........  ..........  .........  .......... 
 
      ¶B. .... ..........  ..........  .........  .......... 
 
      ¶4. HAZARDOUS CARGO REQUIRING SPECIAL SAFETY MEASURES 
         DURING TRANSPORTATION FROM POINT OF DEPARTURE TO 
         MONITORED FACILITY: 
 
         ¶A. MATERIAL: (blank underline) 
 
         ¶B. AMOUNT:   XX 
 
         ¶C. SPECIAL SAFETY MEASURES REQUIRED DURING 
            TRANSPORTATION:  (blank underline) 
 
   E) ANTICIPATED DATE OF RETURN OF GROUND TRANSPORTATION 
      TO MONITORED FACILITY: XX.XX.XX 
 
   F) SERVICES FOR ARRANGING TRANSPORT: (blank underline) 
 
¶4. REMARKS: (blank underline) 
 
¶5. END OF ANC/STR XX-XXX/1;4A (sic) 
 
End text. 
 
Begin text of draft Format 144B: 
 
                                           DRAFT 
 
SUBJECT:  NOTIFICATION OF READINESS TO PROVIDE GROUND 
          TRANSPORTATION TO TRANSPORT CARGO 
 
¶1. RNC/STR XX-XXX/144B 
 
¶2. REFERENCES: A) ANC/STR XX-XXXX/XXX 
               B) RNC/STR XX-XXXX/XXX 
               C) JCIC MATERIALS 
 
¶3. CONTENT: 
 
   A) TYPE AND NUMBER OF GROUND TRANSPORTATION VEHICLES 
      OF EACH TYPE TO BE PROVIDED: 
      ¶1. (blank underline) 
 
      ¶2. (blank underline) 
      ¶3. (blank underline) 
   B) ESTIMATED DATE OF PROVISION OF GROUND TRANSPORTATION 
      VEHICLES AT MONITORED FACILITY: XX.XX.XX 
 
   C) ESTIMATED DATE OF ARRIVAL OF GROUND TRANSPORTATION 
      VEHICLES AT POINT OF DEPARTURE OF CARGO: XX.XX.XX 
 
   D) ESTIMATED DATE OF ARRIVAL OF GROUND TRANSPORTATION 
      VEHICLES AT MONITORED FACILITY: XX.XX.XX 
 
   E) SERVICES PROVIDED BY THE RUSSIAN SIDE: 
      (blank underline) 
 
   F) PASSPORT INFORMATION FOR DRIVERS AND ESCORTS: 
 
      ¶1. (blank underline) 
 
      ¶2. (blank underline) 
 
      ¶3. (blank underline) 
 
   G) ESTIMATED DATES AND POINTS FOR CROSSING THE 
      BORDERS OF A COUNTRY OF TRANSIT: 
 
      ¶1. XX.XX.XX 
 
      ¶2. XX.XX.XX 
 
      ¶3. XX.XX.XX 
 
      ¶4. XX.XX.XX 
 
¶4. REMARKS: (blank underline) 
 
¶5. END OF RNC/STR XX-XXX/144B) 
 
End text. 
 
¶20.  (U) Documents exchanged. 
 
- Russia: 
 
    -- Draft Format 144A and 144B Notifications; and 
 
    -- Russian-proposed Draft Agreement on Replacement of RDE. 
 
¶21.  (U) Participants: 
 
U.S. 
 
Mr. Mullins 
Lt Col Couch 
Col(sel) Emig 
Mr. Foley 
Mr. Johnston 
Ms. Kottmyer 
Maj Mitchner 
Mr. Page 
Mr. Smith 
Mr. Tiersky 
Mr. Hopkins (Int) 
 
Belarus 
Mr. Grinevich 
Kazakhstan 
 
Mr. Baysvanov 
 
Russia 
 
Col Fedorchenko 
Col Razumov 
Ms. Sorokina 
Ms. Kotkova 
Col Maksimenko 
Lt Col Novikov 
Mr. Smirnov 
Mr. Stefanovich 
Mr. Shabalin 
Ms. Yevarovskaya (Int) 
Mr. Uspenskiy (Int) 
 
Ukraine 
 
Mr. Zakharchuk 
 
¶22.  (U) Look sends. 
Moley