O 221443Z JUL 08
FM USMISSION GENEVA
TO SECSTATE WASHDC IMMEDIATE 6768
CIA WASHINGTON DC IMMEDIATE
DIA WASHINGTON DC IMMEDIATE
JOINT STAFF WASHINGTON DC IMMEDIATE
NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL WASHINGTON DC IMMEDIATE
SECDEF WASHINGTON DC IMMEDIATE
USMISSION USNATO IMMEDIATE
DEPT OF ENERGY WASHINGTON DC IMMEDIATE
DTRA ALEX WASHINGTON DC IMMEDIATE
DTRA-OSES DARMSTADT GE IMMEDIATE
CNO WASHINGTON DC IMMEDIATE
DIRSSP WASHINGTON DC IMMEDIATE
INFO AMEMBASSY ASTANA PRIORITY
AMEMBASSY KYIV PRIORITY
AMEMBASSY MINSK PRIORITY
AMEMBASSY MOSCOW PRIORITY

S E C R E T GENEVA 000565 
 
 
DEPT FOR T, VCI 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-OSA AND DIRECTOR 
NSC FOR LUTI 
DIA FOR LEA 
 
E.O. 12958: DECL: 07/22/2018 
TAGS: KACT PARM START JCIC US RS UP BO KZ
 
SUBJECT: JCIC-XXXII:  HEADS OF DELEGATION MEETING ON 
UNILATERAL RUSSIAN BOUNDARY REDUCTION OF THE DROVYANAYA 
SITE DIAGRAM AND MINUTEMAN III RVOSI, JULY 17, 2008 
 
REF: A. GENEVA 0564 (JCIC-XXXII-007) 
     ¶B. RUSSIAN-PROPOSED JCIC JOINT S-SERIES STATEMENT 
        ON CHANGES TO THE BOUNDARY OF DROVYANAYA 
        ICBM BASE FOR SILO LAUNCHERS OF ICBMS - 
        APRIL 6 2008 (E-MAILED FROM U.S. 
        EMBASSY-MOSCOW TO WASHINGTON D.C. - NO 
        REPORTING CABLE) 
     ¶C. RUSSIAN NON-PAPER ON THE ONE-TIME DEMOSTRATION 
        OF THE MINUTEMAN III FRONT SECTION - 
        MARCH 4 2008 (E-MAILED FROM THE U.S. 
        EMBASSY-MOSCOW TO WASHINGTON D.C. - NO 
        REPORTING CABLE) 
 
Classified By:  Jerry A. Taylor, United States Representative 
to the Joint Compliance and Inspection Commission. 
Reasons:  1.4(b) and (d). 
 
¶1.  (U) This is JCIC-XXXII-005. 
 
¶2.  (U) Meeting Date:  July 17, 2008 
                Time:  10:30 A.M. - 12:30 P.M. 
               Place:  Russian Mission, Geneva 
 
------- 
SUMMARY 
------- 
 
¶3.  (S) A Heads of Delegation (HOD) Meeting was held at the 
Russian Mission on July 17, 2008.  All Parties except the 
Kazakhstani Delegation were represented.  The Russian 
Delegation indicated it would make contact with the 
Kazakhstani Mission to ensure that it was aware of the JCIC. 
The Belarusian and Ukrainian Delegations made opening plenary 
statements (Ref A).  In lieu of opening plenary statements, 
the U.S. and Russian Delegations made short opening comments 
and said they wished to proceed to the substantive work of 
the session. 
 
¶4.  (S) The Russian Delegation introduced the first issue, 
regarding its request to obtain U.S. approval of the 
Russian-proposed changes to the Drovyanaya former ICBM Base 
for Silo Launchers of ICBMs site diagram.  The U.S. 
Delegation indicated a willingness to send the S-Series Joint 
Statement to the Conforming Group pending clarification about 
a reduction of site boundaries beyond which were discussed 
during JCIC-XXXI and the inclusion of a previously eliminated 
silo training launcher on the revised site diagram.  All 
Delegations agreed to set up a working group to address the 
clarification requests. 
 
¶5.  (S) The Russian Delegation subsequently introduced the 
second issue, regarding the possibility of the United States 
conducting a Minuteman III (MM III) one-time front section 
demonstration which would allow Russian observers to view the 
inside of the lower one-third of the MM III front section. 
In response, the U.S. Delegation reiterated that MM III 
Reentry Vehicle On-Site Inspection (RVOSI) procedures were 
treaty-compliant and the United States had made efforts to 
assuage the Russian Federation's concerns with the 
procedures.  The U.S. Delegation pointed out that the United 
States did not plan to change its MM III RVOSI procedures 
and, if the United States performed a one-time demonstration, 
it would not result in changes to the procedures used to 
conduct subsequent MM III RVOSI inspections.  The U.S. 
Delegation asked the Russian Delegation to answer a question 
originally posed during JCIC-XXXI regarding concerns about 
the volume under the front section of the MM III.  Both 
Delegations agreed to set up a working group to further 
discuss the issue. 
 
------------------ 
BELARUSIAN OPENING 
PLENARY STATEMENT 
------------------ 
 
¶6.  (S) After being welcomed to the Russian Mission by 
Koshelev, Panomarev commented on his Party's hopes that 
dialogue would resolve Treaty-related issues.  He delivered 
an opening statement (Ref A) and said that, although the 
START Treaty was coming to an end, the START Treaty was the 
most important treaty because it generated stability and 
security.  As such, Belarus was interested in maintaining the 
START Treaty and was open to further discussion. 
 
----------------- 
UKRAINIAN OPENING 
PLENARY STATEMENT 
----------------- 
 
¶7.  (S) Shevtsov also delivered a prepared statement (Ref A). 
 He stressed the economic importance to Ukraine of the 
extraction of solid fuel from their SS-24 ICBM rocket motors 
and indicated his government hoped the issue of SS-24 
elimination procedures would be resolved during JCIC-XXXII 
and the appropriate documents completed. 
 
----------------- 
NO U.S. STATEMENT 
----------------- 
 
¶8.  (S) Taylor noted the United States' concern about the 
absence of the Kazakhstani Delegation, but indicated his 
willingness to proceed with discussions and complete 
appropriate documents despite their absence.  He indicated 
that the U.S. Delegation would forgo a formal opening plenary 
statement in the interest of getting right to work given the 
ambitious JCIC agenda. 
 
------------------------- 
RUSSIAN OPENING STATEMENT 
------------------------- 
 
¶9.  (S) Koshelev indicated that attempts had been made to 
contact the Kazakhstani Representative but he could not 
explain the lack of communications between their capitals. 
He added that the Russian Delegation would also forgo a 
formal opening plenary statement in the interest of getting 
to work.  He commented that this was the first JCIC session 
where the Parties would address the Article XVII requirement 
to discuss whether the START Treaty would be extended.  He 
indicated his Party's interest in solving important issues, 
such as the completion of continuous monitoring activities at 
the Votkinsk Production Facility in Russia.  Nevertheless, he 
indicated that the Russian Federation believed it was 
important to continue discussing technical issues of the 
START Treaty throughout the Treaty's life. 
 
----------------------- 
DROVYANAYA SITE DIAGRAM 
----------------------- 
 
¶10.  (S) Koshelev introduced the first issue, regarding 
Russia's request to obtain UnitedStates approval of the 
proposed changes to the Dovyanaya site diagram which would 
reducethe site boundaries for the former Drovyanaya ICBM 
Base for Silo Launchers of ICBMs.  He said that, following 
the JCIC-XXXI discussions, the Russian Federation had 
submitted an updated site diagram dated April 6, 2008 and an 
accompanying S-series Joint Statement (Ref B) to the other 
Parties.  The Russian Federation's intent was to facilitate 
use of the former ICBM related site by other Russian military 
units.  Koshelev suggested a Conforming Group to review the 
Russian-proposed JCIC S-Series Joint Statement. 
 
¶11.  (S) Taylor said the United States had two clarifying 
questions which, when satisfactorily answered, would allow 
the U.S. Delegation to move forward with completion of a JCIC 
S-Series Joint Statement on changes to the boundary of 
Drovyanaya.  Taylor stated the United States sought to better 
understand why the proposed boundary changes, which were not 
discussed during the previous JCIC session, were necessary 
for this formerly-declared facility.  His second question 
sought clarification of why an eliminated silo training 
launcher, which had been eliminated through explosive means, 
was still depicted on the revised site diagram. 
 
¶12.  (S) In response, Koshelev requested written copies of 
the two clarifying questions and indicated that his experts 
would review the U.S. Delegation's concerns.  Ryzhkov said 
the preliminary view was that the depiction of the training 
silo on the diagram was probably a technical error but he 
would like to examine the issue.  He indicated that the 
reduction in the area of the site diagram was being made in 
support of a local military unit that planned to use the area 
for activities not related to the Treaty.  He also indicated 
that U.S. Inspectors had confirmed there were no items of 
inspection in the specified area.  The Parties agreed to send 
the issue to a working group for further discussion. 
 
--------------------- 
MM III ONE-TIME FRONT 
SECTION DEMONSTRATION 
--------------------- 
 
¶13.  (S) Koshelev introduced the second issue, regarding the 
possibility of the United States conducting a MM III one-time 
front section demonstration which would allow Russian 
observers an opportunity to look at the inside of the lower 
one-third of the MM III front section.  Koshelev stated that 
Russia had responded to questions posed by the U.S. 
Delegation during JCIC-XXXI, in a non-paper dated March 4, 
2008 (Ref C).  He indicated Russia had welcomed the United 
States' intention to find a solution to its concerns.  He was 
pleased to note that almost all of the United States' 
questions had been answered in a positive manner and Russia 
had added proposals which it felt would make the 
demonstration successful.  He requested further clarification 
on the intentions of the United States and the acceptability 
of the Russian proposals.  He also suggested a working group 
be established to discuss a technical plan for the 
demonstration.  Shevtsov indicated Ukraine's support of the 
Russian proposal. 
 
¶14.  (S) In response, Taylor reiterated that MM III RVOSI 
procedures were treaty-compliant and provided the inspecting 
party more than sufficient information upon which to confirm 
that MM III ICBMs contain no more RVs than the number of 
warheads attributed to them.  He stated that the United 
States had previously provided detailed information on its MM 
III RVOSI procedures and had implemented additional measures 
in response to Russian Inspectors' stated concerns.  He also 
noted that the Russian Federation, in its non-paper, 
anticipated the procedures used during an MM III front 
section demonstration would be implemented for all future MM 
III RVOSIs and then stated that the United States was not 
considering a change to its MM III RVOSI procedures and was 
instead only considering a MM III one-time front section 
demonstration. 
 
¶15.  (S) Taylor stated that the United States welcomed 
additional details from the Russian Federation to further 
clarify its concerns and its objective for a one-time 
demonstration.  The Parties agreed to send the issue to a 
working group for further discussion. 
 
¶16.  (U) Documents exchanged.  None. 
 
¶17.  (U) Participants: 
 
U.S. 
 
Mr. Taylor 
Ms. Bosco 
Mr. Brown 
Lt Col Comeau 
Mr. Couch 
Mr. DeNinno 
Mr. Dunn 
Mr. Fortier 
Maj Gondol 
Mr. Hanchett 
Mr. Johnston 
LTC Oppenheim 
Mr. Smith 
Mr. Tessier 
Mr. Vogel 
Mr. Yaguchi 
Mr. French (Int) 
 
BELARUS 
 
Mr. Panomarev 
 
RUSSIA 
 
Mr. Koshelev 
Mr. Kashirin 
CAPT (1st Rank) Kuz'min 
Mr. Lapshin 
Col Novikov 
Col Ryzhkov 
Mr. Serov 
Mr. Shevchenkov 
Mr. Smirnov 
Ms. Sorokina 
Col Zaytsev 
Ms. Yevarovskaya (Int) 
 
UKRAINE 
 
Dr. Shevtsov 
Mr. Bondarenko 
Mr. Chernyavskiy 
 
 
 
¶18.  (U) Taylor sends. 
TICHENOR 
 
 
NNNN 
 



End Cable Text