O 210717Z NOV 08
FM USMISSION GENEVA
TO SECSTATE WASHDC IMMEDIATE 7531
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 MOSCOW PRIORITY

S E C R E T GENEVA 000998 
 
 
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-OS OP-OSA AND DIRECTOR 
NSC FOR HAYES 
DIA FOR LEA 
 
E.O. 12958: DECL: 07/17/2018 
TAGS: KACT PARM START JCIC INF US RS UP BO KZ
 
SUBJECT: JCIC-XXXIII:  (U) HEAD OF DELEGATION MEETING ON 
THE UKRAINIAN PROPOSAL TO CHANGE THE CATEGORY OF ELIMINATED 
ICBMS AND COURTLAND MISSILE ASSEMBLY FACILITY, NOVEMBER 18, 
2008 
 
REF: ANC/STR 07-614/17 26 AUGUST 2007 
 
Classified By:  Jerry A. Taylor, United States Representative 
to the Joint Compliance and Inspection Commission. 
Reasons:  1.5(b) and (d). 
 
¶1.  (U) This is JCIC-XXXIII-015. 
 
¶2.  (U) Meeting Date:  November 18, 2008 
                Time:  10:30 A.M. - 11:50 A.M. 
               Place:  Russian Mission, Geneva 
 
------- 
SUMMARY 
------- 
 
¶3.  (S) A Heads of Delegation (HOD) Meeting was held at the 
Russian Mission on November 18, 2008, to discuss the 
Ukrainian proposal to change the category of those Ukrainian 
ICBMs that have been completely eliminated to date to 
formerly declared types of ICBMs; and the status of the 
Courtland ICBM Missile Assembly Facility.  All Parties were 
represented. 
 
¶4.  (S) The Ukrainian Delegation introduced a proposal to 
change the designation of its completely eliminated ICBMs to 
former types under the START Treaty.  The Ukrainian side 
expressed its belief that the redesignation of these ICBMs 
would simplify implementation of the Treaty and would not 
require any amendment to the Treaty. 
 
¶5.  (S) On the issue of the Courtland Missile Assembly 
Facility, the Russian Federation reiterated its concerns and 
the United States again provided clarification.  The Russian 
Delegation repeatedly asked the U.S. side what it considers 
the target vehicles produced at the Courtland facility to be, 
SLBMs or something else.  It asked if the United States would 
consider drafting a Joint Statement similar to Joint 
Statements 21 and 31 to capture the target vehicles. 
 
-------------------- 
YOU WANT TO DO WHAT? 
-------------------- 
 
¶6.  (S) At a Heads of Delegation (HOD) Meeting on November 
18, 2008, at the Russian Mission, the Ukrainian Delegation 
introduced a proposal to change the category of SS-24 and 
SS-17 ICBMs to former types as defined under the START 
Treaty.  Shevtsov explained that the proposal would apply to 
ICBMs whose launchers had been completely eliminated to date 
under the Treaty.  Shevtsov stated that after 14 years of 
reducing strategic offensive arms there were significantly 
fewer existing types of strategic arms than those listed in 
Paragraph 10 of Article III of the Treaty at the time of 
signature.  By using the Treaty definition of former type, 
the Ukrainian side expressed its belief that the 
redesignation of these ICBMs would simplify implementation of 
the Treaty and would not require any amendments. 
 
¶7.  (S) Shevtsov stated that the under the Ukrainian proposal 
the SS-17 and SS-24 ICBMs could be designated as former types 
and that additional types of missiles could be added to this 
list by the other Parties as applicable. 
 
¶8.  (S) The Ukrainian Delegation proposed a new JCIC 
Agreement to provide a legal format for establishing what 
types of ICBMs and SLBMs would be on this new list of former 
types as of an agreed upon date such as December 2009. 
(Begin Comment:  The Ukrainian proposal appears to be an 
attempt to establish an updated list of former types of ICBMs 
and SLBMs under the conditions of an extended START Treaty. 
End Comment.) 
 
¶9.  (S) The other Delegations agreed that the Ukrainian 
proposal was complex and required further examination before 
any formal responses could be made. 
 
¶10. (S) Begin text of the official translation of the 
Ukrainian Non-Paper: 
 
                                         Official Translation 
 
                                          JCIC-XXXIII 
                                          Non-Paper of the 
                                          Ukrainian Side 
                                          November 18, 2008 
 
      The Ukrainian side placed on the agenda of this session 
the issue of "Moving types of ICBMs that have been completely 
eliminated to date into the category of former type of ICBMs." 
 
      The advisability of discussing this issue and adopting 
an agreed solution is based on the following considerations: 
 
      ¶1.  To date, after fourteen years of reducing strategic 
offensive arms in accordance with the Treaty requirements, 
the number of "existing types" of strategic arms (including 
ICBMs) is significantly less than those recorded in paragraph 
10 of Article III of the Treaty as of the date of signature. 
 
      ¶2.  The substance of definition 34 (11) of the 
Definitions Annex allows a significant portion of "existing 
types of ICBMs" as of the date of signature to be moved into 
a different category, i.e., "former type of ICBMs." 
 
      ¶3.  Since the Treaty provisions do not apply to this 
category of arms, such a solution would in practice mean 
considerably simplifying the current Treaty. 
 
      In other words implementation of this proposal creates 
totally new conditions for implementing the Treaty, without 
completely revising it and working out a new agreement. 
 
      As the main argument in favor of such a solution we 
note the following:  it derives from the substance of the 
term "former type" that all types of ICBMs, the deployment of 
which was completed prior to entry into force of the Treaty 
and none of which is currently deployed, can be classified as 
"former types of ICBMs." 
 
      Under this principle, the following should be 
classified as former types of ICBMs for the Ukrainian side: 
 
      - SS-17 (RS-16); 
      - SS-24 (RS-22). 
 
      As a precedent for the use of this category in the 
Treaty we note subparagraph 10(c) of Article III: 
 
"Article III 
 
      ¶10.  As of the date of signature of this Treaty: 
 
 
 
 
      (c) Former types of ICBMs and SLBMs are the types of 
missiles designated by the United States of America as, and 
known to the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics as, 
Minuteman I and Polaris A-3." 
 
      We would like to hear from the U.S. Delegation what the 
inclusion of this provision in the Treaty did for the U.S. 
side. 
 
      In our view, adoption of a JCIC Agreement recording the 
actual situation with respect to "existing types" and "former 
types" of strategic arms as of December 2009 could be a 
possible legal format for codifying an agreement. 
 
      Adoption of such a document in the JCIC will be useful 
no matter how the discussion of the Treaty's future unfolds. 
 
End text. 
 
--------------------------- 
COURTLAND - IT'S DISNEYLAND 
WITHOUT THE FUN 
--------------------------- 
 
¶11.  (S) Koshelev stated that the Russian Federation had 
expressed its concerns about Courtland in a number of 
documents including its October 20, 2008, aide-memoire. 
Since the United States had not responded to this document, 
Koshelev repeated the Russian concerns.  He stated that the 
United States had not adequately explained how Courtland fit 
the definition of a production facility under the START 
Treaty and that actual activities at Courtland did not 
correlate to those of a production facility.  Koshelev 
asserted that a target missile utilizing a Trident I SLBM 
first stage could not be considered a Trident I SLBM under 
Paragraph 3 of Article III to the Treaty.  He reminded the 
Parties that Joint Statements 21 and 31 were adopted to help 
resolve this type of issue but that the United States had not 
provided any of the information required by the two Joint 
Statements.  Additionally, the Russian Delegation inquired as 
to which launchers the new target vehicles would be launched 
from and sought the procedures that would be used by 
inspectors should they encounter the target vehicles during 
an inspection. 
 
¶12.  (S) Taylor thanked Koshelev for his comments and 
delivered the following points: 
 
-- The U.S. declared the Courtland Missile Assembly Facility, 
Alabama, in accordance with Paragraph (10) of Section I of 
the Notification Protocol.  The Courtland Missile Assembly 
Facility, Alabama, is listed in Annex B of the Memorandum of 
Understanding (MOU) as an SLBM production facility. 
 
-- Trident I SLBM first stage motors, which had been used 
previously as part of accountable Trident I SLBMs, that are 
brought to Courtland will undergo activities consistent with 
work done at production facilities, including stage assembly. 
 
-- The technical data of the Trident I SLBM first stage, as 
contained in Annex F of the U.S. MOU, remains unchanged. 
 
-- As stated in the remarks section of U.S. notification 
ANC/STR 07-614/17, this facility will assemble target 
vehicles using Trident I SLBM first-stage motors. 
 
-- These target vehicles will be for use in testing the U.S. 
ballistic missile defense system.  This facility will not 
produce any new Trident I SLBM first stages or any new items 
subject to the Treaty. 
 
-- Information required by Joint Statements 21 and 31 will be 
provided to the other Parties as required by the Treaty. 
 
-- The United States does not agree with the assertion made 
in the October 20, 2008, Russian aide memoire that any 
missile system that incorporates the first stage motor of an 
ICBM or SLBM cannot be classified as an ICBM or SLBM of the 
corresponding type. 
 
-- The United States emphasizes that, in accordance with 
Paragraph 3(a), Article III, of the Treaty, all Trident I 
SLBM first-stage motors that have been assembled into first 
stages remain accountable as a Trident I SLBM and, therefore, 
continue to be subject to all the relevant provisions of the 
START Treaty as a Trident I SLBM. 
 
¶13.  (S) After quoting Paragraph 3(a) of Article III of the 
Treaty, Taylor noted that it was commonly understood that the 
Trident I was an SLBM that was maintained, stored and 
transported in stages.  He assured the Russian Federation and 
the other Treaty Parties that the declaration of the SLBM 
production facility at Courtland was in full compliance with 
the START Treaty. 
 
¶14.  (S) Ryzhkov inquired as to what the Courtland Facility 
produced, SLBMs or something else.  He continued to ask for 
additional information concerning the differences between a 
target vehicle and other Trident I first stages.  Stating 
that since only Trident I launchers declared by the U.S. side 
were on submarines, Ryzhkov inquired whether the target 
vehicle would be launched from those vessels.  He explored 
the possibility of making a Joint Statement similar to Joint 
Statements 21 and 31 to capture these target vehicles. 
Lastly, he asked if the target vehicle system was an SLBM or 
something else. 
 
¶15.  (S) Taylor stated again that the Courtland Facility was 
a production facility for the Trident I SLBM.  He assured all 
Parties for a third time that additional data would be 
provided as specified in Joint Statements 21 and 31 and that 
all required notifications would be made in accordance with 
the Treaty. 
 
¶16.  (S) Koshelev thanked Taylor for his comments and 
promised to provide the Russian Delegation's additional 
questions in writing. 
 
¶17.  (U) Documents exchanged: 
 
-- Ukraine:  Non-Paper on Changing the Category of Eliminated 
ICBMs to Former Types, November 18, 2008. 
 
¶18.  (U) Participants: 
 
U.S. 
 
Mr. Taylor 
Ms. Bosco 
Mr. Brown 
Lt Col Comeau 
Mr. DeNinno 
Mr. Dunn 
Maj Edinger 
Mr. Fortier 
Mr. Hanchett 
Mr. Johnston 
Mr. Kuehne 
Mr. Miller 
Mrs. Nash 
CDR Rust 
Mr. Smith 
Mr. Vogel 
Mr. Yaguchi 
Ms. Gross (Int) 
 
BELARUS 
 
Mr. Ugorich 
Mr. Ponomarev 
 
Kazakhstan 
 
Col Akhmetalin 
 
RUSSIA 
 
Mr. Koshelev 
Mr. Kashirin 
Ms. Kotkova 
Col Ryzhkov 
Capt(1st Rank) Kuz'min 
Col Novikov 
Mr. Serov 
Ms. Sorokina 
Col Zaytsev 
Mr. Gusev (Int) 
 
UKRAINE 
 
Dr. Shevtsov 
Mr. Bondarenko 
MGen Fedotov 
Mr. Makhonin 
 
¶19.  (U) Taylor sends. 
TICHENOR 
 
 
NNNN 
 



End Cable Text