VZCZCXYZ0004
OO RUEHWEB

DE RUEHGV #1240/01 3542038
ZNY SSSSS ZZH
O 202038Z DEC 09
FM USMISSION GENEVA
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC IMMEDIATE 1054
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 6113
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 3292
RUEHKV/AMEMBASSY KYIV PRIORITY 2302
RUEHMO/AMEMBASSY MOSCOW PRIORITY 7509

S E C R E T GENEVA 001240 
 
SIPDIS 
 
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 LOOK 
DIA FOR LEA 
 
E.O. 12958: DECL: 12/19/2019 
TAGS: KACT MARR PARM PREL RS US START
SUBJECT: START FOLLOW-ON NEGOTIATIONS, GENEVA 
(SFO-GVA-VII):  (U) MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING WORKING 
GROUP MEETING, DECEMBER 14, 2009 
 
Classified By:  A/S Rose E. Gottemoeller, United States 
START Negotiator.  Reasons:  1.4(b) and (d). 
 
¶1.  (U) This is SFO-GVA-VII-150. 
 
¶2.  (U) Meeting Date:  December 15, 2009 
                Time:  10:00 A.M. - 12:30 P.M. 
               Place:  U.S. Mission, Geneva 
 
------- 
SUMMARY 
------- 
 
¶3.  (S) The Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) Working Group 
Chairs, Mr. Trout and Gen Orlov, met at the U.S. Mission on 
December 15, Orlov and Trout again discussed the nomenclature 
for nuclear weapons for heavy bombers.  The Russian position 
was finally clarified to be "Nuclear Warheads Counted for 
Deployed Heavy Bombers."  Orlov announced that the Russian 
Federation had agreed to the three U.S. categories of heavy 
bombers, and had deleted the "non-deployed" categories 
related to heavy bombers.  Trout agreed, based on a U.S. 
non-paper dated December 7, 2009, to include "heavy bombers 
equipped for non-nuclear armaments" as a category of data in 
the database.  End Summary. 
 
¶4.  (U) SUBJECT SUMMARY:  Let's Talk Heavy Bombers; and Some 
Remaining Issues 
 
------------------------ 
LET'S TALK HEAVY BOMBERS 
------------------------ 
 
¶5.  (S) Orlov started out the meeting by asking to continue 
the discussion from the previous day regarding the 
nomenclature for nuclear weapons for heavy bombers.  This 
time, with the help of U.S. lawyer, Mr. Brown, and numerous 
references to the START Treaty, the Russian position was 
determined to be "nuclear warheads counted for deployed heavy 
bombers."  Trout again told Orlov that he would take the new 
information back to his head of delegation. 
 
¶6.  (S) Orlov announced that the Russian side had agreed to 
the U.S. construct regarding heavy bombers.  First, he said, 
we agree that there are three categories of heavy boQers: 
deployed heavy bombers; heavy bombers equipped for 
non-nuclear armaments; and test heavy bombers.  Additionally, 
he stated, the Russian side was dropping all references to 
"non-deployed" in relation to heavy bombers as the Russian 
side agreed with the U.S. position that all heavy bombers 
equipped for nuclear armaments were deployed.  Finally, he 
stated that the Russian side was deleting the category of 
"airbase for heavy bombers equipped for non-nuclear 
armaments" as the Russian side understood the United States 
would have both nuclear and non-nuclear types of bombers at 
some bases. 
 
¶7.  (S) Trout thanked Orlov for such good news but clarified 
that the U.S. position was to not list heavy bombers equipped 
for non-nuclear armaments in the database.  Orlov and Mr. 
Pischulov looked at each other in surprise, stating that the 
U.S. paper (dated December 7, 2009) regarding heavy bombers, 
delivered last week, included this category of heavy bomber. 
 
 
Orlov commented that the Russian side had been up until 
nearly 3:00 a.m. discussing this issue and had based their 
decision on this paper. 
 
¶8.  (S) Trout decided to take a break and see if he could 
obtain further clarification on this issue.  He returned 
later and explained that he had discussed this issue with his 
head of delegation, and the United States would agree to list 
heavy bombers equipped for non-nuclear armaments in the 
database.  However, Trout asked some clarifying questions 
regarding the inclusion of this category, specifically asking 
whether the notifications associated with heavy bomber 
movement and changes of data in the database would apply to 
this category.  Orlov deferred, stating that this 
notification issue was for the Notification Working Group. 
Trout asked that, as the U.S. understood the Agreed Statement 
on B-1Bs, after the last bomber had been converted all 
numerical data regarding the converted B-1Bs would be deleted 
from the database.  Orlov replied that no, this was not the 
case, but agreed to discuss the matter further with his 
delegation, stating that perhaps after the last B-1B was 
converted this matter could be brought before the Bilateral 
Consultation Commission (BCC) to decide what to do. 
 
--------------------- 
SOME REMAINING ISSUES 
--------------------- 
 
¶9.  (S) Turning to space launch facilities, Orlov asked 
whether Trout had accepted the Russian-proposed language for 
space launch facilities using "non-deployed ICBMs and SLBMs" 
and "non-deployed launchers for ICBMs and SLBMs."  Trout 
agreed to use the first term, but said he would get back with 
Orlov on the use of the Russian-proposed text regarding 
launchers. 
 
¶10. (S) Trout agreed to drop references to throw-weight and 
launch weight in Section VII, ICBM and SLBM Technical Data. 
 
¶11. (S) Orlov agreed to drop some technical data in Section 
VIII in the heavy bomber technical section, but not all. 
Specifically, he stated that the Russian side had decided to 
delete their proposed technical characteristics for heavy 
bombers equipped for non-nuclear armaments, but not for heavy 
bombers equipped for nuclear armaments. 
 
¶12. (S) Trout and Orlov agreed to make some changes to 
Section X, Other Data, to track some of the decisions and 
changes made in the past 2 days. 
 
---------------- 
CLOSING COMMENTS 
---------------- 
 
¶13. (S) Trout asked to have another meeting the next morning 
to allow for discussion of any issues that could arise from 
the evening's first technical conforming meeting for the 
database.  Orlov agreed that this was a good idea, and 
commented that the group had made great progress. 
 
¶14. (U) Documents provided:  None. 
 
¶15. (U) Participants: 
 
 
 
UNITED STATES 
 
Mr. Trout 
Mr. Brown 
LT. Lobner 
Mr. French (Int) 
 
RUSSIA: 
 
Gen Orlov 
Col Pischulov 
Ms. Evarovskaya (Int) 
 
¶16. (U) Gottemoeller sends. 
GRIFFITHS