VZCZCXYZ0011
OO RUEHWEB

DE RUEHGV #0067/01 0461024
ZNY SSSSS ZZH
O R 151014Z FEB 10
FM USMISSION CD GENEVA
TO RHEFDIA/DIA WASHINGTON DC IMMEDIATE
RHEHAAA/NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL WASHINGTON DC IMMEDIATE
RHMFISS/CJCS WASHINGTON DC IMMEDIATE
RHMFISS/CNO WASHINGTON DC IMMEDIATE
RHMFISS/DEPT OF ENERGY WASHINGTON DC IMMEDIATE
RHMFISS/DTRA ALEX WASHINGTON DC IMMEDIATE
RHMFISS/JOINT STAFF WASHINGTON DC IMMEDIATE
RUEAIIA/CIA WASHINGTON DC IMMEDIATE
RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC IMMEDIATE 0167
RUEHNO/USMISSION USNATO IMMEDIATE 0099
RUEKJCS/SECDEF WASHINGTON DC IMMEDIATE
INFO RUEHGV/USMISSION CD GENEVA
RUEHKV/AMEMBASSY KYIV 0099
RUEHMO/AMEMBASSY MOSCOW 0099
RUEHTA/AMEMBASSY ASTANA 0099

S E C R E T CD GENEVA 000067 
 
SIPDIS 
DEPT FOR T, VCI AND EUR/PRA 
DOE FOR NNSA/NA-24 
CIA FOR WINPAC 
JSCS 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: 2020/02/15 
TAGS: PARM KACT MARR PREL RS US
SUBJECT: SFO-GVA-VIII: (U) EXPANDED AD HOC WORKING GROUP MEETING, 
FEBRUARY 5, 2010 
 
CLASSIFIED BY: Rose A. Gottemoeller, Assistant Secretary, Department 
of State, VCI; REASON: 1.4(B), (D) 
 
¶1.  (U) This is SFO-GVA-VIII-020. 
 
 
 
¶2.  (U) Meeting Date:  February 5, 2010 
 
           Time:  12:00 P.M. - 12:40 P.M. 
 
               Place:  Russian Mission, Geneva 
 
 
 
------- 
 
SUMMARY 
 
------- 
 
 
 
¶3.  (S) The Ad Hoc Working Group met in expanded format (with 
experts) to discuss new U.S. proposals for the "third limit" on 
deployed and non-deployed launchers and heavy bombers that had been 
agreed in Moscow, and for the release of data received from the 
initial data exchange following treaty signature and subsequent 
exchanges during implementation of the treaty.  The Russian side 
asked a few questions and agreed to respond to both proposals in 
the near future. 
 
 
 
¶4.  (U) SUBJECT SUMMARY:  Capturing the Third Limit; What to 
Release to the Public and When; and What to Release versus What to 
Exchange. 
 
 
 
------------------------- 
 
CAPTURING THE THIRD LIMIT 
 
------------------------- 
 
 
 
¶5.  (S) Ambassador Ries began the meeting of the Expanded Ad Hoc 
Group by turning the sides' attention to an item of unfinished 
business from the January meetings in Moscow between U.S. Chairman 
of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Mullen and Chief of the 
Russian General Staff General Makarov.  At that meeting, the two 
had agreed on a third limit in the treaty on deployed and 
non-deployed launchers and bombers.  All that remained, Ries 
stated, was to capture their agreement in writing for placement in 
Article IV of the treaty.  Ries provided a U.S. working paper with 
proposed wording for the limit. 
 
 
 
Begin text. 
 
 
 
Article IV, paragraph 3:  Each party shall limit deployed and 
non-deployed launchers of ICBMs, deployed and non-deployed 
launchers of SLBMs and deployed and non-deployed heavy bombers 
equipped for nuclear armaments so that seven years after entry into 
force of this Treaty and thereafter, the aggregate number does not 
exceed 800. 
 
 
 
End text. 
 
 
 
¶6.  (S) Admiral Kuznetsov observed that the new text contained a 
term for which there was no definition:  "non-deployed heavy bomber 
equipped for nuclear armaments."  He asked what the U.S. delegation 
had in mind for the meaning of the term.  Mr. Elliott responded 
that the definition for "deployed heavy bomber" included the 
concept of "equipped for nuclear armaments," and therefore the 
definition of non-deployed should as well.  The U.S. side agreed 
that the definition would need to be worked out.  Elliott continued 
that the definition certainly would include test heavy bombers, but 
he noted that the Russian delegation had earlier suggested that 
heavy bombers in long-term storage or long-term maintenance might 
also be included.  In response to an inquiry from Kuznetsov, 
Elliott and Ries indicated that the meaning of the term would be 
discussed in the Definitions Working Group, possibly as early as 
the following week. 
 
 
 
--------------------------------------- 
 
WHAT TO RELEASE TO THE PUBLIC AND WHEN 
 
--------------------------------------- 
 
 
 
¶7.  (S) Turning to the subject of release of data received from the 
implementation of the Treaty, Ries reviewed the U.S. position which 
included three elements.  First, everything from the initial 
exchange of data 45 days after treaty signature, except certain 
sensitive data, would be released to the public.  Second, data 
obtained during the implementation of the treaty would be released 
only if the Parties agreed; the U.S. proposed adding a 
clarification that each Party could release its own data without 
seeking agreement.  Third, the aggregate data that corresponded to 
the central limits could also be released to the public; the United 
States believed this should include the third limit, from Article 
IV, that had been agreed in Moscow. 
 
 
 
¶8.  (S) Ries provided a U.S. working paper for paragraphs in 
Article VIII dealing with data release, noting that the text was 
actually quite close to the last Russian proposal received earlier 
in the week.  Poznikhir asked what the U.S. delegation meant by 
"released to the public."  Ries explained that the phrase meant the 
data would be made available to the public.  Data and information 
were either protected or not.  If the data were released, it would 
be because a decision had been made that it should not be 
classified or protected.  There would be an exception for certain 
sensitive information such as geographic coordinates or site 
diagrams, which would not be released. 
 
--------------------------------------- 
 
WHAT TO RELEASE VERSUS WHAT TO EXCHANGE 
 
--------------------------------------- 
 
 
 
¶9.  (S) Poznikhir noted that the U.S. proposal seemed to align with 
the Russian position that the initial release would only include 
the data in Section II of Part Two of the Protocol.  But, he asked, 
was there agreement in the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) 
Working Group on what would be in the initial exchange?  Would the 
third limit be included?  Ries agreed this was a crucial point: 
the sides needed to understand what would be exchanged initially to 
reach agreement on what would be released from that first data 
exchange.  She stated that the sides had discussed the content of 
the initial exchange during the previous round of talks in both the 
MOU Working Group and between Heads of Delegation.  The U.S. 
delegation understood that the sides had agreed to base the initial 
database information on the July 2009 START exchange of data. 
 
 
 
¶10.  (S) Mr. Trout explained one way to include the newly agreed 
third limit on deployed and non-deployed items into the initial 
data exchange.  He said that paragraph 1 of Section II of the 
database could list the limits set forth in Article II and the 
third limit from Article IV could be listed in paragraph 2 of 
Section II of the database.  Poznikhir countered that the data for 
all three limits could be included in paragraph 1 of the Section. 
Trout indicated that was also possible. 
 
 
 
¶11.  (S) Gen Venevtsev asked whether the U.S. proposal would allow 
either side to release data after the expiration of the treaty. 
Ries and Trout said it would.  Poznikhir asked for clarification as 
to whether each side would have the right to release its own data 
without the agreement of the other side.  Ries replied, "Yes." 
Poznikhir ended the discussion by saying that the U.S. proposal 
appeared logical, that the U.S. side seemed to have taken the 
Russian views into account, and that the text was generally 
acceptable.  He confirmed the Russian delegation would consider the 
U.S. language and respond soon. 
 
 
 
¶12.  (S) Ries noted in closing that the MOU Working Group would be 
meeting later that day, with the Heads of Delegation in attendance, 
and she hoped they would clarify the contents of the initial 
exchange.  Orlov and Trout both added that, while it was clear what 
data would be subject to initial release, it was not clear what 
would be initially exchanged (that is, any additional information 
to be exchanged that would not be subject to release). 
 
 
 
¶13.  (U) Documents provided: 
- UNITED STATES: 
 
 
 
-- U.S. Working Paper, Article IV, paragraph 3, dated February 5, 
2010, in English and unofficial Russian; and 
 
 
 
-- U.S. Working Paper, Article VIII, paragraphs 5 through 8, dated 
February 5, 2010, in English and unofficial Russian. 
 
 
 
¶14.  (U) Participants: 
 
 
 
UNITED STATES 
 
 
 
Amb Ries 
 
Mr. Elliott 
 
Mr. Trout 
 
Lt Col Comeau 
 
Mr. Dean 
 
Dr. Fraley 
 
LTC Litterini 
 
LT Lobner 
 
Mr. Taylor 
 
Mrs. Zdravecky (RO) 
 
Ms. Gesse (Interpreter) 
 
 
 
RUSSIA 
 
 
 
Gen Poznikhir 
 
Col Ilin 
 
Mr. Koshelev 
 
Mr. Luchaninov 
 
Gen Orlov 
 
Col Ryzhkov 
 
Gen Venevtsev 
 
Adm (Ret) Kuznetsov 
 
Ms. Evarovskaya (Interpreter) 
 
 
 
¶16.  (U) Gottemoeller sends. 
LARSON