VZCZCXYZ0001
OO RUEHWEB

DE RUEHGV #0175/01 0581249
ZNY SSSSS ZZH
O R 271249Z FEB 10
FM USMISSION GENEVA
TO RHEFBIM/DIA IMADS 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 0482
RUEHNO/USMISSION USNATO IMMEDIATE 0285
RUEKJCS/SECDEF WASHINGTON DC IMMEDIATE
INFO RUEHGV/USMISSION GENEVA
RUEHKV/AMEMBASSY KYIV 0355
RUEHMO/AMEMBASSY MOSCOW 0359
RUEHTA/AMEMBASSY ASTANA 0355

S E C R E T GENEVA 000175 
 
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: 2020/02/27 
TAGS: PARM KACT MARR PREL RS US
SUBJECT: SFO-GVA-VIII: MEETING OF THE EXPANDED AD-HOC GROUP, FEBRUARY 
11, 2010 -- CORRECTED COPY 
 
CLASSIFIED BY: Rose E. Gottemoeller, Assistant Secretary, Department 
of State, VCI; REASON: 1.4(B), (D) 
 
¶1.  (U) This is SFO-GVA-VIII-038. 
 
 
 
¶2.  (U) Meeting Date:  February 11, 2010 
 
                Time:  10:30 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. 
 
               Place:  Russian Mission, Geneva 
 
 
 
------- 
 
SUMMARY 
 
------- 
 
 
 
¶3.  (S) During an Expanded Ad Hoc Group meeting held at the Russian 
Mission on February 11, the two sides discussed three issues: 
deployed and non-deployed heavy bombers; conversion of ICBM 
launchers to launchers of missile defense interceptors; and 
distinguishing features between ICBM launchers and missile defense 
interceptor launchers.  The Russian side proposed language for a 
definition for "non-deployed heavy bomber," which included test 
heavy bombers and heavy bombers located at repair facilities for 
heavy bombers. They also proposed placing a limit of 15 on the 
number of non-deployed heavy bombers possessed by each side. 
 
¶4.  (S) Converted former ICBM silo launchers being used for missile 
defense interceptors at Vandenberg Air Force Base (VAFB), was 
discussed in relation to paragraph 4 in Article V. The U.S. side 
provided clarification why the U.S. side used the term "modified". 
The Russian side raised the possible need for an agreed statement 
regarding these missile defense interceptor launchers that have 
already been converted, and stated that distinguishing features for 
such launchers should be provided and discussed.  The U.S. side 
acknowledged the Russian position, but asked the Russian side to 
provide its proposal in writing.  It was also noted these topics 
were being discussed at the Head of Delegation (HOD) level.  End 
summary. 
 
¶5.  (S) SUBJECT SUMMARY:  Non-deployed Heavy Bombers; Missile 
Defense and Distinguishing Features; and Other Agreed Statements. 
 
 
 
-------------------------- 
 
NON-DEPLOYED HEAVY BOMBERS 
 
-------------------------- 
 
 
 
¶6.  (S) Dr. Warner noted the U.S. concept for non-deployed heavy 
bombers would be to include test heavy bombers, heavy bombers in 
extended maintenance at repair and production facilities, and heavy 
bombers awaiting elimination at a conversion or elimination 
facility.  Warner said no official position had been received from 
the Russian side and asked for their comments. 
 
 
¶7.  (S) Adm (ret) Kuznetsov provided the Russian-proposed 
definition for the term "non-deployed heavy bomber."  He asserted 
that a non-deployed heavy bomber is a test heavy bomber and heavy 
bomber located at a repair facility for heavy bombers.  He proposed 
that the following text be added to Article IV: "Total number of 
non-deployed heavy bombers shall be 15."  He explained that a limit 
of 15 would allow for 10 test heavy bombers and a maximum of 5 
heavy bombers located at repair facilities.  Additionally, text 
would be needed to restrict location of non-deployed bombers to 
flight test centers and repair facilities, which would not be 
subject to inspection.  Kuznetsov noted the U.S. proposal to 
include heavy bombers awaiting elimination in this definition.  He 
stated that this approach was not acceptable, but he noted the 
U.S.-proposed agreed statement regarding heavy bombers at 
Davis-Monthan Air Force Base was good.  Warner said the U.S. side 
would consider the Russian proposal. 
 
 
 
------------------------------------------- 
 
MISSILE DEFENSE AND DISTINGUISHING FEATURES 
 
------------------------------------------- 
 
 
 
¶8.  (S) Col Ilin, referencing paragraph 4 of Article V of the 
Treaty, stated that a conversion process for ICBM launchers to 
missile defense interceptor launchers implied the use of 
distinguishing features.  He cited heavy bomber conversions and 
SLBM launcher conversions as relevant examples, stating that in 
both cases distinguishing features were identified.  He proposed 
the two sides discuss the distinguishing features associated with 
the converted former ICBM launchers now used for missile defense 
interceptors in the Expanded Ad Hoc Group. 
 
 
 
¶9.  (S) Warner replied that missile defense discussions were 
occurring at the HOD level and that the discussion should remain at 
that level.  Ilin agreed the Expanded Ad Hoc Group should not 
interfere in the HOD discussion, but that the group could assist 
the HODs by agreeing on a list of distinguishing features.  He also 
asked why the U.S. utilized the word "modified" in paragraph 4 of 
Article V and inquired as to the difference between "modified" and 
"converted". 
 
 
 
¶10.  (S) Warner stated the U.S. side was not prepared to discuss 
distinguishing features at this time, but that the issue would be 
raised with the U.S. HOD.  He noted that anything related to 
missile defense interceptors should be limited to strategic missile 
defense systems and not include theater missile defense systems, 
and asserted that both sides would have systems subject to any 
provisions placed in the Treaty.  Warner explained the term 
"modified" had been used in discussions on this matter in the Joint 
Compliance and Inspection Commission (JCIC) under START since the 
START Treaty placed specific parameters on the use of the term 
"converted" and these procedures had not been used when the former 
ICBM silos at VAFB had been converted to house missile defense 
 
 
interceptors.  He acknowledged that the two terms "converted" and 
"modified," had the same meaning from a common sense perspective. 
 
 
 
¶11.  (S) Warner noted the U.S. side had provided a one-time offer 
for the Russian Federation to view a modified launcher of a missile 
defense interceptor, but the Russian side had rejected that offer. 
Subsequent exhibition offers were made, but again rejected.  He 
stated such silos were part of the VAFB Space Launch Facility, and 
therefore, not subject to inspection.  He inquired if the Russian 
side had a proposal for this topic. 
 
 
 
¶12.  (S) Ilin stated the Russian side proposed solving the issue in 
paragraph 4 of Article V.  Additionally, he said an agreed 
statement, similar to those used to solve the B-1B problem and the 
SSGN problem, was needed.  Such an agreed statement would allow for 
the demonstration of procedures used for conversion from an ICBM 
silo launcher to a missile defense interceptor launcher.  Those 
demonstrations could also be used to confirm that the converted 
launchers could not be used to launch ICBMs and subsequent Type-2 
inspections could be conducted to confirm the United States had not 
reconverted those launchers. 
 
 
 
¶13.  (S) Warner replied that the Space Launch Facility at VAFB, 
where these converted launchers are located, are not subject to 
inspection.  Ilin replied that the base would not be inspected; 
only the individual launchers would be viewed. 
 
 
 
¶14.  (S) Ilin stated the Russian side would provide their proposals 
in writing.  The issues to be discussed would be distinguishing 
features for missile defense interceptor launchers as opposed to 
the former ICBM silos and an agreed statement on the former ICBM 
silos at the VAFB Space Launch Facility.  Warner recommended that 
their proposal keep the issues of distinguishing features of the 
different launchers and between missile defense interceptor 
missiles and ICBMs separate. 
 
 
 
----------------------- 
 
OTHER AGREED STATEMENTS 
 
----------------------- 
 
 
 
¶15.  (S) Ilin inquired if the United States had a response to the 
Russian-proposed agreed statements for telemetry and for the 
transfer of D-5 missiles to the United Kingdom (UK).  Mr. Elliott 
replied that the U.S. side had provided the proposed text to 
Washington for review, but that guidance had not yet been received. 
He noted that almost all the issues raised in the Russian-proposed 
UK transfer agreed statement were already covered in the existing 
Treaty and Protocol and therefore questioned the need for it.  Ilin 
responded that the Russian side would review the proposed agreed 
statement and the current texts. 
 
 
¶16.  (U) Documents provided: 
 
 
 
-- Russian proposal on language for the term "non-deployed heavy 
bomber", dated February 11, 2010. 
 
¶17.  (U) List of Participants: 
 
 
 
UNITED STATES 
 
 
 
Dr. Warner 
 
Mr. Albertson 
 
Mr. Brown 
 
Lt Col Comeau 
 
Mr. Dean 
 
Mr. Elliott 
 
Dr. Fraley 
 
Amb Ries 
 
LT Sicks (RO) 
 
Mr. Siemon 
 
Mr. Taylor 
 
Ms. Zdravecky 
 
Ms. Gesse (Int) 
 
 
 
RUSSIA 
 
 
 
Col Ilin 
 
Mr. Koshelev 
 
Adm Kuznetsov 
 
Mr. Luchaninov 
 
Mr. Orlov 
 
Mr. Poznikhir 
 
Mr. Venetsev 
 
 
Ms. Komshilova (Int) 
 
 
 
¶18.  Gottemoeller sends. 
KING