VZCZCXYZ0000
OO RUEHWEB

DE RUEHGV #0177/01 0581257
ZNY SSSSS ZZH
O R 271257Z 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 0487
RUEHNO/USMISSION USNATO IMMEDIATE 0290
RUEKJCS/SECDEF WASHINGTON DC IMMEDIATE
INFO RUEHGV/USMISSION GENEVA
RUEHKV/AMEMBASSY KYIV 0360
RUEHMO/AMEMBASSY MOSCOW 0364
RUEHTA/AMEMBASSY ASTANA 0360

S E C R E T GENEVA 000177 
 
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: AGREED STATEMENTS, 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-037. 
 
 
 
¶2.  (U) Meeting Date:  February 11, 2010 
 
                Time:  10:00 A.M. - 11:30 P.M. 
 
               Place:  Russian Mission, Geneva 
 
 
 
------- 
 
SUMMARY 
 
------- 
 
 
 
¶3.  (S) A meeting co-chaired by Mr. Elliott and Col Ilin on 
proposed Agreed Statements was held at the Russian Mission on 
February 11.  The proposed Agreed Statements on Converted B-1B 
Bombers and SSGNs were discussed in detail and the subject of SLBM 
launcher conversion was reviewed.  End summary. 
 
 
 
¶4.  (U) SUBJECT SUMMARY:  Converted B-1B Heavy Bombers; U.S. SSGNs; 
and SLBM Launcher Conversion. 
 
 
 
---------------------------- 
 
Converted B-1B heavy bomberS 
 
---------------------------- 
 
 
 
¶5.  (S) Ilin noted no brackets remained in the opening paragraph of 
the Agreed Statement on Converted B-1B Heavy Bombers.  Elliott 
corrected him and said the U.S. side had inserted the term 
"eliminated" inside its bracketed text in the opening paragraph to 
better capture the nature of the facilities covered in this Agreed 
Statement and that this change applied to the remainder of the 
document.  Elliott added the U.S. side had altered its next 
bracketed text to read "the following provisions shall apply" to 
ensure the cited provisions from the Treaty applied to the 
remainder of the document.  He stated a legal assessment of this 
text was needed.  Ilin responded that adding the term "eliminated" 
to the bracketed text was an interesting change and he felt it 
might be acceptable, but the Russian side would need to review it. 
He agreed to let the legal representatives review the last 
bracketed text in the first paragraph. 
 
 
 
¶6.   (S) Discussing the bracketed text in paragraph 1(A), Ilin 
stated that "in accordance with" and "identical to" did not mean 
the same thing.  Elliott concurred and clarified that the U.S. side 
had altered this sentence because there were certain scenarios 
where the procedures used to demonstrate that the B-1B was 
incapable of employing nuclear armaments might not be "identical 
 
 
to" the procedures used in the exhibition of the B-1B and therefore 
the U.S. side would not be able to comply with this provision as 
written by the Russian side.  Dr. Warner inquired why the term "in 
accordance with" was not acceptable.  Ilin replied that "in 
accordance with" did not indicate to what extent the procedures 
would be followed.  Mr. Brown recommended the word "analogous" or a 
similar term.  The sides agreed to ask their respective lawyers to 
collaborate on an appropriate term. 
 
 
 
¶7.   (S) Elliott stated paragraph 1(A) had been altered to include 
"distinguishing features" in an effort to match the Russian intent 
to capture the purpose of the exhibition but that it failed to make 
sense in English.  Ilin questioned why the brackets remained and 
explained that, without the bracketed text, the meaning of the 
paragraph would be lost.  Elliott agreed to draft changes which 
retained the meaning of the paragraph yet made sense in both 
languages.  Elliott explained that the United States was actively 
converting B-1B heavy bombers at the present time and understood 
that one B-1B would need to remain in its original state in order 
to meet the requirement detailed in paragraph 1(A).  (Comment:  the 
reference is to an exhibition of distinguishing characteristics for 
which one converted and one unconverted bomber would be needed. 
End comment.) 
 
 
 
¶8.  (S) Ilin stated paragraph 1(C) was agreed text.  Elliott, Ilin 
and Warner discussed paragraph 1(D) and agreed that during the 
exhibition the demonstrating party would show the inspecting party 
that the converted item was incapable of delivering nuclear arms 
and the distinguishing features would be recorded for future use. 
During subsequent inspections of the converted items, the inspected 
party would demonstrate that the distinguishing features were 
present and the inspecting party would confirm this, thereby 
confirming that the converted item had not been reconverted and 
remained incapable of delivering nuclear arms.  Elliott agreed to 
rewrite the paragraph to ensure this concept was captured. 
 
 
 
¶9.  (S) Elliott stated that paragraph 1(D)(i) remained bracketed 
and Warner stated this paragraph was being reviewed for placement 
in the General Provisions Part of the Protocol which would make it 
applicable to all inspection activities. 
 
 
 
--------- 
 
U.S. SSGN 
 
--------- 
 
 
 
¶10.  (S) Ilin declared that the brackets in the first paragraph and 
paragraph 1(A) of the Agreed Statement on SSGNs converted from 
SSBNS would be resolved if the same issues on the B-1B Agreed 
Statement were resolved.  Ilin said paragraph 1(B) still required 
revision to include locations of not only SSGNs but also SSBNs on 
the Coastlines and Waters diagrams.  Elliott agreed to make that 
revision.  Ilin continued that paragraph 1(C)(i) of the United 
States version was acceptable but that the last sentence was 
 
 
unnecessary.  Elliott agreed to send a revised proposal. 
 
 
 
------------------------- 
 
SLBM Launcher conversions 
 
------------------------- 
 
 
 
¶11.  (S) Regarding SLBM launcher conversions, Ilin said the Russian 
side had many questions on this topic, including how such a 
conversion was possible, how often it would occur, for what purpose 
it would be conducted and the time period in which the conversion 
would take place.  Adm (ret.) Kuznetzov interjected that while the 
Conversion and Elimination Protocol for submarine launcher 
conversions was nearly complete, the Protocol only covered 
conversion to a new type of SLBM.  Elliott disagreed and explained 
that this topic had been covered in detail with Col Ryzhkov and the 
U.S. side had made it clear throughout the negotiations what the 
United States position on this matter was.  Elliott continued that 
he had on several occasions explained that, since the United States 
had constructed its submarines with 24 SLBM launchers, it would be 
required to convert some of its SLBM launchers in order to meet the 
new treaty's limits.  He explained that these conversions, although 
the process had not been completely developed yet, must be such 
that the launcher was no longer capable of launching an SLBM.  The 
procedures would be presented to the Bilateral Consultative 
Commission, a demonstration would be conducted and notification and 
subsequent opportunity for exhibition and inspection would be 
provided.  Elliott reiterated that he had explained all this to Col 
Ryzhkov and given an explanation of the U.S. side's intent to 
convert two to four tubes on each of its 14 SSBNs.  While there was 
no estimate available as to how long it would take to conduct the 
conversions, they would normally take place in conjunction with 
other major work on the submarine. 
 
 
 
¶12.  (S) Ilin inquired what the converted SLBM launchers or SSBNs 
would be used for.  Elliott responded that the decision was not 
final on what the converted launchers would be used for, but it was 
likely storage or ballast.  It was certain that enough of the 
launch system would be removed to require some structural work, he 
added. Ilin asked if the United States would provide to the Russian 
Federation, the purpose of the converted launchers. Elliott 
responded "yes."  Gen Orlov asked if the U.S. side understood what 
problems it would face if it converted the launchers to employ 
other types of weapons and Elliott again responded "yes."  Probing 
how long it would take to conduct the conversions, Ilin asked if it 
could take a month and Elliott responded that the details were not 
known but that the U.S. side had 7 years in which to conduct the 
conversions.  The standard would be that the launchers would not be 
capable of launching SLBMs, as had been demonstrated to the Russian 
side during the conversions of the SSGNs.  Ilin requested written 
responses to a list of questions on the topic. (Begin note.  The 
list of questions was provided on February 15. End note.)  Elliott 
agreed that he would provide written responses. 
 
 
 
¶13.  (U) Documents provided:  None. 
 
 
¶14.  (U) Participants: 
 
 
 
UNITED STATES 
 
 
 
Mr. Elliott 
 
Mr. Ahlm (RO) 
 
Mr. Albertson 
 
Mr. Brown 
 
Lt Col Goodman 
 
LTC Litterini 
 
Amb Ries 
 
Mr. Trout 
 
Dr. Warner 
 
Mrs. Zdravecky 
 
Ms. Gesse (Int) 
 
 
 
RUSSIAN 
 
 
 
Col Ilin 
 
Mr. Koshelev 
 
Adm (Ret) Kuznetsov 
 
Mr. Luchaninov 
 
Gen Orlov 
 
Gen Poznihir 
 
Gen Venevtsev 
 
Ms. Komshilova (Int) 
 
 
 
¶15.  (U) Gottemoeller sends. 
KING