VZCZCXYZ0008
OO RUEHWEB

DE RUEHGV #0241/01 0591735
ZNY SSSSS ZZH
O R 281735Z FEB 10
FM USMISSION GENEVA
TO 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 0665
RUEHNO/USMISSION USNATO IMMEDIATE 0413
RUEKJCS/SECDEF WASHINGTON DC IMMEDIATE
INFO RUEHGV/USMISSION GENEVA
RUEHKV/AMEMBASSY KYIV 0483
RUEHMO/AMEMBASSY MOSCOW 0487
RUEHTA/AMEMBASSY ASTANA 0483

S E C R E T GENEVA 000241 
 
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: 2020/02/28 
TAGS: PARM KACT MARR PREL RS US
SUBJECT: SFO-GVA-VIII: (U) MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING WORKING GROUP 
MEETING, FEBRUARY 23, 2010 
 
CLASSIFIED BY: Rose E. Gottemoeller, Assistant Secretary, Department 
of State, VCI; REASON: 1.4(B), (D) 
 
¶1.  (U) This is SFO-GVA-VIII-077. 
 
 
 
¶2.  (U) Meeting Date:  February 23, 2010 
 
                Time:  3:30 P.M. - 6:00 P.M. 
 
               Place:  Russian Mission, Geneva 
 
 
 
------- 
 
SUMMARY 
 
------- 
 
 
 
¶3.  (S) During a meeting of the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) 
Working Group (WG), the U.S. and Russian chairs began working 
through a joint draft text (JDT) of Part Four of the Annex on 
Inspection Activities (Site Diagrams).  A lengthy discussion ensued 
over the difference between the title of Part Two of the Protocol, 
Database for Strategic Offensive Arms, and the actual "database" 
that will be created 45 days after signature.  Additionally, some 
changes were made to Part Two of the Protocol based on the recent 
agreement on the terms for non-deployed launcher of ICBMs and SLBMs 
and non-deployed heavy bombers.  End summary. 
 
 
 
¶4.  (S) SUBJECT SUMMARY:  Discussion of Part Two; Article VI; and 
Page One of Site Diagrams. 
 
 
 
---------------------- 
 
DISCUSSION OF PART TWO 
 
---------------------- 
 
 
 
¶5.  (S) Mr. Trout said he had a few quick items in Part Two that he 
wished to discuss prior to focusing on site diagrams.  First, he 
presented Gen Orlov with some START photographs which showed the 
difference between various versions of mobile launchers of ICBMs. 
This spurred a conversation about "version" versus "variant." 
Orlov asked what was more important, the words or the actual data 
(measurements).  Trout answered that naturally the data was more 
important, but it was also important to write the text correctly. 
No changes were made. 
 
 
 
¶6.  (S) Referring to Section V on heavy bombers, Trout said the 
United States would drop the brackets around "equipped for nuclear 
armaments" after the category non-deployed heavy bombers.  This 
change was based on recent agreement on the definition of 
"non-deployed heavy bomber." 
 
 
¶7.  (S) In Section VI on space launch facilities, Trout announced 
that the United States would delete all U.S.-bracketed text and 
accept the Russian text to describe both ICBMs and SLBMs and ICBM 
and SLBM launchers at space launch facilities as "non-deployed." 
 
 
 
---------- 
 
ARTICLE VI 
 
---------- 
 
 
 
¶8.  (S) Orlov asked to clarify a point which came up during a 
recent Heads of Delegation meeting in which Assistant Secretary 
Gottemoeller announced the United States was deleting Article VI 
which dealt specifically with mobile missiles.  Orlov stated that 
if the United States was dropping Article VI, then the United 
States should drop all text that related to this Article from all 
places in the Protocol and Annex to include Part Two of the 
Protocol. 
 
 
 
¶9.  (S) Trout clarified that the U.S. decision to drop Article VI 
did not mean U.S. insistence on a boundary on road-mobile ICBM 
bases had been dropped.  Trout continued that the boundary issue 
required more discussion.  Additionally, the sides needed to agree 
where non-deployed ICBM launchers could be located on an ICBM base. 
 
 
 
¶10.  (S) Orlov pointed out that these issues would not be solved at 
the working group level, to which Trout agreed.  Trout stated a 
personal idea that perhaps each Party should have boundaries for 
both silo and mobile ICBM bases.  In that manner, the requirement 
would not apply uniquely to mobile forces.  Orlov said he would 
think about that approach. 
 
 
 
------------------------- 
 
PAGE ONE OF SITE DIAGRAMS 
 
------------------------- 
 
 
 
¶11.  (S) Trout delivered the U.S.-proposed Joint Draft Text (JDT), 
Annex on Inspection Activities, Part Four - Site Diagrams, that 
reflected the Russian proposals of the prior week.  He suggested 
that the working group work from this revision, to which Orlov 
agreed. 
 
 
 
¶12.  (S) LT Lobner delivered a few opening remarks, stating that 
the United States had generally accepted the Russian structure of 
the Annex and that this structure was reflected in the new JDT. 
Lobner called attention to a new U.S. proposal for a simplified 
site diagram for a submarine base, which was developed based on 
 
 
discussion in the previous meeting and the Russian-bracketed text 
in the paragraph specifying the requirements for coastlines and 
waters diagrams.  Finally, Lobner pointed out that this JDT 
incorporated some Russian-proposed text where it was easy to 
reconcile the text; however, other text required some clarification 
in order for the United States to understand the meaning behind the 
Russian proposal of last week. 
 
 
 
¶13.  (S) After some discussion, the title of Part Four was agreed 
as "Requirements for Site Diagrams of Facilities Subject to 
Inspection Activities." 
 
 
 
¶14.  (S) This was followed by a lengthy discussion over the phrase 
"facility listed in Part Two of the Protocol" in the opening 
paragraph.  Trout pointed out that the phrase should be replaced 
with "Database for Strategic Offensive Arms" as there would never 
be any facilities listed in Part Two of the Protocol.  Orlov, 
seemingly puzzled, responded that the title of Part Two of the 
Protocol is "the Database." 
 
 
 
¶15.  (S) Trout stated that although the title of Part Two of the 
Protocol was indeed "Database for Strategic Offensive Arms," in 
reality, Part Two was not a database.  The database would not be 
created until 45 days after signature when it was populated with 
real numbers organized in the database by the categories of data 
listed in Part Two of the Protocol.  After many exchanges between 
Orlov and Trout to explain this situation, Orlov stated the Russian 
side would have to think about an appropriate title for Part Two 
again, as the idea of having the same word "database" referring to 
two totally different concepts was very confusing. 
 
 
 
¶16.  (S) Returning to the text, Petrov asked the U.S. side to 
clarify the meaning of the phrase "depicting all facilities located 
within" in the context of the requirements for drawing simplified 
site diagrams.  Lobner explained that the United States had taken 
the agreed definition of "facilities," which now had been expanded 
to include such things as the maintenance facility, basing areas, 
and silo launcher groups, to clarify what should be in a simplified 
site diagram.  Petrov asked why the United States could not simply 
accept "a simplified site diagram of the entire ICBM base" with no 
further qualifications, as "ICBM base" was an agreed term and 
included such facilities as silo launcher groups and the 
maintenance facility.  Lobner replied that the Russian-proposed 
language did not necessarily mean that a Party would be required to 
show all such facilities and could leave a loophole that a Party 
could simply show some facilities that were on the ICBM base. 
Lobner added, however, that perhaps "facilities" was indeed a broad 
term, and perhaps the text could be more specific about what should 
be included in the simplified site diagrams. 
 
 
 
¶17.  (S) After further discussion, Trout deleted the word 
"facilities" and replaced it with a list of the specific facilities 
that would be included in the simplified site diagram. 
 
 
¶18.  (S) Petrov pointed out that the U.S.-proposed JDT did not 
incorporate the Russian position in subparagraph 1(a)(iii) in that 
the word "inspection site" was not inserted as the Russian proposal 
instead of "maintenance facility" near the end of the sentence. 
 
 
 
¶19.  (S) Noting the change, Trout agreed to consider it, and on 
that last comment, concluded the meeting, agreeing to meet the next 
day to continue progress on the JDT. 
 
 
 
¶20.  (S) Documents provided: 
 
 
 
- United States: 
 
 
 
-- U.S.-proposed Joint Draft Text of Part Four of the Annex on 
Inspection Activities (Site Diagrams) 
 
 
 
¶21.  (U) Participants: 
 
 
 
UNITED STATES 
 
 
 
Mr. Trout 
 
LTC Littorini 
 
LT  Lobner (RO) 
 
Mr. French (Int) 
 
 
 
RUSSIA 
 
 
 
Gen. Orlov 
 
COL Petrov 
 
Mr. Pischulov 
 
Ms. Evarovskaya (Int) 
 
 
 
¶22.  (U) Gottemoeller sends. 
KING