S E C R E T SECTION 01 OF 02 GENEVA 002749
DEPT FOR T, VCI, ISN, EUR AND S/NIS
DOE FOR NA-24
JCS FOR J5/DDINMA AND J5/IN
SECDEF FOR OSD/ISP AND OSD/ACP
NAVY FOR CNO-N5GP AND DIRSSP
DTRA FOR OSA AND DIRECTOR
NSC FOR LUTI
DIA FOR RAR-3
E.O. 12958: DECL: 11/10/2015
TAGS: PARM KACT US RS UP BO KZ START JCIC INF
SUBJECT: JCIC-XXVII: (U) UKRAINIAN GRIEVANCES WITH CTR AND
INTEREST IN FOLLOW-ON TO START
REF: A. GENEVA 2712 (JCIC-XXVII-038)
Â¶B. GENEVA 2719 (JCIC-XXVII-039)
Classified By: Jerry A. Taylor, U.S. Representative to
the Joint Compliance and Inspection Commission (JCIC).
Reasons: 1.4 (b) and (d).
Â¶1. (U) This is JCIC-XXVII-046.
Â¶2. (U) Meeting Date: November 8, 2005
Time: 4:00 - 5:00 P.M.
Place: U.S. Mission, Geneva
Â¶3. (S) Ukraine took the opportunity, during a bilateral
meeting at the U.S. Mission on November 8, 2005, to complain
about its perceived lack of support from the United States
Cooperative Threat Reduction (CTR) Program. The U.S.
Delegation pointed out that this subject was not within the
framework of the JCIC, but that it would forward the
Ukrainian concerns to the appropriate authorities in
Â¶4. (S) Ukraine also asked whether or not the U.S. had
considered a follow-on to the START Treaty. The U.S.
Delegation said that the U.S. had begun consideration of such
a process at high levels, but had not yet completed it and,
therefore, had no comment. Shevtsov said that Ukraine would
be a willing participant in a follow-on to the START Treaty
if the U.S. could provide Ukraine monetary incentives to help
it eliminate the remnants of nuclear weapons systems.
Â¶5. (S) At a bilateral working group meeting at the U.S.
Mission on November 8, 2005, the Ukrainian Delegation briefed
the U.S. Delegation regarding the situation "on the ground"
at Pavlograd. They strongly defended the water wash-out
method as the best means of eliminating SS-24 solid rocket
motors (SRMs) while, at the same time, "recycling" the solid
propellant into commercial explosive material for use in
Ukraine's mining industry. They expressed their "discomfort"
with a perceived lack of funding from the U.S. Government.
Specifically, the Ukrainian Delegation claimed that the U.S.
was not fully implementing its obligations under the CTR
Program. They expressed their belief that people at the U.S.
"CTR Organization" were balking at getting funding deemed
necessary for solid propellant elimination. In particular,
they perceived a lack of funding for safe storage of SRMs at
the Pavlograd site. Dotsenko asserted that while he believed
that the U.S. Government had invested over $25 million on the
water wash-out facility, Ukraine believed that the amount
spent was considerably less, at around $2.5 million. As for
Pavlograd, they claimed that U.S. funding had dried up from
$2 million per year to less than $300,000 per year.
Â¶6. (S) Buttrick responded that, while this issue was not
strictly within the framework of the JCIC, he would certainly
forward the Ukrainian concerns to the appropriate people in
Washington. Further, Mullins explained the high level at
which CTR policy was made within the U.S. Government, as well
as the high degree of professionalism that goes along with
executing this policy. Mullins also encouraged the Ukrainian
Delegation to consider eliminating SRMs by explosive
detonation, similar to the C-4 elimination procedure he
witnessed earlier this year in Utah. However, Shevtsov
remained faithful to Ukraine's water wash-out method -- no
matter what the cost -- because it provided "economic return"
in the form of industrial explosives used in mining.
Shevtsov also stated that Ukraine would not be able to finish
its START eliminations in the time frame of the Treaty
without international monetary support. In this regard, he
mentioned possible Japanese financing, but said that Japan
had conditioned its assistance on U.S. sponsorship, even if
it were symbolic. Lastly, Shevtsov linked the CTR funding
issue to Ukraine's Pavlograd issues discussed earlier in
JCIC-XXVII (REFS A and B). The U.S. Delegation repeated that
it would take Ukraine's message back to Washington.
UKRAINE ASKS ABOUT
Â¶7. (S) Shevtsov asked whether the U.S. had plans to extend
the START Treaty. The U.S. Delegation said that the U.S. had
begun to consider the question at high levels, but had not
yet completed its review and, therefore, had no comment.
Buttrick turned the question around to the Ukrainians, and
Shevtsov responded that Ukraine would be a willing
participant in a follow-on to the START Treaty if the United
States would provide Ukraine monetary incentives to help it
eliminate remnants of nuclear weapons systems. According to
Shevtsov, those remnants included large quantities of heptyl
at eight sites, 17,000 tons of cruise missile fuel, and
radiological and nuclear material.
Â¶8. (U) Documents exchanged. None.
Â¶9. (U) Participants:
Mr. Hopkins (Int)
Â¶10. (U) Taylor sends.