Skip to content

09KYIV316, SITE SURVEY PURSUANT TO ELIMINATION OF UKRAINE’S

February 13, 2009

WikiLeaks Link

To understand the justification used for the classification of each cable, please use this WikiSource article as reference.
Discussing cables
If you find meaningful or important information in a cable, please link directly to its unique reference number. Linking to a specific paragraph in the body of a cable is also possible by copying the appropriate link (to be found at theparagraph symbol).Please mark messages for social networking services like Twitter with the hash tags #cablegate and a hash containing the reference ID e.g. #09KYIV316.
Reference ID Created Released Classification Origin
09KYIV316 2009-02-13 15:53 2011-08-30 01:44 CONFIDENTIAL Embassy Kyiv

VZCZCXYZ0001
PP RUEHWEB

DE RUEHKV #0316 0441553
ZNY CCCCC ZZH
P 131553Z FEB 09
FM AMEMBASSY KYIV
TO SECSTATE WASHDC PRIORITY 7299

C O N F I D E N T I A L KYIV 000316 
 
SIPDIS 
 
EUR/PRA, ISN/MTR, ISN/NDF 
 
E.O. 12958: DECL: 02/13/2019 
TAGS: MTCRE PARM PREL UP
SUBJECT: SITE SURVEY PURSUANT TO ELIMINATION OF UKRAINE'S 
SCUDS (C) 
 
REF: A. 2008 KYIV 2339 
     B. 2008 STATE 132581 
     C. CATIPON/PALMIERO EMAIL 2/12/09 
 
Classified By: Political Counselor Colin Cleary. Reasons 1.4 (b,d). 
 
Summary 
-------- 
 
1. (C)  Following up on the November 17 meeting in Kyiv (ref 
a) and subsequent demarche (ref b), Embassy met with Acting 
Head of the Economic Department of Ukraine's Ministry of 
Defense Novosiolev to discuss progress on possible 
cooperation to eliminate Ukraine's SCUD missiles.  Emboff 
briefed Novosiolov on the addition of the State Department as 
an executive agent to the CTR Umbrella Agreement, and noted 
that we would like to bring a site survey team to Ukraine in 
late April-early May, but must begin serious planning if we 
are to keep to this time frame.  Novosiolev agreed that 
detailed planning is needed and found our proposed time frame 
for the site survey acceptable.  He requested an expert-level 
visit to plan in earnest.  He noted that the draft MoU for 
the project is nearly ready for interagency review.  End 
Summary. 
 
MOD a Committed Partner 
----------------------- 
 
2.  (C) Novosiolev reiterated the MoD's serious interest in 
pursuing this project with the U.S., and noted that the MoD 
has nearly completed its internal review of the draft MoU 
passed in the November meeting.  The next step will be to 
seek interagency approval of the MoU and its annexes, which 
detail the types of equipment and their disposition. From 
MoD's perspective, there is no problem with the time frame we 
have proposed for the site survey. 
 
3.  (C) To that end, MoD is interested in further 
expert-level discussions as soon as possible to flesh out the 
details of the site survey and to map out the project itself 
(to the greatest extent possible in advance of the site 
survey), including enough detail to develop reliable cost 
estimates for the MoD.  Novosiolev asked if we could share as 
an example the details of our experience with any previous 
SCUD elimination projects in the region to gain a better 
understanding of what would be expected of Ukraine.  As in 
the November meeting, he referred to the concerns of the 
Ministries of Economy and Finance that considerable effort be 
made to employ Ukrainian subcontractors or laborers, and that 
Ukraine avoid the destruction of any salable equipment. 
 
Site Survey Logistics 
--------------------- 
 
4.  (C) Specific to the site survey itself, Novosiolev 
advised that there are as many as 20 sites around Ukraine. 
He asked whether the U.S. would prefer to review the general 
inventory of these sites in order to indicate what really 
needs to be inventoried, and then MoD could consolidate these 
items in as few sites as possible.  He observed that 20 sites 
would take some time to catalogue one by one, and suggested 
we might also want to consider whether to split the survey 
team into two groups if we need to visit all twenty. 
Novosiolev laid down a marker that Ukraine would prefer that 
destruction actually take place at one or two consolidated 
locations, but did not focus discussion on this issue. 
 
Comment 
------- 
 
5.  (C) The interagency review of the MoU may raise 
opposition from the Ministries of Economy and Finance, which 
do not have a particular interest in arms control per se.  In 
part to avoid problems similar to those suffered by the 
ill-fated NATO PfP Small Arms and Light Weapons (SALW) 
project, MoD would like to have a detailed proposal to 
present at the outset of the interagency review in order to 
forestall later objections by the Ministry of Economy and/or 
Finance. 
TAYLOR

Wikileaks

Advertisements

From → CONFIDENTIAL

Leave a Comment

Post tour comment here

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: