Russia: No CFE treaty for you!

Lonestar · February 9, 2004, 19:50

Quote:

London Financial Times
February 9, 2004

Moscow's Threat To Leave Treaty Shocks West

By Judy Dempsey

Russia was considering pulling out of asecurity treaty that limits troop movements and conventional weapons throughout Europe and Russia, Sergei Ivanov, Russian defence minister, told an international security conference in Munich.

The threat stunned US and European defence officials, since a decision by Russia to withdraw from the Conventional Forces in Europe (CFE) treaty would destroy one of the main cornerstones of European security.

John McCain, Republican senator, was one of the few top US officials at the conference to accuse Moscow of reneging on its treaty commitments and its policies in Chechnya.

The CFE treaty, negotiated during the 1980s by the then Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe, represented one of the most significant breakthroughs on reducing conventional forces between Nato and the Soviet-led Warsaw Pact.

But since 1999, when the treaty was updated to take into account the break-up of the Soviet Union, Russia has consistently refused to ratify the treaty and withdraw its forces from several parts of the Caucasus.

Russia has two military bases in republic of Georgia, now led by a new and democratic government that wants to join Nato.

Russian officials said Moscow had no money to pay for the redeployment of the troops but the US recently offered to help with the costs. Colin Powell, US secretary of state, raised the issue with President Vladimir Putin last month, signalling a tougher approach from Washington.

Russia also has troops and armaments in Trans Dniestr, whose pro-Russian communist-led leadership wants to break away from Moldova.

Mr Ivanov said the amended treaty "in its actual form cannot continue to uphold stability and the balance of interests" largely because of the way Nato has expanded. The treaty, he added, could end up a relic of the cold war, like the ABM (Anti-Ballistic Missile) Treaty the US and Russia scrapped two years ago.

Nato will admit seven new countries in April, three of which are the Baltic states. This, said Mr Ivanov, would undermine the treaty, as several of the new members would remain outside it, "making the treaty system of limitations imperfect".

Diplomats said Russia believed it might have some leverage ahead of the Nato expansion because Moscow might link ratification and implementation of the CFE treaty to any move by Nato to establish new bases in Poland and the Baltic countries.

Mr Ivanov, however, made clear Russia would not stop Nato enlargement, but equally made it clear the future of the CFE treaty was not guaranteed.

Oh Lord....

Lonestar · February 9, 2004, 19:52

And from the NY Times....

Quote:

New York Times
February 9, 2004

Putin's 'Creeping Coup

By William Safire

MUNICH — This city is no longer the venue of appeasement.

At an annual security conference here on the eve of NATO's seven-state expansion, Moscow's neo-imperialist defense minister threatened to back out of an agreement limiting the size of his armed forces on Russia's European front.

Sergei Ivanov's bluff was immediately called by U.S. Senator John McCain. The Arizonan had accused Putin's regime of a "creeping coup" against democracy within Russia, as well as a campaign to intimidate and reassert control over states — from the Baltics to Belarus, Georgia and Ukraine — that our victory in the cold war had liberated from Soviet rule.

This Russia-NATO confrontation has been brewing for a year. While France and Germany split with the rest of Europe and the U.S. over the war in Iraq, Putin took advantage of the world's distraction to crack down on internal dissent and to undermine the independence of his neighbors.

The first public inkling of U.S. concern with Putin's irredentism came in Secretary Colin Powell's trip last month to attend the inauguration of Georgia's new elected leader, signaling strong support for that nation's independence. This was accompanied by a Powell article in Izvestia uncommonly critical of Moscow's repression of the media.

Western reaction to Russia's new aggressiveness was further expressed last week in Riga, Latvia. The Baltics' surge toward independence in 1989 was the first sign of the impending crack-up of the Soviet Union. The West's coming inclusion of those three states in NATO redresses a horrific Hitler-Stalin wrong, but is galling to Moscow, which has been fostering resentment among Russian ethnics implanted there since Stalin's time.

In Latvia's capital, the Baltic states gathered with Scandinavian nations to focus European human-rights attention on internal democratic opposition to outright tyrants like Aleksandr Lukashenko of Belarus and the former K.G.B. crowd that runs Moldova. Though Ukraine gave up its nukes and has 1,700 troops in Iraq, it has an autocratic ruler in Leonid Kuchma, reportedly rigging its fall elections. McCain led a Congressional delegation to this Riga meeting on his way to Munich and heard the anguished story of a dissident Belarus leader whose husband is one of the "disappeared."

At the 40th Wehrkunde Conference in Munich, Ivanov unloaded on the West. The pressure point he chose was the Conventional Forces in Europe (C.F.E.) treaty, negotiated a decade ago, initialed but never signed. In 1996, as NATO prepared to admit Eastern Europe, it set up a formal relationship with Russia, assuring it that no nukes and no "substantial combat forces" would be placed close to its border. Three years later, Russia made the "Istanbul commitments" to pull its troops out of Georgia and Moldova, which it still has not done.

"We assumed those commitments in a definite military and political environment," Ivanov warned, "with the admission of the invitees to NATO, this environment will drastically change." Of the C.F.E. treaty, he asked: "Might it be another `relic of the cold war,' as the ABM treaty has been labeled some time ago" before it was "shelved to the dustbin"? He made Putin's threat plainer: "The adapted C.F.E. treaty may well end up as the ABM treaty was fated to."

Looking hard at McCain, Ivanov said, "One of the major priorities of the Russian foreign policy is our relationship with our closest neighbors . . . relations with the Commonwealth of Independent States are in no way a hallmark of Russian-brand `neo-imperialism,' as some try to depict it, but an imperative for security. . . ."

McCain is no Neville Chamberlain. "Under President Putin," he responded, "Russia has refused to comply with the terms of the Treaty on Conventional Forces in Europe. Russian troops occupy parts of Georgia and Moldova . . . Russian agents are working to bring Ukraine further into Moscow's orbit. Russian support sustains Europe's last dictatorship in Belarus. And Moscow has . . . enforced its stranglehold on energy supplies into Latvia in order to squeeze the democratic government in Riga."

Speaking with the freedom of a senator, McCain said "undemocratic behavior and threats to the sovereignty and liberty of her neighbors will not profit Russia . . . but will exclude her from the company of Western democracies."

As its role becomes global, NATO must not lose its original purpose: to contain the Russian bear.

I beat Serb is creaming his pants.

Bereta_Eder · February 9, 2004, 19:54

Spiffor · February 9, 2004, 20:17

I can't understand why these kind of peace traties get attacked from all parts. What exactly is Putin looking for? Does he want to destroy the common security we achieved?

BeBro · February 9, 2004, 20:45

I think Putin read Lancer's thread about the good old times when the Soviet Union posed a real threat.....

Barinthus · February 9, 2004, 20:50

Russians don't like what has happened to their country and they miss the old glorious days of USSR. If you ask Russians, many will tell you they'd like to go back to the days where the Communists ruled Kremlin.

Also, many Russians feel that Putin's too submissive toward the West and wants him to toughen up.

In the other words, the Bear is flailing out, trying to retain what's left of his dignity.

Odin · February 9, 2004, 22:15

Putin gives bears a bad name.

notyoueither · February 9, 2004, 22:31

Security from invasion is a fixation for Russians, and I can't blame them one jot for it.

Do they have any kind of point that their agreement to limit troop strength West of the Urals was made when NATO was far away and they still had a comfortable buffer? Now NATO is cropping up on their immediate border maybe it is time to negotiate a new instrument for security that Russians are comfortable with.

Lonestar · February 9, 2004, 22:47

It's silly and stupid. There is no real reason why Russia should be afraid....The relative quality of the Western European militaries (especially the ones with conscript armies) continues to decline compare to the Anglos and the French (yes, Damnit, I said it). Those powers are the ones that, incidently, have troops all over the damn place, and most not near European Russia.

Nubclear · February 9, 2004, 22:55

Um, what the hell do you expect?

-Russia becomes your ally, and then you begin to betray it.
-You begin stationing your troops near Russian territory.
-You've already threatened your allies before that if they don't do what you want them to do, you'll take action.
-Your begin to enroach on Russian influence, the last vestige of power Russia has left.

Combine this with Putin being a dictator, everyone wanting a rebuilding of the military, a terrorist attack that happend just days ago......And then when Russia begins to react to this you begin to jump all over it.
American foreign policy is aggressive now, and it's military threatens Russia.
Therefore Russia will probably see very little need for this treaty.

Bah.

Lonestar · February 9, 2004, 23:20

Quote:

Originally posted by Comrade Tassadar
Um, what the hell do you expect?

-Russia becomes your ally, and then you begin to betray it.

How? By giving it oodles of money to dismantle dangerous equipment it can't afford to safely upkeep anymore? By giving economic aid, and then seeing the Government drag its ass in liberalizing their economy?

Quote:

-You begin stationing your troops near Russian territory.

Where? The most substantial is in central Asia, and that barely reaches 10,000. Any other troops "stationed" near Russia...anywhere? Anyone? Bueller?

Quote:

-You've already threatened your allies before that if they don't do what you want them to do, you'll take action.

Yeah! And we proved it with Operation French Fried and Operation Germanic Liberation.

Please.

Quote:

-Your begin to enroach on Russian influence, the last vestige of power Russia has left.

"Enroach"? By training Georgian troops to fight terrorists? (never you mind Russia has two bases there anyway) This isn't the cold war where we're going out of our way to reduce Russian influence...we're simply trying to expand our own, there's a difference.

Quote:

Combine this with Putin being a dictator, everyone wanting a rebuilding of the military,

Sidenote: This year the Russian Air Force is recieving it's first Substantial batch of Warplanes (Su-27SMs, Tu-160s "Blackjacks", world's largest bomber) since the end of the USSR.

Quote:

a terrorist attack that happend just days ago......And then when Russia begins to react to this you begin to jump all over it.

What the Hell does the CFE have to do with someone setting off a bomb in the Subway?

Quote:

American foreign policy is aggressive now, and it's military threatens Russia.

Yeah, with our Massive army at Russia's doorstep...oh wait, half of our Regular army is tied down in Iraq...The rest is split between Germany, S.Korea, and various Continental bases. Yes sir, invasion is immient!

Quote:

Therefore Russia will probably see very little need for this treaty.

Bah.

I think Russia is taking an irrational view on NATO's and America's actions, but, as the man said, a lot of bad things have come out of the west.

FrustratedPoet · February 9, 2004, 23:50

Quote:

Originally posted by Lonestar
I beat Serb is creaming his pants.

You beat Serb and he's creaming his pants?

Kuciwalker · February 10, 2004, 00:03

Quote:

Originally posted by Lonestar
It's silly and stupid. There is no real reason why Russia should be afraid....

Stop right there. Russia has PLENTY of VERY GOOD reasons to be afraid...

Patroklos · February 10, 2004, 00:25

yeah a bad man 65 years ago invaded. Oh wait, no one alive there remebers it and the people incharge of his territory were actually their allies in defeating him.

Russia has to realize they won. God knows they paid for the victory. Do we worry about a Japanese invasion? And before anyone mentions the bases there rest assured they have nothing to do with defending against Japan.

Kuciwalker · February 10, 2004, 00:26

Patroklos - you obviously don't know enough history. Russia has been invaded by more than just Hitler, quite often.

Lonestar · February 10, 2004, 00:34

Yes. We mustn't forget The French (1813) and the Mongols!

The MONGOLS for God's sake!

Kuciwalker · February 10, 2004, 00:35

dammit, CT, serb, back me up here!

Patroklos · February 10, 2004, 00:42

So we are rembering things past 200 years ago when we shoud be getting over things 65 years ago?

I know history just fine, but there is a point in modern politics where historical precident becomes obsolete. That threshold is at least more recent than 65 years.

Good thing Italy, Germany, France and Spain are not holding the past 1000 years of invasion against their neighboors

Oerdin · February 10, 2004, 00:47

One base in Uzbekistan and a handful of training personal in Georgia equals enchroachment? Hell, the US has only about 10k troops in central Asia (mostly to support opporations in Afghanistan) and the trainers in Georgia were agreed to by Russia after the Russians threatened to invade Georgia. The Americans are trying to train the Georgians so they can control their border with Chechney like Putin demanded they do.

chequita guevara · February 10, 2004, 00:51

And 1914 and 1919 and 1920 and lets not forget all the terrorism the US engaged in during the Cold War. Russia has plenty of reason to be afraid of NATO.

Patroklos · February 10, 2004, 01:01

No, the SOVIETS had a good reason.

notyoueither · February 10, 2004, 01:12

Quote:

Originally posted by Lonestar
It's silly and stupid. There is no real reason why Russia should be afraid...

They might ask why NATO is expanding to their door step, while at the same time wanting to restrict the deployment of the Russian Army within 500 miles of their Western border.

How reasonable is it to expect a sovereign nation to tolerate non-allied nations on its border and restrictions on it's own deployments at the same time?

The CFE made sense when the Warsaw Pact was there, Russia wanted to reduce its expenditures, and the West wanted more security. Why do you think the Soviets agreed to it in the first place? But now the Warsaw Pact is gone, they joined NATO. The republics are gone, they are joining NATO. However the Riussians are supposed to restrict themselves where none of the previous restrictions hold on others. That sounds really reasonable to me.

chequita guevara · February 10, 2004, 01:21

Quote:

Originally posted by Patroklos
No, the SOVIETS had a good reason.

They are the successors to the USSR and have all the same paranoias.

Not that I care. Russia is a corrupt, burtal, kleptocracy teetering into dicatorship. To the devil with the Russian state. Still, it might be smart to consider the emotions of a nuclear power with modern conventional weapons.

chequita guevara · February 10, 2004, 01:23

Frankly, Russia probably would have been in its rights to demand that none of the former Warsaw Pact powers join NATO.

DinoDoc · February 10, 2004, 01:34

Quote:

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Frankly, Russia probably would have been in its rights to demand that none of the former Warsaw Pact powers join NATO.

They probably could have threatened them but they really had no power to bar thier entry into NATO once they gave up sovereignty over the territories.

Nubclear · February 10, 2004, 01:38

Quote:

How? By giving it oodles of money to dismantle dangerous equipment it can't afford to safely upkeep anymore? By giving economic aid, and then seeing the Government drag its ass in liberalizing their economy?

Yawn. You really had no choice when it comes to giving money to protect the nukes, because I highly doubt the US wants a Russian made nuke to be exploding in one of its cities anytime soon.
When I say betray, I mean politically. The US is putting pressure on Russia for every small little thing, and Russia almost began to support the war!

Quote:

Where? The most substantial is in central Asia, and that barely reaches 10,000. Any other troops "stationed" near Russia...anywhere? Anyone? Bueller?

10,000 is quite a significant number, especially when it's so close to Russia.
But let us not forget your also admitting former Soviet republics into "NATO".

Quote:

Yeah! And we proved it with Operation French Fried and Operation Germanic Liberation.

Actually, you proved it with your economic pressure on anti-war nations including a south American nation which lost a trade treaty with the US because of its anti-war stance.

Quote:

This isn't the cold war where we're going out of our way to reduce Russian influence...we're simply trying to expand our own, there's a difference.

Yawn. So your new NATO members just happen to be rabid anti-Russian former soviet republics? It's all just a coincidence?
Please. Don't tell me your this naive.

Quote:

What the Hell does the CFE have to do with someone setting off a bomb in the Subway?

The Russian people do not feel secure, and the latest attack simply underscored that.
It's quite easy to see that the US isn't helping things.

Quote:

Yes sir, invasion is immient!

Could you perchance remind me how far a nation like Germany would be from (and this is just an example) say, Russia?
Could you remind me who are the newest NATO members?

Quote:

I think Russia is taking an irrational view on NATO's and America's actions,

Well, the US *does* have a history and considering you just conquered another nation.....

Let me ask you this: Let us pretend that Canada joined the CIS. Russia just got done invading...Mongolia, and now Russia begins stationing some troops in Canada.
Can you honestly say the US wouldn't feel threatened?

Quote:

Oh wait, no one alive there remebers it

Quote:

Do we worry about a Japanese invasion?

If Japan began putting bases near your border, in an area where you once had significant influence (ie military occupation)....Probably.

Quote:

No, the SOVIETS had a good reason.

You know what I find ironic? During the cold war, most Americans referred to the Soviet Union as "Russia"

Quote:

Not that I care. Russia is a corrupt, burtal, kleptocracy teetering into dicatorship.

And you don't care? You know, a despotic Russia with a rebuilt military is kind of bad.....

Saras · February 10, 2004, 03:24

Quote:

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Frankly, Russia probably would have been in its rights to demand that none of the former Warsaw Pact powers join NATO.

Explain

Serb · February 10, 2004, 03:31

Quote:

Originally posted by Lonestar

Oh Lord....

Go, Putin!!! GO!!!
F*ck the Yanks! Save the world!

Serb · February 10, 2004, 03:37

Skywalker, yep, Russia was invaded hundreds of times during its history.
Lonestar, Napoleon invaded Russia 22.06.1812. In 1813 Russians were in Paris already.

Now about treaty. With Baltic States in NATO, it's useless anyway. NATO can deplay as much forces as it want on territory of those countries and it will not be a violation of this treaty, because when this treaty was signed such countries didn't exit.
So, NATO can deploy as much trrops as it need and it will not be a violation of the treaty, while Russia you suggest, should maintain the treaty?
Yeah, right. Keep dreaming.

Serb · February 10, 2004, 03:42

Quote:

Originally posted by Lonestar
It's silly and stupid. There is no real reason why Russia should be afraid....The relative quality of the Western European militaries (especially the ones with conscript armies) continues to decline compare to the Anglos and the French (yes, Damnit, I said it). Those powers are the ones that, incidently, have troops all over the damn place, and most not near European Russia.

Oh really?

We should not be afraid.

In NATo's armed forces serve about 4,5 millions of troops. In Russian armed forces- 1,2 million. So sheer numbers is against us. You've surrounded our country with military alliance of 19 countries, it's growing constantly and step to our borders closer and closer. The leader of this alliance had started 3 wars within 4 years.
So yeah, we should not be afraid.

Tell this to your grandma.