Putin suspends Treaty on Conventional Forces in Europe.
In April of this year Russian President Putin declared that Russia declare moratorium on adherence to restrictions set up in the Conventional Armed Forces in Europe (CFE) Treaty. Today he made good on the promise.
There has been quite a bit of point counter point arguments between Russia and NATO over the years regarding the treaty but the basic disagreement goes to the heart of the philosophical differences between the current Russian position and that of the West.
The original CFE Treaty took some 10 years to negotiate and it was signed in November 1990 by 30 countries:
Since the treaty came from and was still a part of the Cold War, initial CFE limitations were set up to achieve a balance between existing military blocks or alliances: NATO and the Warsaw Pact. Each block was limited to 20,000 tanks, 20,000 artillery pieces, 30,000 armored combat vehicles, 6,800 combat aircraft and 2,000 attack helicopters.
Subsequent geopolitical disaster of the fall of the USSR and the Warsaw Pact, as Mr. Putin eloquently called it, completely changed the military, but most importantly political and philosophical landscape of Europe. The idea of pan European unity became possible, old captive Warsaw Pact members abandoned their forced allegiance and decidedly moved towards Europe eventually integrating themselves into the European Union and NATO, completely distorting the original CFE regime.
Naturally, further negotiations were necessary and in November 1999, 9 years later to the day, the Adapted Conventional Armed Forces in Europe Treaty was signed. It is worth to note that Boris Yeltsin was still President of Russian Federation. The main difference between the original and adapted treaties reflected the sea of change in philosophical approach of how Europe looked at itself. Instead of a the Cold War standoff between the two adversary alliances, the troop ceilings were to be replaced with a ceilings based on each of country and /or adjacent territory . The principle of two rival gangs was replaced with the principle of a community. Or so it was envisioned.
Results of the Adapted Treaty were less then spectacular, since it never went into effect. September 11th 2001 not only distracted attention from the treaty but, what was worse, the Adapted Treaty became a negotiating chip between NATO, US, Russia and multiple minor signatories. Instead of pushing forward towards complete ratification of the treaty and bringing legality to the new concept of Europe, unnecessary bickering continued. Still basking in its past glory and happy with enlargement, NATO decided to use Russian military presence in Georgia and Moldova to apply pressure on Russia. This marginally related issue did not yield anything of substance and as a result, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Russia and Ukraine are the only parties that ratified the treaty. It is quite shameful that none of the European countires managed to break ranks and move ahead with what was most definitely a major positive step forward for Europe.
Was excessive Russian military presence in "flank" areas a concern? Yes it was. Was it worth postponing ratification of the Adapted CFE treaty that had so many positive implications? Not at all. This is yet another miscalculation from the Bush Administration that keep piling on and on.
Although Russia is one of the four countries that actually did ratify the Adapted Treaty, it is not without blame. And here comes the fundamental philosophical difference between current Russian policy and the new concept of Europe that went into the foundation of the treaty. The government of Vladimir Putin still thinks in terms of spheres of influence, in terms of territorial control rather than economic and social integration. Putin stubbornly tries grasping at straws of old imperial grandeur, harassing Georgia and other neighbors. This return to the rival gang view that seemed to be on its way out is back.
Russia considers NATO expansion as a threat to itself, which also reflects Russia's idiosyncratic relationship with its past. It is no longer the communist dictatorship out to impose its communist ideology over everyone, but it cherishes what it used to be. After all, Putin did call the fall of the USSR the greatest geopolitical disaster of the XXth century. The 6 "exceptional circumstances" that Russia lists as the rationale to suspend the treaty come exactly from the adversary standoff mentality. The last one about the Baltic states is simply laughable. I must add here that there are some vivid discrepancies between the Russian and English versions of the reference memo to the Presidential decree published at Kremlin.ru.
2. The excessive parties to the CFE Treaty that belong to NATO, and the exclusive group that formed among CFE Treaty members as a result of the widening of the alliance;
3. The negative impact of the planned deployment of America's conventional forces in Bulgaria and Romania because of this exclusive group mentality;
4. The failure of a number of parties of the CFE Treaty to comply with the political obligations contained in the Istanbul Agreements relating to the early ratification of the Adapted Treaty;
5. The failure of Hungary, Poland, Slovakia and the Czech Republic to comply with commitments accepted in Istanbul to adjust their territorial ceilings;
6. Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania’s failure to participate in the CFE Treaty has adverse effects on Russia’s ability to implement its political commitments to military containment in the northwestern part of the Russian Federation. Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania’s actions result in a territory in which there are no restrictions on the deployment of conventional forces, including other countries’ forces.
Russia is afraid of the ever growing Estonian army?
Russian military analyst Aleksandr Golts, speaking to RFE/RL's Russian Service, called Putin's decision "a deeply unfriendly act," adding: "The irony is that even though NATO countries haven't ratified the adapted agreement, they all observe its terms. No one is going over the prescribed limit."
A deeply unfriendly act indeed. With a stroke of a pen Putin annuls almost 3 decades of negotiations and significant progress.
It fits quite well with the tension building course Putin has embarked on since his Munich speech, including recent threats to target more missiles at Europe for wanting to build a missile defense shield.
Sean from Sean's Russia Blog suggests nothing more than symbolism
There is also no doubt that talk about a "New Cold War" will get another gasp of life even though there seems to be an early consensus that Russia's move is mostly symbolic. "Stability" between European countries is hardly at risk. The bigger risks to stability are increasing tensions over immigration, Islam, and European integration show within European countries, not between them. Plus Russia's influence over Europe does not reside in its hard power, but in its economic soft power. The real area of global insecurity stretches across the Central Asia and the Middle East.
All quite true, but it still begets the question "why?" If this is nothing more then a symbol or an attempt to further solidify his base at home before elections, than the trade off of further aggravating already tense relations with the West is hardly adequate.I frankly have very little doubt this is not a cosmetic or symbolic move. It fits all too well with the recent pattern of Russian foreign policy. It longs for the lost former glory and power while aware it can't sustain a new Cold War. I also have very little doubt there will be quite a lot of expressed support for Putin's move from Russian Internet users. One of them had recently affectionately mentioned an old Russian saying to me: "God rid us of our friends and we will fight off our enemies ourselves." It is a chilling sentiment if it can take over a society.
Just consider what would our reaction to the recent pattern of Putin's hostility be if we thought Russia could sustain and win a new Cold War. This will most certainly be a subject tomorrow on my Embassy of the New World Order radio show on KSCO. 11 AM PST
Digg This!
http://cyrillvatomsky.com/trackback.cfm?C69AB125-3048-77F0-114360E137671189
Bookmarks:
Blogs
- Robert Amsterdam
- Publius Pundit
- Russian Blog
- La Russophobe
- Sean Guillory
- Vilhelm Konnander
- Accidental Russophile
- Russia from the Inside
- David McDuff
- Edward Lucas
- Siberian Light
- Scraps of Moscow
- Russian Standard
- ZheZhe [dot] us
- Ruminations on Russia
- Nosemonkey / Europhobia
- Marginalia
- The Oil Drum
- Hello Estonia
- The Observer Blog
- WaPo World Opinion
>
> a deeply unfriendly act indeed.
>
Then how would you describe USA's identically uniulateral withdrawal from the fully ratified and implemented Anti-Ballistic Missile Defence Treaty a couple of years ago? ""A more than deeply unfriendly act indeed"? Do I detect the double standard here? "What's permitted to Jupiter, is not permitted to a cow"?
Also as a student of Russian sayings, I would like to find out the Russian-language version of the old saying:
>
>"God rid us of our friends and we will fight off our enemies ourselves."
>
How does it realte to the more common Russian sayings like:
"It's better to have 100 friends than 100 roubles"
"You cannot buy a firend"
"Nothing is impossible for a true friend"
"My friend is my third shoulder"
And could you please explain, whom do you mean when you talk about Russia getting rid of its true friends? By these "true frinds",
do you mean politicians and politologists whose views on Russia are similar to yours and those of your best allies like La Russophobe,
whom you describe as "the only person that understands how miserable Russia is, how dangerous it is"? Would you personally like to have
"freinds" who "understand how dangerous you are"? Hoe do you call such friends? I call them my enemies.
Regards,
Willie
> the dead-born impending Treaty, which hasn't beem ratified by a single
> NATO country, as
Some would tell you that even the move is unlawful, since there appears to be no provision for "suspension" of treaty obligations, the treaty can only be abandoned. Just like it was done with ABM.
If you look at the text of the Presidential decree, you will see that Russia is suspending its participation in the 1990 CFE Treaty- the one that has been ratified by United States, for example. The 1999 is the Adapted Treaty and has not come into effect, so there is no need to "suspend" its limitations. It has only been three years since Russia itself ratified the 1999 treaty. Abandoning almost three decades of incredibly hard and at times stalled negotiations over this amounts to a temper tantrum. And an unfriendly act indeed.
> Then how would you describe USA's identically uniulateral withdrawal from
> the fully ratified and implemented Anti-Ballistic Missile Defence Treaty a
> couple of years ago? ""A more than deeply unfriendly act indeed"? Do I
> detect the double standard here? "What's permitted to Jupiter, is not
> permitted to a cow"?
From a Cold War standoff mentality, abandoning AMB treaty was also unfriendly. From a contemporary viewpoint of 2001 it was not. When ABM was signed, the only threat was between the US and the USSR. Since then other threats have emerged but the MAD doctrine was hampering both countries since inability to build a missile defense against the USSR also meant inability to defend from a rogue launch.
US exit from the ABM treaty was not directed against Russia and Putin did not complain much at the time except moving Russia from the 1993 START-II treaty. Russia's exit from CFE is directed at European signatories of the treaty.
It's not apples and oranges, but it is certainly no closer then apples and pears comparison.
>
> Also as a student of Russian sayings, I would like to find out the
> Russian-language version of the old saying:
Here is the Russian language of the saying in question: Господи, избавь нас от друзей, а от врагов мы и сами отобъемся.
> How does it realte to the more common Russian sayings like:
> "It's better to have 100 friends than 100 roubles"
> "You cannot buy a firend"
> "Nothing is impossible for a true friend"
> "My friend is my third shoulder"
It most certainly contradicts all other friend friendly sayings and as I said I cringe thinking that this particular mentality could overcome mentality of friendship on a societal level.
>
> And could you please explain, whom do you mean when you talk about Russia
> getting rid of its true friends? By these "true frinds",
I have not mention "true friends", so when you supposedly quote me and then put the phrase in quotes - it is a classic straw man. Sorry, try again.
>Would you personally like to have "freinds" who "understand how dangerous >you are"? Hoe do you call such friends? I call them my enemies.
A friend can understand how dangerous someone is. There is no contradiction. I am Russian and I have friends there. I wish Russia what I think is the best for her and her people, not for Putin and his coterie. And that is the main distinction. I was not an enemy of Russia thirty years ago when I wished for the USSR to change into a capitalist democracy, nor am I one now when I wish Russia would change its dangerous course of confrontation with its neighbors.
When Putin spends the good will towards Russia, accumulated over the post USSR decade, on petty blackmail of superpowers like Estonia and Georgia, threatening Europe with more missiles in passing - that tells me Putin does not care that Russia have friends. His personal agenda is built on whipping up nationalistic hysteria and populist pandering. Too bad.