So Much for Russia's Word: Arms Control Treaty Unilaterally Repudiated by Duma
The Financial Times reports that every single one of the 400+ members of Russia's Duma -- every single one -- has voted to unilaterally repudiate a major arms control treaty that the Russophile wackos said Russia was only bluffing about. What are these Russians, lemmings? Not even ONE Duma deputy had any compunctions about withdrawing unilaterally from a major international treaty of long standing? It's a nation of robots! How can they possibly expect respect from the civilized world if they act in this manner?
Russia’s parliament voted on Wednesday to suspend Moscow’s participation in a key arms control treaty, deepening its confrontation with the west over a range of crucial security issues. The Duma, or lower house, unanimously approved a law allowing Russia to stop complying with the Conventional Forces in Europe Treaty, which has capped non-nuclear arms such as helicopters and tanks in Europe since its adoption in 1990. The law, if approved by Russia’s upper house and Vladimir Putin, the president, will take effect on December 12.
Moscow is demanding changes to the treaty after Nato states failed to ratify a revised 1999 text, saying the original version is outdated. Nato states say Russia has not fulfilled commitments to withdraw troops from several disputed territories in the former Soviet Union. However, the Russian move reflects broader frustration at what Moscow sees as the west’s failure to take account of its discontent over a series of issues. These include US plans for a missile shield in eastern Europe, the siting of Nato bases in former Soviet bloc countries and moves to recognise the independence of Kosovo, Serbia’s breakaway province.
It was also confirmed on Wednesday that Russia is backing Dmitry Rogozin, a nationalist party leader, as its next ambassador to Nato. The Duma’s international affairs committee will on Thursday discuss the candidacy of Mr Rogozin, who led the far-right Motherland party set up with Kremlin backing in 2003, before being deposed last year. Mr Rogozin was denied permission to register another nationalist party, Great Russia, for Russia’s coming parliamentary elections in December. “In foreign policy, I will try to do the same as I tried to do in domestic policy, to be useful to the Motherland,” Mr Rogozin told Kommersant newspaper on Wednesday. Addressing the Duma, General Yuri Baluyevsky, chief of staff of the Russian armed forces, said the CFE treaty discriminated against Russia. “[The treaty] allows, practically without restrictions, realisation of the strategy of moving Nato eastwards and reconfiguring the US military presence in Europe,” Gen Baluyevsky said, adding that it allowed “constant monitoring of Russia’s military forces in the European zone.” Gen Baluyevsky said Russia was not planning to move forces westwards after suspending the treaty but General Alexander Kolmakov, first deputy defence minister, said Russia might reinforce troops near its western borders.
Mr Putin first threatened in April to suspend the treaty and, in July, gave formal 150-day notice that Russia intended to do so. Western states have urged Russia not to suspend the treaty, seen as a cornerstone of European security. Sergei Kislyak, Russia’s deputy foreign minister, said Russia was not trying to kill the treaty but to revive the agreement in a more workable form. Mr Kislyak denied Russian media suggestions that Russia was seeking to use suspension of the treaty as a bargaining chip to force concessions from the US on other issues – including recognition of its parliamentary elections on December 2 as democratic.
Labels:
cold war II,
militarism,
russia
4 comments:
What about the USA having unilaterally repudiated the ABM treaty? :)
It is interesting to note the lack of outcry about Russia threatening to move more troops to western borders, as they also decide to ignore this treaty. If you look at the US pulling out of START for the same stated reasons, the difference in public response is night and day.
How about quotes from the past?
Russians have broken arms reduction/control agreements with impunity and continue to do so. After they violated the Conventional Forces in Europe (CFE) treaty, the West agreed to renegotiate that agreement
This in turn led Defense Minister Igor N. Rodionov to warn East Central European countries that their capital cities would be targeted by Russian tactical nuclear missiles if they joined NATO. Since the former army general did not receive any reprimand, it would appear that his sentiments are shared by the small leadership group in the Kremlin.
over the next few years funding will become available only to modernize arms that already have been produced. On the other hand, a number of plants in the military-industrial complex (voenno-promyshlennyi kompleks or VPK) will receive "guaranteed minimal state orders" for new weapons during that period.
Ivan P. Rybkin, secretary of the Security Council, who stated that "if any aggressor should precipitate a conflict with us and use conventional means, we may respond also with nuclear weapons." He further suggested that those who might engage in such "military adventures" should be forewarned of Russia's response.
The new Russian military doctrine will include the "first strike" proviso, as did an earlier version issued back in November. Thus, decision-makers in the Kremlin would appear to have become prisoners of their own disinformation offensive against the West. They anticipate war and, therefore, are building a modernized nuclear arsenal that they hope may indeed frighten away future aggressors.
Ok… that was from 1997…
And the reason I started that one was that someone mentioned the US pulling out on start… the document is from the Institute for the study of conflict, ideology, and policy.
Perspective vol vII, number four march april 1997
http://www.bu.edu/iscip/vol7/Staar.html
does any of this sound familiar?
How bout this tit bit?
The Russians do not even claim that they are on schedule in destroying intercontinental missiles under START II. They have made comments that the deadline for doing so must be extended, complaining they have no money to finance this treaty obligation. The above-mentioned summit resulted in an understanding to postpone the earlier deadline by five years to the end of 2007.
Washington furthermore is pouring $11.5 billion into Moscow under a multi-year contract for the purchase of HEU or Highly Enriched Uranium (500 tons) from dismantled warheads, the fissile material from which should have been reprocessed by the US into diluted low-grade fuel for our nuclear power stations. This agreement has been violated from its inception, when the Russians began and have continued to deliver low-grade uranium. The latter may be coming from stockpiles in the closed cities of Kranoyarsk-45, Sverdlovsk-44, and Tomsk-7, rather than from dismantled warheads.
Do note that in this same article they point out that we shipped them some super computers… hows that for nasty? They get to take them apart and make more (something they have been historically great at).
One only needs to know that Russia has never kept a treaty that could benefit it more if it lied and broke it unless it served more purpose to keep it.
Scoffs, a pissed off Europe is scarier than a pissed off Russia. Short term prospects- Russia. Long Term Prospects- Europe.
Post a Comment