Russia to withdraw from European arms treaty?

Oh, this is fun.

[quote=“BBC”]Nato members have expressed “grave concern” over Russia’s threat to suspend participation in an arms treaty limiting conventional forces in Europe.

Nato Secretary General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer said the agreement was one of the cornerstones of European security.

Earlier, President Vladimir Putin said Russia should halt its compliance with the treaty because of concerns over US plans for a missile shield in Europe.

The US secretary of state said Moscow should respect its treaty obligations.

Condoleezza Rice also dismissed Russia’s concerns over the US missile shield as “ludicrous”.

The 1990 Conventional Forces in Europe (CFE) treaty limits key offensive weapons like tanks, artillery pieces and aircraft across the continent.

The CFE was adapted in 1999 after the collapse of the Warsaw Pact.

‘Disappointment and regret’

Mr Putin made the threat during his annual address to parliament, saying that Russia would suspend implementing the CFE until all Nato members had ratified it.

Nato states have not yet ratified the new version, first demanding the withdrawal of Russian forces from Georgia and Moldova.

Mr Putin also accused the Nato of exploiting the situation to increase their military presence near Russia’s borders.

The Russian leader appeared to have linked his threat with US plans to put elements of a new missile defence system in Poland and the Czech Republic.

The US wants to station 10 interceptor missiles in Poland, with radar operations in the[/quote]

A bit of tit-for-tat bad behavior (remember Russian calls for the US to respect its treaty obligations before withdrawing from the ABM in Dec. 2001)? Logical consequence of unilateralism, an erosion of trust and credibility.

So what threat exactly is the US missile deployment to Russia and can you give me one good reason why Russia should feel threatened or the treaty should not be renegotiated? You simpletons seem to think that treaties are never updated, revised, etc. That is simply not the case. It may make for an “easy-to-understand” approach for you but that is not how international diplomacy works. Try harder. Finally, why not remind us all why Russia eventually went to sign onto the newly revised ABM treaty. To my understanding most of the hew and cry came from worried Europeans whom like you seem to have a very poor understanding of these matters.

According to Colin Powell, your understanding is bluff and bluster. The Russians were not pleased.

I do not believe the missile deployment, as it stands, threatens Russia. Unilateral actions, on the other hand, don’t build trust or contribute to security.

[quote=“fred smith”]You simpletons…[/quote]Tell me fred, at what point does this persona you’ve adopted embarrass you? Not others, nor the organizations to which you belong–I’ll not ask you to speak for others, nor cast your mind back that far–but you. Just curious: to what degree do you identify with this persona, or are you completely shameless?

Why then did the Russians accede to the new treaty conditions?
Why are the new ABM deployments a threat to Russia?
Given that you do not agree that they are a threat, why should Russia have the right to block potential defensive measures against nations like Iran?
I never said the Russians (ala Colin Powell) were happy but they did accede to the new agreement. My point, would you disagree?, is that the most noise on this forum was from the usual “the US is breaking international law moaners and groaners.” Did we?

Simpleton? What is wrong with making a statement that appears to be factually true? Would you argue that this is an issue where international law has been or will be broken? Are treaties never to be revised? Is the US a discredible actor that nations around the world must fear? Is it appropriate for others to froth at the mouth over US actions and not question the duplicitious nature of much of the Russian stance? I am just curious. Fill me in. Maybe then I won’t think that you are a simpleton. Chances are… but then again…

Well…now that you mention it…this could explain a lot of things we see from you on here…:ponder: :whistle:

ahhh…its gonna be a great day!

Not good enough. You want a response, drop the insults.

No need. I am not really interested in anything that you have to say on the matter. Please don’t feel the need to respond. Many thanks in advance.

You’re welcome.

But you responded. Doesn’t that make you some kind of simpleton when I expressly asked you not to? haha

Ironic, isn’t it?
Thank you. Thank you, very much.

You know, Jaboney, you really, really should do what the man asks.

HG

Meh. Anyone else, a genuine mensch, sure. But he’s become excessively tiresome, and I’ve seen this skit, so why bother?

[quote]Q: WHAT DO YOU WANT?
M: Well, I was told outside that…
Q: Don’t give me that, you snotty-faced heap of parrot droppings!
M: What?
Q: Shut your festering gob, you tit! Your type really makes me puke, you vacuous, coffee-nosed, maloderous, pervert!!!
M: Look, I CAME HERE FOR AN ARGUMENT, I’m not going to just stand…!!
Q: OH, oh I’m sorry, but this is abuse.
M: Oh, I see, well, that explains it.
Q: Ah yes, you want room 12A, Just along the corridor.
M: Oh, Thank you very much. Sorry.
Q: Not at all.
M: Thank You.
(Under his breath) Stupid git!![/quote]

Fine. Let’s be polite so that Jaboney can prove his point… which is… um…

Let me ask a few more questions to engage Jaboney in an “intelligent” discussion of the matter…

  1. Russia acceded to the US request to revise the ABM Treaty. Yes or no?
  2. Many squealed that the US was acting unilaterally and that this would have GRAVE consequences for European security. Did it? Yes or no?
  3. The US ABM deployments in Europe are a direct threat to Russia? yes or no?
  4. Russia is right to pull out of its treaty commitments because of this THREAT? yes or no?
  5. The US, not Russia, has given Europe more reason to fear for its security? yes or no?
  6. IF yes to Question 5, then please explain HOW the US has given Europe more reason to fear for its security.
  7. If YES to Question 5, please explain why Europe’s No. 1 security guarantor remains… the US.
  8. Does Europe have anything to fear from say missiles (limited numbers) from nations such as oh Iran?
  9. Does anyone believe that Europe’s “negotiations” with Iran will remove the threat of Iran’s nuclear developments?
  10. Do many here and in Europe believe that ultimately the US will protect the Continent EVEN IF Iran is allowed to develop nuclear weapons and, therefore, that European governments have the luxury of doing nothing now since it will ultimately be the US who pays later? No doubt, irony of ironies, many will march for peace if and when the US has to finally do something about PROTECTING EUROPE from such a threat later!!!

Why thank you, fred.

[quote=“fred smith”]1. Russia acceded to the US request to revise the ABM Treaty. Yes or no?[/quote] No. Russia objected, but there was no need for Russia to accede to the request. Under Article XV of the treaty:

Reaction:

[quote]Shortly after the Bush announcement, Russian President Vladimir Putin reacted in a brief nationwide television address.

President Putin said the American decision was not unexpected, but nonetheless a mistake. He said the decision does not pose a threat to Russia, which has an effective system capable of overcoming any new missile defense program. But, President Putin said, Russia believes the ABM treaty is an important pillar representing many years of mutual effort and negotiations. He warned that, in today’s world, with its new threats, there should be no vacuum in global security. Mr. Putin also called for continued cuts in nuclear stockpiles.

President Putin basically restated Russia’s position that the ABM treaty, signed in 1972 by then U.S. President Richard Nixon and Soviet General Secretary Leonid Brezhnev, is part of an important framework of arms control agreements that gave some guarantee for strategic stability. Russia, and even some close U.S. allies, warned that abandoning the treaty would create a vacuum in this network, and lead to a potential new arms race. [/quote]

That was the Russian reaction to American withdrawal from the ABM Treaty, and goes to my assertion that Russia’s current actions are a consequence of unilateralism, eroded trust and credibility.

I think that the hostility of the Bush administration to multilateral agreements and international governance can be taken as given. They much prefer bilateral, one-off agreements, which can be more easily negotiated from positions of strength. Fine. But one-off agreements do little to build systems (surprise, surprise: that’s half the point). Granted, international systems notoriously ineffective at enforcement, but when parties act in good faith within those systems, trust and predictability develop–on shaky foundations, but they develop. And that margin of trust and predictability is sufficient to make all parties concerned somewhat more secure. The security may be based on an illusion, but then so is the security based on this fake-it-till-you-make-it missile shield. I believe the value of the treaty-based, system- and trust-building is far greater than that of the mythical missile shield.


[quote=“Soapbox and Strawman”][quote=“fred smith”]2. Many squealed that the US was acting unilaterally and that this would have GRAVE consequences for European security. Did it? Yes or no?[/quote]Some did, some did not. Irrelevant as it forms no part of my argument.

[quote=“fred smith”]3. The US ABM deployments in Europe are a direct threat to Russia? yes or no?[/quote]No. Again, irrelevant as it forms no part of my argument.

[quote=“fred smith”]4. Russia is right to pull out of its treaty commitments because of this THREAT? yes or no?[/quote]Because of the THREAT, no. Because of CONCERNS, why not?

[quote=“fred smith”]5. The US, not Russia, has given Europe more reason to fear for its security? yes or no?
6. IF yes to Question 5, then please explain HOW the US has given Europe more reason to fear for its security.
7. If YES to Question 5, please explain why Europe’s No. 1 security guarantor remains… the US.[/quote]:roll:

[quote=“fred smith”]8. Does Europe have anything to fear from say missiles (limited numbers) from nations such as oh Iran?[/quote]No.

[quote=“fred smith”]9. Does anyone believe that Europe’s “negotiations” with Iran will remove the threat of Iran’s nuclear developments?[/quote] Probably. Some people will believe anything.

F…ine…

[quote]fred smith wrote:

  1. Russia acceded to the US request to revise the ABM Treaty. Yes or no?
    No. Russia objected, but there was no need for Russia to accede to the request. Under Article XV of the treaty: [/quote]

Sorry, I was referring to the LAST time this whole issue came up several years ago. So either party could renegotiate the terms? Thank you.

But where is this new threat coming from? Those who sign up to international treaties? haha

By whom? The Americans or the Russians? I am deliberately misunderstanding that this statement refers to the Americans. Ridiculous.

Let me understand this… because we didn’t get UN approval to invade Iraq (one nation with one of the worst dictators and a history of causing trouble) and because we did not sign onto the Kyoto Treaty despite the fact that nearly everyone agrees that it is a failed agreement? Okay. Wow. How much more unilateral can the US be? And given that most of the NATO and EU members also acted on Iraq, I guess that makes for a whole lot of unilaterally minded nations, eh? haha

Let me ask you… Given that the UN was highly compromised, what kind of international agreements do you think are worth supporting when an event like Iraq comes up? Now, remember, your nation’s troops would not be involved not unless you wanted to send a token force. The guarantor of Persian Gulf security is in the hands of the US. We are treaty bound to defend the Gulf states. Removing Saddam would guarantee those treaties while being against the UN and international “law” but only because many of the nations involved were not acting in good faith.

So then, I would imagine that tomorrow Canada will cancel its defense and trade agreements with the US to open new ones with those nations that respect such treaties, namely Russia, China, France and Germany?

Yes, and the new Human Rights Commission under the UN is something for the world to behold as a “development?”

How many nations are afraid that the US will invade them? How many nations are afraid that the US will attack them? How many nations are afraid the US will unilaterally renegotiate trade commitments and business deals? How many of the nations that the US has named as problem or rogue nations respect these international ideals? Given those variables, why should these nations then invoke their protections?

That was something of a mouthful. So let’s say the Iranians decide to threaten, oh, Vienna with a nuke attack if the Europeans do not stop imposing sanctions or to get the US to pull its forces out of the Persian Gulf, then what happens? and wouldn’t it be nice to have a missile shield and if these missile shields are so pointless, why do the Japanese, Koreans, Taiwanese, Israelis among others want them?

[quote]fred smith wrote:
2. Many squealed that the US was acting unilaterally and that this would have GRAVE consequences for European security. Did it? Yes or no?
Some did, some did not. Irrelevant as it forms no part of my argument. [/quote]

So amuse me… Does the US action have “grave” consequences for European security?

[quote]fred smith wrote:
3. The US ABM deployments in Europe are a direct threat to Russia? yes or no?
No. Again, irrelevant as it forms no part of my argument. [/quote]

Why? IF they are not a threat to Russian security, why would Russia be against the US effort to stop missiles from rogue nations?

[quote]fred smith wrote:
4. Russia is right to pull out of its treaty commitments because of this THREAT? yes or no?
Because of the THREAT, no. Because of CONCERNS, why not? [/quote]

So balancing these threats and these concerns, who has more reason to be concerned the US and its allies over rogue nations missile attacks or Russia regarding an attack by the US?

[quote]fred smith wrote:
5. The US, not Russia, has given Europe more reason to fear for its security? yes or no?
6. IF yes to Question 5, then please explain HOW the US has given Europe more reason to fear for its security.
7. If YES to Question 5, please explain why Europe’s No. 1 security guarantor remains… the US. [/quote]

No answers here? why not?

[quote]fred smith wrote:
8. Does Europe have anything to fear from say missiles (limited numbers) from nations such as oh Iran?
No. [/quote]

So say you but then why are Germany, France and the UK leading negotiations regarding Iran’s nuclear program?

[quote]fred smith wrote:
9. Does anyone believe that Europe’s “negotiations” with Iran will remove the threat of Iran’s nuclear developments?
Probably. Some people will believe anything. [/quote]

Apparently…

[quote]fred smith wrote:
10. Do many here and in Europe believe that ultimately the US will protect the Continent EVEN IF Iran is allowed to develop nuclear weapons and, therefore, that European governments have the luxury of doing nothing now since it will ultimately be the US who pays later? No doubt, irony of ironies, many will march for peace if and when the US has to finally do something about PROTECTING EUROPE from such a threat later!!! [/quote]

No answer? Did you miss this?