Military Review

Long-suffering Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe

49
Relations between Russia and the NATO bloc continue to be one of the most pressing international topics. Despite the end of the Cold War and the constantly declared cooperation, there is still a long way to final reconciliation and there are several serious problems on the way to it. Among other disagreements, the Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe (CFE), concluded as early as 1990, is seriously highlighted. Since its conclusion and ratification, a number of not very pleasant events have occurred, as a result of which the balance of forces in Europe has seriously changed. After the collapse of the Warsaw Pact and the USSR, several new states appeared in Europe, some of which soon became part of the NATO bloc. As a result, the former parity in relation to the armed forces has changed significantly, and not in favor of Russia.

Long-suffering Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe


It is worth noting that several attempts were made to remedy the situation by making adjustments to the terms of the contract. However, the reluctance of NATO countries to agree with any proposals from Russia ultimately led to the decision in 2007 in our country to suspend participation in the CFE Treaty. This event was preceded by a so-called. Agreement on Adaptation of the CFE Treaty. In the 1999 year, 30 states (NATO countries, the CIS and several European countries) signed a document according to which the quotas for the number of conventional weapons were changed, taking into account the accession of several countries of the former ATS to NATO, as well as in connection with the collapse of the Soviet Union. However, the new version of the CFE Treaty was ratified by only four countries: Russia, Belarus, Kazakhstan and Ukraine. The rest of the countries decided to use the Adaptation Agreement for their own purposes. For example, Georgia and Moldova refused to ratify it as long as the Russian troops are on their territory (in the de facto independent South Ossetia, Abkhazia and Transnistria). For these difficulties of international relations, the North Atlantic Alliance "seized upon" and also did not ratify the renewed treaty.

Another characteristic feature of modern regulation of the number of weapons in Europe are “free zones” - countries that do not participate in the CFE Treaty. These are the three Baltic countries that are both members of NATO at the same time and do not sign the CFE Treaty. A special interest in their status is added by the fact that representatives of Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia after accepting these countries to the Alliance regularly participated in the NATO commissions checking for compliance by Russia with the terms of the treaty. In general, one could not pay attention to the Baltic countries. Their armed forces, mostly equipped with Soviet-made equipment, pose no danger to Russia or Europe. However, Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia are now members of NATO, which creates corresponding risks. Simply put, because of the non-participation of these countries in the CFE Treaty, the other states of the NATO bloc have an excellent opportunity to build up their forces in Europe, without conflicting with any agreements and arrangements. Since the Baltic states do not have quotas for conventional weapons, then it can accommodate as many vehicles as they like, and this directly threatens the security of Russia and other countries that ratified the Agreement on Adaptation.

Soon after the adoption of the Baltic countries into NATO, Russia's quite expected reaction followed. Our country demanded that these countries sign and ratify the CFE Treaty in order not to create unnecessary tension in the region. Equally expected, Riga, Vilnius and Tallinn refused to sign. As a result of all the events surrounding changes in the conditions or status of the treaty, Russia was forced to suspend its participation in the arms treaty in Europe in order to preserve its own security. In addition, soon after the start of the moratorium in the hands of NATO, another political "trump card" in the form of South Ossetia and Abkhazia turned out to be recognized as independent or occupied by Russia depending on the political needs of the bloc countries. Naturally, while NATO does not recognize the independence of these two small countries.

In general, the situation around the regulation of the number of weapons in Europe is far from a complete solution. The relevance of this issue is also increasing due to the fact that the NATO bloc and its allies actually surrounded Russia from all sides, and this requires appropriate responses. Our country, re-equipping its army, continues to attempt to solve the problem diplomatically. So, one of the first announcements of the new Russian representative to NATO, Alexander Viktorovich Grushko, appointed to this position in October, was a proposal to start all negotiations anew, from scratch. In addition, Grushko showed the need to negotiate without any political "back thinking" and without reference to political problems.

It is unlikely that in the near future there will be any major shift in relation to arms treaties in Europe. The fact is that the NATO bloc is also quite satisfied with the terms of the Agreement on Adaptation of the CFE Treaty of 99. However, Western countries are prone to a specific interpretation of this document. They demand that Russia withdraw its troops not only from Georgia - and this has already been done for a long time - but also from Abkhazia and South Ossetia. Additional problems in the negotiations may also arise due to the fact that the independence of these countries was recognized only by one European state - Russia. As a result, a wide range of interpretations of the terms of the Agreement opens up for NATO representatives. Disagreements on such seemingly small issues can cancel all plans for a successful and mutually beneficial conclusion of the disputes over the CFE Treaty.

Meanwhile, the NATO leadership, represented by Secretary General A.F. Rasmussen expressed satisfaction with the results of international cooperation with Russia for the year approaching 2012, and hopes for further development of these relations. The cooperation program for the next 2013 year has already been prepared and adopted. Judging by the current state of affairs, the new plans of NATO do not contain any steps that are beneficial for Russia with regard to the regulation of the number of troops in Europe.


On the materials of the sites:
http://rus.ruvr.ru/
http://lenta.ru/
http://osce.org/
http://rosbalt.ru/
Author:
49 comments
Ad

Subscribe to our Telegram channel, regularly additional information about the special operation in Ukraine, a large amount of information, videos, something that does not fall on the site: https://t.me/topwar_official

Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Bykov.
    Bykov. 18 December 2012 07: 47
    +8
    Long-suffering Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe

    Hmm More likely, repeatedly, bored.
    1. sv-sakh
      sv-sakh 18 December 2012 07: 51
      +9
      Quote: Bulls.
      "NATO's new plans do not include any beneficial steps for Russia regarding the regulation of the number of troops in Europe"

      Quote: Bulls.
      bored

      Yes, not bored, but rather "losing", "dangerous", "treacherous", etc.
      these epithets are much more suitable.
      1. Bykov.
        Bykov. 18 December 2012 08: 01
        +2
        Quote: sv-sakh
        Yes, not bored, but rather "losing", "dangerous", "treacherous", etc.
        these epithets are much more suitable.

        But don’t call it, anyway g ... oh.
        And most importantly, but what do we need?
        1. sv-sakh
          sv-sakh 18 December 2012 09: 47
          +7
          And what do you think?
          When the entire bureaucratic apparatus rotted and acts as an occupation administration, plundering and selling the motherland, does anyone need this? Does this bother anyone?
          At this forum or at any other forum, we can shake the air for thousands of years and spoil the virtual paper of blogs with virtual ink, but nothing will change from this, while thieves and traitors are in power.
          No enemies needed, the worst enemy is already in power!
          Why would anyone conquer Russia if Russia itself, in the position of slaves, entered the WTO!
          If Russia is kicked, for Our Great victory, every shallow infamous Baltic states and the Hole!
          If the bowels of the motherland are sold for nothing and finished products are bought at three expensive rates of four duties for the population.
          Who needs it?
          Except Us with you to anyone.
          1. Bykov.
            Bykov. 18 December 2012 10: 06
            +2
            Quote: sv-sakh
            When the entire bureaucratic apparatus rotted and acts as an occupation administration, plundering and selling the motherland, does anyone need this? Does this bother anyone?

            Recently, it has become obvious that neither the entire apparatus is rotten and not all officials give a damn about what is happening in their native country.
            Let’s be more objective. The laws that we were burdened with in the 90 are being audited more and more often, or simply canceled.
            So, we hope for the best, the benefit of the prerequisites for this, in recent times, more and more.
            1. ozs
              ozs 19 December 2012 18: 20
              -1
              What are you talking about now?
              Over the past 20 years, Russia has more and more stagnated and almost all of the USSR’s legacy has been squandered.
              Foreign policy is completely merged. Not a single success in 20 years.
              Domestic policy is also merged, only loans and oil tanks help.
              History is being rewritten at the state level, education is paid, medicine is paid, the army is disbanded and boasts of deliveries of dozens of aircraft, and some narrow-minded people say that this indicates a revival of industry, but everything shouts the opposite. Joining the WTO, etc.
              You can continue for a very long time, but this makes it even sadder. The authorities unleashed a struggle with the very created belolentonics and the majority of the people pecked at it, well, communication is a sacred matter. Meanwhile, we are no longer even able to protect our citizens in Syria.
              I just want to spit lawlessness in the face of this bureaucracy, they have nothing left sacred, and they replaced religion with Western values ​​and green papers.
          2. Alone
            Alone 18 December 2012 21: 05
            0
            It is written perfectly. + I fully support this point of view.
        2. Gluxar_
          Gluxar_ 18 December 2012 18: 14
          +3
          Quote: Bulls.
          But don’t call it, anyway g ... oh. And most importantly, what is it, we need?

          It’s not necessary for a long time. As soon as our state had the opportunity to develop its armed forces, so we left this treaty. The fact is that there was no need to leave before, anyway, we could not exceed the agreed number of weapons. Today the situation has changed, and therefore our partners begin to revive this agreement, since it is in their interests to leave Russia in a weak state.
          However, everything is not so bad and tragic. If we recalculate the forces and means on the "sides of a potential conflict", then the situation is somewhat different. If you add only Belarus and Kazakhstan, the balance of forces will change dramatically. If we relate mobilization potentials and military traditions, then NATO will not have enough combat-ready formations even for a local company, for example, on the territory of Ukraine. If, however, Ukraine is also drawn to Russia, then a completely different picture emerges. China is not to be added here, then "90% of NATO" represented by the United States will still be drawn to China, and this is already happening. Then it turns out that the current version of the CFE Treaty is the only thing that protects Europe.
        3. mealnik2005
          mealnik2005 18 December 2012 22: 29
          -1
          It seems - it is necessary ... The absence of any agreement will lead to an arms race. And, it seems, we will not pull against Europe and the states with their banknotes printing machines.
          1. Gluxar_
            Gluxar_ 18 December 2012 23: 11
            +1
            Quote: mealnik2005
            It seems - it is necessary ... The absence of any agreement will lead to an arms race. And, it seems, we will not pull against Europe and the states with their banknotes printing machines.

            The fact is that this time we will pull. The printing press is already smoky. The United States is already on the edge of the abyss, Europe is dying. Precisely because they cannot adequately respond to Russia, and lobbying for a return to the CFE Treaty begins. Russia, this contract is not beneficial. The 90s have passed, now it's time for the Russian spring to unbend ...
            1. mealnik2005
              mealnik2005 19 December 2012 16: 42
              0
              Well, if so. That's just Muscovites prefer to measure their salaries in dollars, and get them too. Half of the country is tied to the dollar ... So they will make their race at our expense ...
      2. Michael-rl
        Michael-rl 18 December 2012 14: 07
        0
        Can someone explain that in addition to the equipment indicated in the picture, this contract limits?
        If nothing, then what's the point of getting out of it if, judging by the picture, we keep less equipment in the European part than the restrictions allow?
        or is the situation already different?
        thank you
        1. Gluxar_
          Gluxar_ 18 December 2012 18: 23
          +3
          Quote: Michael-rl
          Can someone explain that in addition to the equipment indicated in the picture, this contract limits? If nothing, then what's the point of getting out of it if, judging by the picture, we keep less equipment in the European part than the restrictions allow? or is the situation already different? thank

          The most controversial aspect of this treaty was the restriction on the deployment of heavy weapons on the flanks. With regard to Russia, this led to the withdrawal of troops beyond the Urals, which is unacceptably appropriate for solving the same problems in the North Caucasus. It was Russia's moratorium on the CFE Treaty that made it possible to concentrate forces in the Caucasus in order to obtain a transfer over Georgia.
    2. Civil
      Civil 18 December 2012 11: 00
      +4
      zabto grow... forget about the CFE Treaty, and begin from scratch to strengthen security in the western direction, to massively deliver medium-range missiles, otherwise they will not balance the advantage in the direction of NATO, even if they deploy, but this will not help them.
  2. Alexander Romanov
    Alexander Romanov 18 December 2012 07: 51
    +13
    How much has it already been said that the price of their signature is 0. With this approach, it makes no sense on their part to demand guarantees of a missile defense against Russia. You need to build up strength, then they will begin to be afraid, and only then can we agree, only on our terms.
    1. Thunderbolt
      Thunderbolt 18 December 2012 10: 02
      +8
      Quote: Alexander Romanov
      . You need to build up strength, then they will begin to

      Good morning, Alexander! Build up all kinds of weapons. The army guards the missiles, the missiles guard the army. Then we will have full Feng Shui. Let them blather laughing
  3. Sakhalininsk
    Sakhalininsk 18 December 2012 07: 53
    +11
    CFE is a specific noose around the neck of Russia. In no case should we apply this contract. On the contrary, it’s time for our country to restore the means of delivery of medium- and short-range ammunition, so that the geyropeyts can begin to figure out their own convolutions and figure out what could lead to further pumping near the borders of Russia.
    At one time, the Pioneer complex was a very reliable sedative for the gay people, probably it is time to restore it.
    1. Alexander Romanov
      Alexander Romanov 18 December 2012 08: 06
      +2
      Quote: Sakhalininets
      The pioneer was a very reliable sedative for the geyropeytsev, probably it's time to restore.

      I think it’s possible to put a low-power warhead on the Iskanders, the SS 20 seems to have been cut request
      1. Vanek
        Vanek 18 December 2012 08: 13
        +3
        Quote: Alexander Romanov
        SS 20 like sawed all


        Here in this "KIND" everything is covered. .............maybe request

        Good afternoon, Alexander.
      2. djon3volta
        djon3volta 18 December 2012 12: 05
        +1
        not everyone drank, not all. several dozen VOEVOD are on alert. There is no need to breed panic retroactively.
      3. yustas
        yustas 18 December 2012 13: 44
        -1
        Alexander, or maybe we should reduce our nuclear weapons
        .... together with some NATO countries, or even sawing themselves, but delivery only on their own ... at the same time the remaining ones will think about all kinds of underfamilies and their other crap =)
      4. mda
        mda 18 December 2012 15: 13
        0
        Quote: Alexander Romanov
        SS 20 like sawed all

        We haven’t drank it yet. We didn’t have time before the end, and Lukashenko retained mines (unlike Ukraine) and gave Russia
    2. GELEZNII_KAPUT
      GELEZNII_KAPUT 18 December 2012 09: 16
      -1
      Yes, and always with nuclear warheads, so that it could be t.s. sharply reduce the number of conventional weapons in geyrop to an acceptable level! angry
      1. not good
        not good 18 December 2012 15: 57
        +1
        We need to take an example from China, everyone is smiling, but they are doing it as profitable for them, and with medium and shorter range they are all right. And if we have such the right leadership, let them put all the excess in the Urals, it’s very convenient, we’ve accumulated more, Europe has stolen , moved a little east and everything seems to be in Asia. And the answer is simple, my country is where I want to go and put it.
        1. Marek Rozny
          Marek Rozny 19 December 2012 21: 34
          +1
          In Kazakhstan, we just moved all the equipment to China, and it will be necessary - quickly throw the brothers Belarusians as needed :)))) In the European part of Kazakhstan, there are actually military forces (associated with this sea) in the Caspian Sea, everything else is Asian parts of the country :)
    3. Glenn witcher
      18 December 2012 16: 20
      +2
      I hesitate to ask, but where then did the INF Treaty? If we get out of it, then the Americans again begin to put such missiles in Turkey, Poland and many more. We need it? Europe is better to hold the bombers.
  4. smel
    smel 18 December 2012 07: 53
    0
    We must ask the former Minister of Defense to work on this agreement. He now has time.
    1. Bykov.
      Bykov. 18 December 2012 08: 15
      +2
      Quote: smel
      We need to ask the former Minister of Defense to work on this agreement.

      And over the treaty and in NATO in general, let it do in short, there, what it does well is: - to ruin everything and everything.
      1. Vladimirets
        Vladimirets 18 December 2012 08: 27
        +1
        Quote: Bulls.
        And over the treaty and in NATO in general, let it do in short, there, what it does well is: - to ruin everything and everything.

        If you let Serdyukov deal with this agreement, then in a year it will turn out that Russia from Kaliningrad to the Urals has the right to deploy three combat aircraft and two tanks, as well as 350 inflatable models.
        1. Alexander Romanov
          Alexander Romanov 18 December 2012 08: 40
          +4
          Quote: Vladimirets

          If you let Serdyukov deal with this agreement,

          Listen, but why did they drag Serdyukov here, there is no more of him and will not make decisions.
          1. mda
            mda 18 December 2012 18: 44
            0
            Quote: Alexander Romanov
            Listen, but why did they drag Serdyukov here, there is no more of him and will not make decisions.

            HOW WHY? NATO COLLAPSED
          2. ozs
            ozs 19 December 2012 18: 25
            0
            it was enough that he made decisions for five years in a row, and you here earnestly justified his activities, because he was appointed by the commander in chief.
            Reforming the army such a person could be entrusted only if the true goal was to disband the army. In principle, what happened.
  5. Lech e-mine
    Lech e-mine 18 December 2012 08: 39
    +3
    IN HELP OF THE CFE — this document has long lost its relevance to US.
  6. Thunderbolt
    Thunderbolt 18 December 2012 09: 11
    +3
    “We cannot but raise questions about increased military activity near Russian borders, the modernization and approximation of the NATO defense infrastructure, and noticeably more frequent exercises. Some military exercises follow the scenarios of Article 5 of the Washington Treaty, which provides for collective protection against external attack. It’s obvious that today it’s impossible to seriously talk about any real threat of an attack on NATO countries using conventional weapons, so the purpose of such exercises is unclear, ”said Foreign Minister S. Lavrov. Well, what is still not clear?
    1. engineer74
      engineer74 18 December 2012 09: 25
      +1
      "attacks against NATO countries using conventional weapons,"
      Is that a subtle hint that NATO’s general forces will not be needed? Predictably .... what
      1. Thunderbolt
        Thunderbolt 18 December 2012 09: 47
        +4
        Quote: engineer74
        This is a subtle hint

        This is a subtle hint that "someone" is very GORGEOUS
  7. Nechai
    Nechai 18 December 2012 09: 15
    +10
    What agreements, negotiations will they be talking about with Russia, having at least a 3-fold advantage? Even with an equality of forces, the West will never conclude equal agreements with us. And even more so to observe earlier prisoners. An eloquent example - the United States went on to conclude an NON-BREAKING pair of SALT-1 and Safeguard treaties (limiting the deployment of strategic missile defense to ONLY ONE basing area, on its own national territory) in 1972, when it mastered an obvious backwardness in missile defense systems and eliminating the backwardness of the USSR and in advance in the creation of ICBMs with MIRVs. And as soon as we miscalculated with the ICBM and the Armed Forces in the complex, the treaty on ABM amer nah ... became unnecessary.
    They do not agree with the weak! They are being ordered ...
  8. old rocket man
    old rocket man 18 December 2012 10: 11
    +3
    The agreement will be instantly signed and ratified as soon as the number of tanks and aircraft we have exceeds NATO. laughing
  9. bddrus
    bddrus 18 December 2012 10: 18
    0
    If NATO has exceeded three times in Europe, then the CFE Treaty is in Russia's interests, provided that Natto will reduce troops to our level.
    I only doubt that they are eager to sign such conditions, and even more so to fulfill them
    1. Lech e-mine
      Lech e-mine 18 December 2012 10: 21
      0
      Now conditions are set by NATO and not RUSSIA.
      1. bddrus
        bddrus 18 December 2012 10: 24
        +1
        the fact of the matter is that we are left alone - all ATS countries have fled or sold into NATO, and compliance with all treaties is required only from Russia.
  10. baltika-18
    baltika-18 18 December 2012 10: 29
    +3
    "Rasmussen expressed his satisfaction with the results of cooperation with Russia."
  11. zambo
    zambo 18 December 2012 11: 24
    0
    So, one of the first statements by the new representative of Russia to NATO Alexander Viktorovich Grushko, who was appointed to this post in October, was a proposal to start all negotiations anew, from scratch. In addition, Grushko showed the need to negotiate without any political “back thoughts” and without being tied to political issues.
    After all, this is, in principle, impossible! How to negotiate such things without being tied to political issues. NATO acts on the principle: "And Vaska listens, but eats." We need to be guided by the same principle, but even tougher and more cunning.
  12. djon3volta
    djon3volta 18 December 2012 11: 56
    +3
    in 2007, in our country, it was decided to suspend participation in the CFE Treaty ... thanks to BAD Putin, whom you litter on a neighboring branch, in the article STALIN-PUTIN COMPARISON.
    1. mda
      mda 18 December 2012 15: 30
      +2
      Quote: djon3volta

      in 2007, in our country, it was decided to suspend participation in the CFE Treaty ... thanks to BAD Putin, whom you litter on a neighboring branch, in the article STALIN-PUTIN COMPARISON.

      They forgot the 90s. And I did not forget, I remember very well.
    2. ozs
      ozs 19 December 2012 18: 29
      0
      And what did he do good to be not bad?
      Can it remind Libya, given to the USA by Central Asia, Georgia, WTO, Serdyukov, Golikov, to continue?
  13. VadimSt
    VadimSt 18 December 2012 12: 00
    +3
    The North Atlantic Alliance “seized on” these difficulties and also did not ratify the updated treaty.
    So Russia is saying its "weighty" word - the program of rearmament and the restoration of forces and means, and then, even if they grab onto the dick. The only thing missing is the slogan: - "Iskander, go ahead ......."

    Quote: bddrus
    Now conditions are set by NATO and not RUSSIA.

    It’s painful to listen to him, recently. Russia is no longer the one they saw in the 90's.
    1. bddrus
      bddrus 18 December 2012 18: 59
      0
      is that where I found that quote? Or are you responsible for me?
    2. ozs
      ozs 19 December 2012 18: 31
      0
      It’s painful to listen to him, recently. Russia is no longer the one they saw in the 90's.

      And to whom are they listening? Not really to Russia?
      Well, name at least a couple of foreign policy successes of the last 10 years.
  14. Pacifist
    Pacifist 18 December 2012 15: 01
    0
    In addition, the article’s material is a little disingenuous .. :) the number of armaments in the European part of Russia is one thing, and there is also what we took out of the Urals :)
    1. Glenn witcher
      18 December 2012 16: 18
      0
      Well, we are not NATO, we do not have overseas bases. And the contract is only about Europe. feel
  15. I'm a patriot
    I'm a patriot 18 December 2012 19: 28
    0
    The author + for the article, but I read this article and only one picture comes to my mind ... Namely, how a pack of hungry and "blind" from hunger, wolves drives a mighty bear = (((But the bear will tear them all =))
  16. The comment was deleted.
  17. valokordin
    valokordin 18 December 2012 23: 48
    0
    The question should be raised over, the ratio of conventional weapons should be parity, and tactical nuclear weapons should make up for its shortcomings.
  18. pav-pon1972
    pav-pon1972 19 December 2012 14: 06
    0
    Well, if the NATO countries have not ratified the treaty, then it is time to withdraw from it ...
    Do ratifications exist? And the Baltic states bend economically !!!
  19. Megatron
    Megatron 19 December 2012 15: 32
    0
    As long as we have enough nuclear weapons, all these NATO NATO cardboard tanks are not a problem for us.
  20. Svatdevostator
    Svatdevostator 21 December 2012 13: 11
    0
    This bunch of equipment still needs to be mastered perfectly, and not just have it !!!!!!!!!