Military Review

UN Conference on the Arms Trade: Collusion of the West against Russia

58
March 18 has begun and the United Nations Conference on Trade will continue until March 28. weapons. About two thousand diplomats representing one hundred and ninety-three countries gathered at the UN headquarters in New York to once again try to draw up an international arms trade treaty (ATT). A similar attempt failed in July 2012 of the year, but negotiators do not lose hope.


In the draft of the July Treaty remained too many tears to prevent the use of weapons against civilians. According to the United Nations, in 2010, almost 27,5 million people. in the world were refugees because of conflict. The reason, according to the UN, is the unregulated proliferation of weapons.

On the eve of the forum, the Secretary General of the World Organization, Ban Ki-moon, made a statement in which he expressed hope that the participants in the conference would resolve their differences and show "political will." He said: “Our common responsibility is to put an end to the inadequate order of the global trade in conventional weapons - from small arms to tanks and combat aircraft. ”

However, representatives of the National Rifle Association of the USA (NSA), which is notorious for its lobbying efforts, are quite aggressive in advocating for American constitutional rights to personal weapons (the famous Second Amendment of 1791) are going to enter into disputes with diplomats.

Representatives of the NSA have already won inside the country: “assault weapons”, which were banned by Democratic senators headed by Dian Feinstein (the Nobel peacemaker Obama promised to support the prohibition), will continue to be sold in the country. US senators have completely eliminated the clause on a nationwide ban on the sale of these weapons from the bill before the House. This decision was made head of the democratic majority of the Senate, Harry Reid. is he referred that when voting in a chamber a bill with the ban included in it will not gain the required sixty votes. Such an outcome can be considered a victory for the arms lobby.

Those rifles that Dianne Feinstein classified as “assault”, and those stores that fit her definition of “increased capacity”, will continue to be sold in US gun stores. Obviously, the senators will later consider some restrictive measures, but it is quite possible that they will be rejected with reference to the Second Amendment.

At the UN conference, Western countries are unlikely to delve into the intricacies of the arms trade. Washington will insist that a treaty that violates the notorious amendment to the constitution is unacceptable. Business, nothing personal. On a contract deviating from such a question, the White House will put a cross. The example of Australia from 1996 year (prohibition of private arms trade, the redemption of weapons from the population and the serious tightening of the rules for the sale of weapons) American deathtruders do not care at all and do not even care.

It also appears that the West is using the rostrum of the conference to promote its beautiful ideas of humanism and the protection of human rights throughout the world. It is known that we will focus on the sale of Russian weapons to Syria. Western countries want to achieve the inclusion in the treaty of a ban on the supply of arms that can be used to "suppress human rights", including under previously concluded contracts. And then it turns out: you can supply weapons to the rebels, because they are fighting against the tyrant, but you cannot supply weapons to Assad’s army, because Assad is the tyrant against whom you must fight in every possible way, lethal and non-lethal. The date of the conference is very convenient: 22 and 23 of March will be the meeting of EU foreign ministers in Dublin, where Britain and France will again raise the issue of arming Syrian rebels. It is also worth noting that the two named states are among the initiators of the ATT. Everything fits together wonderfully.

The goal of the current United Nations conference is to draft a legally binding agreement to curb the illicit trade in conventional weapons: from small arms to tanks and combat aircraft. UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon said: “The trade in conventional weapons involves many complex issues of business, national security, human rights, humanitarian law and politics in general. This is undoubtedly a difficult issue. ” According to him, the absence of international rules governing the arms trade is inexplicable. The Secretary General stressed: “We have international standards that regulate everything - from the sale of T-shirts to the sale of toys and tomatoes. There are common standards for trade in furniture. This means that there are standards for the sale of seats, but there are no standards for the global arms trade. ” He added that many families and communities have to pay a very high price for this gap in international law. “As a result of armed violence, more than half a million people die every year, including 66 thousands of women and girls,” said Ban Ki-moon. He added that non-state groups are increasing their arsenals. Other drug cartels in Latin America have more weapons than armies of entire countries.

As for Russia, it is in the strict framework of the ATT proposes to allow the supply of arms only to state structures (in other words, to ban the sale of arms to non-state actors). What does this mean? For example, the fact that the parties to the agreement subscribe to a text that will further protect the legitimate authority of any country from riots and insurrections, such as those who took place in 2011 in Libya and are now taking place in distressful Syria. The Americans, British and French will not, of course, sign a text with a similar provision.

Russia's position is as follows, writes Nikita Sorokin ("Voice of Russia") that in the current edition of the MTDO is not able to prevent the acquisition of weapons by extremists. Such an agreement will only harm legal trade and will infringe upon the state’s right to self-defense. As the expert of the Center for Analysis of Strategies and Technologies Sergey Denisentsev explained, disputes are caused by the inclusion in the jurisdiction of the contract not only the supply of ready-made weapons systems, but also such services as intermediary activities and the organization of licensed production. Denisentsev says:

“The decisive factor in not accepting the treaty last year was the position of the United States. In the United States, the position of various organizations, such as the National Rifle Association, the Organization of Small Arms, caused a very large opposition to the treaty. And in the Obama administration in order not to escalate their constituencies before the presidential elections, they decided to postpone the signing of the treaty until 2013.

Now, after the victory, the Obama administration can afford to return to the discussion of this treaty. With very large concessions both in the interests of the leading exporting countries and of the importing countries, the agreement can be accepted. ”


If the contract is signed, it will be almost impossible to fulfill it, says Ivan Konovalov, director of the Center for Strategic Conjuncture:

“Because all the main actors in the global arms trade have completely different views on how to do this. In addition, the treaty creates the highest possible standards for controlling arms trafficking, which is unacceptable neither for the United States, nor for Russia, and especially not for China, not to mention other countries. The document initially laid the contradictions. When the previous discussion was conducted, it was primarily said that weapons should not fall into those countries where human rights are violated. But everyone has different views on this situation, take at least Syria. The West believes that human rights are being violated there, in Russia they believe that this is a revolt against the lawfully elected government; and how to determine in such a situation, who has the right to receive weapons? "


This is not to mention the fact that there are “gray” zones in the arms market, comrade Konovalov notes. Most of the "multi-way transactions" participants are not disclosed. In the future, they will see no reason to change anything here.

The result is that the West is really seeking to turn an international treaty limiting illicit arms trafficking into an instrument of pressure on geopolitical opponents. Above, the article gives an example of Russia and the United States, a non-coinciding conflict interest for which is Syria today.

The other day the report of the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute was published, in which data entered on the supply of the main types of conventional weapons and military equipment in the period from 2008 to 2012. The top five largest arms suppliers, as before, are the United States (30% in the share of global arms exports), followed by Russia (26%), then Germany (7%), France (6%) and China (5%). The volume of international shipments of the main types of conventional weapons, despite the crisis of the eurozone countries, increased during the period from 2008 to 2012 by 17% compared to the previous five-year period (2003-2007).

As Sergey Vasilenkov rightly observes (Pravda.ru), the income received by many powers in the field of military exports plays an important role in the formation of their state budget. Financial and political interest contributes to the violation by states of existing international norms regulating the circulation of weapons. The implementation of the ATT, discussed today at the UN, will make the market for the import and export of armaments transparent. The signatories, the UN member states, undertake to annually provide information on the type and quantity of weapons units sold, as well as their customers. Violation by the parties to an agreement of its conditions will entail the application of international sanctions.

In this case, delivery London’s weapons worth twenty million pounds to the Syrian opposition, which is reported by the media around the world, would have to be “held” as part of the recognition of rebel groups as “state structure” (according to the Russian proposal, weapons can be supplied only to government agencies). Obviously, the West will push through its version of the ATT, aimed at infringing weapons-trading, and at the same time the political interests of Russia around the world. The fact that in the West for political convenience is declared "legal" and "democratic" in the East is somehow considered terrorist and extremist. Without quotes.

And then, 26% of the global arms market is a bit too much for Russia. Do not find Russia is already on the heels of the States with their thirty percent.

Observed and commented on Oleg Chuvakin
- especially for topwar.ru
58 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. esaul
    esaul 25 March 2013 09: 08 New
    26
    UN Arms Trade Conference: Western conspiracy against Russia
    This is not a discovery - constant conspiracy against Russia. And you should not be surprised at this. You need to be prepared for this constantly and stop all flirting.
    1. Hammer
      Hammer 25 March 2013 09: 50 New
      +6
      And why be surprised ... the level of cenicism and a spitting attitude to the life of people (not related to the "golden" billion) is just off scale. and the west is not trying to hide it ...
      All Western "universal" values ​​in fact fit into the description in one word - DIAGNOSIS. Here is their god, their idol, that’s why they believe and crave ... everything else is dust for them.
      What is there concern for the people of other countries ?! All their policies are high school of lycimeria and deception .....
      1. bazilio
        bazilio 25 March 2013 10: 46 New
        +3
        Quote: Hammer
        All their policies are high school of lycimeria and deception .....

        So it was, it is, and it will be so, unfortunately. Politics, especially foreign ones, is a dirty business. And human life in it can only be valuable as an excuse and a point of pressure, and so these are just numbers.
        1. Oshin
          Oshin 25 March 2013 12: 43 New
          +1
          Business and double standards. Money means everything to such people in the west. they do not care about ordinary people, on their grief. Don't they really understand that nothing lasts forever under the moon and the sun? After all, a person, as Woland said in the Master and Margarita, is not just mortal, he is suddenly mortal (here B. Berezovsky, for example, suddenly)). But businessmen and politicians do not understand this, they believe that everything is in their power. So it was at all times and so, alas, it will be ... and in the West, especially, money is the only value there.
          1. bazilio
            bazilio 25 March 2013 13: 49 New
            +1
            Quote: Oshin
            Don't they really understand that nothing lasts forever under the moon and the sun?

            yes, but they are more pleasant to think about such high matters sitting on a luxury yacht, in an expensive car surrounded by other luxury goods, reveling in power and feeling like the arbiters of fate
          2. APASUS
            APASUS 25 March 2013 21: 32 New
            +1
            Quote: Oshin
            Business and double standards. Money means everything to such people in the west. they do not care about ordinary people, on their grief.

            Business and only business!
            And they defend their right to sell weapons on all fronts, and we again in the role of making excuses !!
            Well, our people can’t use all kinds of international meetings to achieve their goals! And I would have pulled out a couple of photos and clips, done it, dragged the prisoners, to find evidence that the killer rebels are not a problem at all !!!
            Niche officials will now mutter something about their contracts, about standards .......... head down!
  2. radio operator
    radio operator 25 March 2013 09: 13 New
    +6
    Not surprisingly, once again to put the leg of Russia - the bourgeoisie for happiness.
    You just have to answer adequately, not relax.
  3. vladsolo56
    vladsolo56 25 March 2013 09: 18 New
    13
    It is high time to create an alternative to the UN, but not in the United States, and of course built on the principle of equality of all participating countries.
    1. Boa kaa
      Boa kaa 25 March 2013 10: 26 New
      +8
      Quote: vladsolo56
      It's time to create an alternative to the UN, but not in the United States,

      It's time! Only it also needs to be maintained. Now, it seems, membership fees = 1% of the country's SOP. The United States contributes the most, and whoever pays and orders the music. It is good that the permanent members of the Security Council have a veto. Therefore, Russia and China torpedo this treaty. The West will raise a howl, a new round of information war will begin. But! We are crowding amers in the arms markets. We got to Latin America - and it is GOOD!
      1. elmi
        elmi 25 March 2013 12: 04 New
        +5
        Quote: BoA KAA
        It is good that the permanent members of the Security Council have a veto.

        Well, the United States knows how to cross the veto, because there is no counterweight - the USSR. But the power of Russia is still weak, so when words are backed up by deeds, then there will be equilibrium in the world. While we are doing timid little steps in becoming.
      2. bazilio
        bazilio 25 March 2013 12: 24 New
        +2
        Quote: BoA KAA
        It's time to create an alternative to the UN,

        It will be difficult to create a full-scale alternative to the UN, and the West will not recognize it. An alternative should be international organizations of a regional nature, such as the SCO. This alternative will be all the more effective the more participants there will be in such an organization + the common position of the participants on foreign policy. issues
        1. Boa kaa
          Boa kaa 25 March 2013 20: 43 New
          +5
          Quote: bazilio
          This alternative will be all the more effective the more participants there will be in such an organization + the common position of the participants on foreign policy. issues

          Apparently the SCO will go this route. Recently, a message flashed about the elaboration of the conditions for the transition to mutual settlements within the SCO based on national currencies. Or creating a regional currency for mutual settlements.
          If this happens, then the Yankees will get a hit on me ... m!
          The $ sphere will shrink, which means that the ability to influence the Asia-Pacific region, the SCO members, their economy and banking systems will become less dependent on fluctuations in the dollar and so on.
          PS. Dear bazilio! The idea of ​​replacing the UN with the first one came to my mind not to general, but to general vladsolo56. As the hero of the joke said: "We don’t need alien laurels even in soup." But there is something in it!
          1. luka095
            luka095 25 March 2013 22: 07 New
            +1
            It can be added that the most active participants in the international gold market are China and Russia. They buy gold the most. This can be regarded as preparation for the introduction of regional currencies ...
          2. bazilio
            bazilio 26 March 2013 09: 53 New
            +1
            Quote: BoA KAA
            PS. Dear bazilio! The thought of replacing the UN with the first one came to my mind not to general, but to general vladsolo56.

            Yes, I missed the quote, I'm sorry ...
            But all the same, creating an alternative to the UN is useless, and therefore do not bother. As I said, the West will not join such an organization, and this organization will be de facto regional. In addition, a bunch of other organizations operate within the UN - WTO, WHO, MTO, etc. But the main thing is the Security Council. neither the Russian Federation nor China can leave it in any way, otherwise the US will create whatever it wants
  4. Andrey57
    Andrey57 25 March 2013 09: 28 New
    +5
    Without the signature and ratification by Russia of such a treaty, it will be just a flick hi
    1. INTER
      INTER 25 March 2013 09: 36 New
      0
      I think China will support us. Although with an increase in their export potential of weapons ?,,,,,,,,,
      1. Alexander Romanov
        Alexander Romanov 25 March 2013 09: 55 New
        +7
        Quote: INTER
        Although with an increase in their weapons export potential?

        China has enough money, namely real money and not debts. As in the USA and Europe, because China will support us and the visit was their new leader. I suppose this topic was also discussed.
        1. Kaa
          Kaa 25 March 2013 13: 08 New
          +5
          Quote: Alexander Romanov
          China has enough money, namely real money and not debt
          “China and Russia are accumulating gold, which will protect them from the impending currency crisis, and will add more weight to the world both to the ruble and the yen. In his book“ Currency wars, ”Jim Rickards tells the story of the US military’s financial currency games, one of the scenarios which has become the gold-backed Russian currency, which has challenged the dollar. It seems that we are not so far from this scenario. The US spends a large share of the $ 700 billion annual military budget to maintain a dominant role in the Middle East to protect oil trade in dollars. trade will diversify into several currencies, and demand for the US dollar will begin to decline. Central banks and global corporations will begin to sell part of their dollar reserves, causing a deadly peak to the dollar exchange rate. This, in turn, will make it very difficult for America to finance its military empire / country for As a result: America becomes Spain, and no longer able to pull out a magic credit card from his sleeve to pay for his cost overruns. We will have to start living within our means, cutting off even 3 trillion dollars from state bounties (including cutting off pension obligations).Meanwhile, China and Russia will reap the benefits of strong currencies, and will share (or share) control over their parts of the world. And it’s hard to say who will feel more miserable - the Americans, who believed that it was possible to depend on the government to maintain the standard of living of the middle class, or the neighbors of China and Russia, who would feel that the US’s relatively soft grip was replaced by something that is much less atavistic .The other day, on the website of the government-owned Chinese publication "People's Daily" under the heading "Recommended Comments", a recommendation by Chinese economists was published increase the amount of gold in China’s reserves by six times and thereby become the second country after the United States in terms of gold reserves. It is worth noting that the official Chinese publication made a recommendation a year ago on its first pages. Apparently, for the Chinese government, this recommendation is becoming more and more relevant every day. So far, according to the World Gold Council, China is the sixth largest gold producer in the world. It is about 1054 tons of gold. The first place is occupied by the USA, where about 8134 tons of gold are accumulated. Russia is in eighth place with gold reserves of 911,3 tons. http://voprosik.net/kitaj-atakuet-dollar/
          1. Boa kaa
            Boa kaa 25 March 2013 21: 42 New
            +5
            Quote: Kaa
            "China and Russia are accumulating gold, which will protect them from the impending currency crisis, and will add more weight to the world both to the ruble and the yen.

            Mater, you (or the author of the above fragment) made a reservation: in China - the yuan. This is a word.
            In essence. The idea of ​​M. Gaddafi to introduce a gold dinar as opposed to the dollar led to the overthrow of the leader of the Libyan Jamahiriya. Western media presented this as a "struggle against tolitarism, a struggle for democracy." Libya was weak, the States a superpower.
            In the case of the Russian Federation and China, with the strengthening of our national currencies, the States will have a hard time. Their counterparts are nuclear powers. The situation for the USA is very, very ... filthy. A way out of the situation will probably be sought in the use of force or in the threat of its use, in the painful infringement of the national interests of our countries. Against whom is the tip of the shtah tomahawk directed? This is a question! China is the second, dynamically developing world economy, a country with enormous human resources, and is rapidly re-equipping the PLA. We have almost equal nuclear potential ... Economy? Demography? So which of us is the more likely "target of military force"? Therefore, we need a military alliance with the PRC, powerful armed forces, and a strong economy. Until we have achieved this, we must very carefully build our relations with strong players. At least I think so.
  5. Was mammoth
    Was mammoth 25 March 2013 09: 30 New
    0
    Good luck to our diplomats
  6. self-propelled
    self-propelled 25 March 2013 09: 37 New
    +5
    arms ban treaty that could be used to “suppress human rights”
    Yes, under this treaty you can disarm the floor of the world belay
  7. LaGlobal
    LaGlobal 25 March 2013 09: 52 New
    +4
    Good morning FORUM!
    My opinion is this!

    - I think that this shop called "UN" needs to be covered up, as this organization has long become obsolete!
    Moreover, there are only fellow peasants there, representing the decaying west, who do not act for the good of this world, but pursue only their goals.

    Here, in fact, my vision of this situation. If it weren’t for the Russian Federation and China, these non-Western people would have torn the world to shreds long ago.
    1. Alexander Romanov
      Alexander Romanov 25 March 2013 09: 56 New
      +8
      Quote: LaGlobal

      - I think that this shop called "UN" needs to be covered,

      Preferably together with the USA! I have also been inclined to this for a long time, we can block, but blocking solutions today is already not enough.
      1. LaGlobal
        LaGlobal 25 March 2013 10: 41 New
        +2
        Quote: Alexander Romanov
        Preferably together with the USA!


        YES SIR!
      2. donchepano
        donchepano 25 March 2013 20: 19 New
        0
        Alexander, I do not see the flags of the countries, and I can not vote. Maybe I don’t know how. By the way, I'm a kettle
  8. andrey777
    andrey777 25 March 2013 10: 22 New
    +6
    Amers do not fly airplanes, which means that the world arms market will be reoriented to Russia. We don’t want to lose money to the states, and they are looking for a reason.
  9. andrejwz
    andrejwz 25 March 2013 10: 38 New
    +6
    on the supply of weapons that can be used to “suppress human rights”
    Well, yes, the main thing is that countries do not have modern weapons (even more important than modern air defense systems). The Vedas, without a rifleman, would put a Shiite (or vice versa) with a piece of reinforcement, it would not hurt to light. This is so democratic. It may be better to introduce a law restricting the imposition by the West of its shitty democratic values. The fault of the Arab regimes that were established at the end of the XNUMXth century, in addition to the geopolitical and economic interests of the West, is that they, like the whole non-democratic world, do not want to be universal human beings - without gender and name.
    1. Oshin
      Oshin 25 March 2013 12: 45 New
      0
      Quote: andrejwz
      [b] The fault of the Arab regimes established at the end of the XNUMXth century, in addition to the geopolitical and economic interests of the West, is that they, like the whole non-democratic world, do not want to be universal human beings - without gender and name.

      Well said
  10. Mikhail3
    Mikhail3 25 March 2013 11: 05 New
    +3
    One should not take all this legislative activity seriously. We suffer greatly from the stupid desire to abide by the "international laws", which no one else thinks to abide by. Moreover, the packages of these securities are accepted solely based on our naivety! You need to calmly go around all these pieces of paper, and calmly publish the bags of available evidence, documents and other evidence testifying to the constant violations of the rest of your filinka letters on the screech that has risen.
    There is nothing more stupid than a focus on "international public opinion"! In order not to be isolated, it is enough to do it in such a way that it attracts one or the other country that is potentially useful to us (not to overdo it! It’s important!). No need to share military technology with them, this is stupid and redundant. We simply include them in the transaction as participants in the supply chain and for, so to speak, international support. I think the notorious "unity of the West" will not survive such a couple of years ...
  11. SHOGUN
    SHOGUN 25 March 2013 11: 13 New
    0
    Quote: vladsolo56
    It is high time to create an alternative to the UN, but not in the United States, and of course built on the principle of equality of all participating countries.


    I agree, with only one condition: that each country is a participant, will have its own will, independent of anyone. While this is not possible, the UN is the best organ of Russia's struggle against the "capitalists".
    1. bazilio
      bazilio 25 March 2013 12: 29 New
      +2
      Quote: SHOGUN
      that each participating country will have its own will, independent of no one.

      Alas, this cannot be fixed on paper. de jure, all UN members are equal, but in fact this is not so. A stronger power can incline a weaker one through “promises” or threats, which we are now witnessing. A new global organization can also come to what is happening with the UN. only key figures can change, but the essence will remain the same.
    2. LaGlobal
      LaGlobal 25 March 2013 14: 31 New
      0
      Quote: SHOGUN
      The UN is the best organ of Russia's struggle against the "capitalists".


      Yeah right! But the opposite is true ... To our regret.
  12. SIT
    SIT 25 March 2013 11: 16 New
    +3
    The percentages mentioned in the article refer to the white arms market. How much is sold on the gray market will not be possible to calculate. According to the estimates of the same UN commission, the gray market is comparable in terms of sales with white. It’s only on white, in addition to small arms, warships, planes, tanks are sold, and on gray mostly light weapons. So how much do you need to sell machine guns, machine guns, mortars, grenade launchers in order to earn the same amount of money as for URO destroyers, bombers and fighters ?! And there is also a black market. Of course, it is an order of magnitude less gray, but also rather big. As of 2009, only in the Russian Federation 255000 criminal trunks were wanted. These are 20 divisions !! We must also take into account that, for example, small arms are a very reliable thing, and from rifles from the times of the 1st World War you can still confidently bring down at a distance of 600m. Unless of course the natives did not clean it from the muzzle with a steel ramrod. What can we say about the numerous Chinese, Egyptian, Romanian, Czech AK clones and the supply of our high-quality assault rifles from the time of the USSR. Cartridges 7.62X39 are sold at African bazaars with plastic basins. Shitty quality of course and no one knows whose production. The world is littered with weapons and it continues to produce and market. Moreover, the main market for gray and black schemes is Africa, southeast Asia, Latin America, and now also the Middle East. Not the most prosperous and well-fed places on the planet. On the one hand, of course, this leads to a limitation of the uncontrolled growth of the population of these regions, but on the other hand, arming millions of people who are hungry, uneducated, drugged by obscurantism is fraught with the appearance of them with this very weapon in more well-fed and bakery places. Moreover, apart from Latin America, they won’t be able to cross the ocean, but it’s quite simple to fall on a visit to brothers in faith with gifts in the form of AK and calls to beat infidels to Europe and Russia. If the UN does not work out any acceptable legislation regulating the white market and restricting the gray and black markets, then the quantity of weapons can become the quality of illegal armed groups that own these weapons, and then woe to those who do not have these weapons. And at us spears break permit not to permit pancakes pistols. Then it’s time to talk about the creation of a national guard and that every man next to the bed should have his personal weapons in the safe, with which he should run, which is said in the mobile prescription. The pot and spoon naturally also grab))))
    1. Mikhail3
      Mikhail3 25 March 2013 13: 27 New
      +1
      According to your reasoning, the quantity has long passed the qualitative threshold. And not only you argue like that, in general, the world is really oversaturated with weapons, everyone recognizes this. And what? Yes, in general, nothing. War is not a weapon, it holds them back. There is nothing so conducive to peacefulness, restraint and amicable resolution of conflicts than a clear awareness - the neighbor’s trunk is not at all thinner or shorter than yours.
      Only qualitative superiority, a breakthrough that needs to be used as soon as possible, can cause a military conflict.
      "We will give your answer to any of your questions.
      because we have Maxim, but you don’t have one! "
      So far, the enemy still has no machine guns in principle ... Excuse me, where do you work? For some reason, a vague suspicion gnaws at me that the adoption of a new bag of paper, meaningless and merciless, means for some foreign business trips, bonuses and, in general, an occupation for many years ...
      1. SIT
        SIT 25 March 2013 14: 14 New
        +3
        Quote: Mikhail3
        War is not a weapon, it holds them back.

        Napoleon said - to win the war I need money, money, and once again money. Now that the world is oversaturated with weapons, it has become even more relevant. It is enough to throw in money and indicate the goal. Whoever throws money in is the goal. Where will the next "insurgents" armed to the teeth after Syria and the solution of the issue with Iran appear? Moreover, with the current state of affairs, they will not have problems with ammunition and weapons. Problems will be where these fighters for true faith appear. So, no matter how we had to see these problems outside the window, and not on the TV.
        1. Mikhail3
          Mikhail3 25 March 2013 16: 05 New
          0
          Where will they NOT appear? This is the question we must ask ourselves (I’ll note your dexterity. It has no direct relation to the proliferation of weapons that some magic UN papers should hold back). So, with a guarantee these scum will not appear where they will be surely killed. After all, they kill the defenseless and run away.
          Maybe we will accept a wonderful document, by signing which we will prevent our mattress "friends" from arming these creatures to the teeth? Don’t share what document it should be? The final piece of paper? Armor? Alas, my heart is broadcasting to me ...
          So, if the fighters for democratic “freedoms” have a firm belief that they will take ten for one bullet, they won’t come, in spite of ANY sums that they will promise or even pay. Therefore - more weapons! More weapons, good and different IN OUR HANDS. No need to limit trade, it is necessary to develop it ...
          1. SIT
            SIT 25 March 2013 17: 27 New
            0
            Quote: Mikhail3
            Don’t share what document it should be? The final piece of paper? Armor?

            The paper must deal with gray schemes first of all. These schemes should be investigated and those responsible should be held accountable to the international tribunal. In the case of weapons and ammunition, this is quite simple. They have markings on which you can find out the whole chain.
            Quote: Mikhail3
            No need to limit trade, it is necessary to develop it ...

            Do you remember how in the Chechen campaign the army entered Grozny with machine guns of the 70s, and the militants had weapons of the 91st-93rd year of release? This is trade without limits - when your weapon shoots at you.
            1. Mikhail3
              Mikhail3 25 March 2013 17: 57 New
              0
              "The paper must fight gray schemes first of all" In general, everything is clear ... You see, paper can NOT fight with anything, with nothing at all. People involved in paper circulation often fall under paper hypnosis. Alas...
              An international (and not only) agreement can act only when it is inscribed not so much on paper as in the system of interests of the parties to the agreement. Or one of the parties is immeasurably stronger than the other, then the contract is an announcement of the will of the strong. You’ll deliver weapons to the wrong one - I’ll trample! In the modern world, following written papers is simply a sign ... like it is ... not too big of a mind.
              There is no immeasurably stronger partner. And everyone else is cheating almost in front of each other! Because fear is weakened. In this situation, the loser is primarily one who takes paperwork seriously. Because the rest are not going to follow any agreements! We need to arm ourselves and arm the allies. This is the only way when the rest have lost fear and are going to set fire to the house, hoping that their room will survive. It's silly to run around here with a piece of paper ...
              The example you cited. Alas, you are not talking about the free sale of weapons, but about the current situation in our country, unchanged since then. When bandits can arm themselves with whatever they want, but honest, law-abiding people standing for the power are absolutely not! Because how stupid suckers respect your beloved piece of paper. And the bandits do not respect and kill us! Of weapons that are bought freely! And we, I suspect with your labors, have nothing to answer. You do not even allow our army to arm themselves, because this contradicts the system of papers you built. Do you understand? The fault of those who protected honest people from weapons in every dead person. In every wounded, mutilated, in every grave - indelible guilt of those who did not give weapons to honest hands! Eternal shame and curse to cowards who are afraid of their people, who substituted it under bandit bullets ...
              1. SIT
                SIT 25 March 2013 23: 10 New
                0
                Quote: Mikhail3
                You see, paper can NOT fight anything, nothing at all. People involved in paper circulation often fall under paper hypnosis.

                A piece of paper makes the goat's face very legitimate and justifiable, which can be made to a competitor by implementing a gray arms supply scheme. At the moment of the end of the white part of the scheme and after loading the weapons on board, which is already carrying out the black part, the destroyer of sworn friends suddenly appears and from hundreds of junks its inspection team selects only those on which the weapon is. If someone suddenly relied on his powerful engines and tried to leave, then the planks of his skin flew across the sky for a long time. And all this will be completely legal, no cries of human rights activists will not roll. Nobody wants to go for it, because understand that when he himself wants to crank it out, the aircraft carrier of the competitors will turn out to be in the right place, and in the same way he will have to give up everything acquired by overwork or the cannons of the deck attack aircraft will send everything to the ground. The gray arms business is too profitable. There, after all, taxes go only from the white part, where the profit goes from the black, it is better not to dig anyone if he is not in the suicide club.
                Quote: Mikhail3
                And the bandits do not respect and kill us! Of weapons that are bought freely! And we, I suspect with your labors, have nothing to answer

                This has nothing to do with gray arms trading schemes. If you read my 1st post again, then I write that the best way to creep out Wahhabism would be to create a national guard according to the local principle. Weapons of the National Guards should not be sold, but given out under full responsibility and storage at home in appropriate conditions. Nuclear submarines, aircraft carriers, ICBMs of any kind against gangsters are useless. They are already here. They don’t have to march anywhere or build a front line. He drove a truck with a ton of explosives and pulled. It’s just that you can buy someone, someone far away may be interested in this, but you can’t take anyone who can become victims. They have nothing to lose, and if they are still armed, it is better not to appear with a bald head and a beard on the street, because it’s worth getting your gilded Stechkin and shouting akbar to Allah, so you will immediately get holes because there is more trouble with the prisoners.
  13. viruskvartirus
    viruskvartirus 25 March 2013 11: 53 New
    +2
    I don’t quite understand what the problem is. An agreement becomes an agreement when everyone signs it. If you don’t like it, don’t sign it and put it on him ...
    1. Black Colonel
      Black Colonel 25 March 2013 12: 48 New
      +4
      ... with the appliance. Or without. How to like it. Nobody has banned the supply of agricultural machinery, such as mowing machines with multi-fuel engines. Well, consumables for them, spare parts. good
    2. old rocket man
      old rocket man 25 March 2013 12: 48 New
      +2
      The problem is what to put on the agreement,accepted by most countries, and approved by the General Assembly, it is very simple in words, but in reality it will not be possible to carry out transit deliveries of weapons, and direct deliveries, for example, by sea, can be intercepted in international waters by ships of signatory countries on completely "legitimate" grounds.
      I would also like to add that the discrepancy between the UN and the prevailing political realities does not suit either Russia, the United States, or, moreover, most EU countries, but nevertheless, strangely enough, the creation of a new, comprehensive international organization based on the equal rights of all membersis unacceptable to us or to America, so for now,there is no alternative to the UN, but there is a veto
      1. viruskvartirus
        viruskvartirus 25 March 2013 13: 19 New
        +1
        "intercepted in international waters by the ships of the signatory countries on completely" legitimate "grounds." it is fraught, first you then you. This is chaos ... and nobody needs it a priori, it will cost a lot.
        1. old rocket man
          old rocket man 25 March 2013 13: 55 New
          0
          Quote: viruskvartirus
          "intercepted in international waters by the ships of the signatory countries on completely" legitimate "grounds." it is fraught, first you then you. This is chaos ... and nobody needs it a priori, it will cost a lot.

          Duc and I about the same
  14. Geisenberg
    Geisenberg 25 March 2013 12: 26 New
    0
    Yes, everything is simple. This is a long-counted noose for our frill. In the event that this agreement does not suit us, it simply does not need to be signed. Purely my opinion is that it’s just not necessary to sign it anyway. I think the staff members will be put to sleep.
  15. bazilio
    bazilio 25 March 2013 12: 35 New
    +2
    Well, I can only repeat myself - International law (MP) basically has the principles of cohesion, the basic principles and some of them contradict each other. On the example of Syria, the principle of non-interference in the internal affairs of the state, on the one hand, on the other, the principle of respect for human rights. Kosovo- the principle of the indivisibility and inviolability of state. borders and territorial integrity on the one hand and the principle of the people's rights to self-determination and independence. They play on these contradictions. In a similar context, the MP needs to be decrypted as I don't give a damn (instead of I don't give a damn you can put another, obscene word)))
  16. JonnyT
    JonnyT 25 March 2013 13: 01 New
    +1
    Everyone will boldly put it on it. No restrictions, treaties will never limit or displace the arms market.
  17. Sevastopol
    Sevastopol 25 March 2013 13: 04 New
    +1
    Why be surprised? The UN is a puppet of the United States, just another tool for upholding the national interests of this country. It is enough to see who finances this pathos organization:
    USA - 22% (nuclear weapons)
    Japan - 16% (no nuclear weapons)
    Germany 9% (no nuclear weapons)
    Great Britain 6,5% (nuclear weapons) = 53,5%, more than half.
    In fact, there are 2 countries with nuclear weapons that have their own unified political will.
    This is just an organization to defend the interests of the Anglo-Saxons. Everything else, albeit useful, is being done (blacks are fed and gangs ... they throw condoms to them from helicopters) just for the look, it's just a beautiful wrapper.
  18. Kolyan 2
    Kolyan 2 25 March 2013 13: 19 New
    0
    michael3 Today, 11:05 ↓ new 1
    One should not take all this legislative activity seriously. We suffer greatly from the stupid desire to comply with "international laws", which no one else thinks to comply with


    And there is no need to observe if France and their ilk openly supply weapons to terrorists and declare this, we also need to put a bolt on them and put Syria the weapons it needs, up to the S-300. WHAT THERE WOULD DO THOUGHT TO HELP TERRORISTS BY AVIATION. Well, something like this angry
    1. old rocket man
      old rocket man 25 March 2013 14: 06 New
      +2
      And there is no need to observe [quote = Kolyan 2] [b
      Well, yes, we will put on an arms supply treaty, Turkey will put on a straits treaty, NATO will put on an international shipping treaty, and where will we all go? And through the "where" will you take the S-300 to Syria? By airplanes through Iran-Iraq? fool
  19. homosum20
    homosum20 25 March 2013 14: 28 New
    +1
    "The conspiracy of the West against Russia ..." is awesome news, especially in the light of the events of the past 100 years.
    And who makes us sign this agreement. Let them go through the forest.
    If we have something to sell, it means that someone wants to buy - who is interested in the opinion of international society. We are not talking about color gond ... in talking. About weapons. It forms the public international opinion.
  20. Egoza
    Egoza 25 March 2013 17: 01 New
    +1
    on the supply of weapons that can be used to “suppress human rights”
    Lord gentlemen! And what weapons can’t be used to suppress human rights? Can you specifically name it?
    1. knn54
      knn54 26 March 2013 22: 55 New
      0
      Fidget: Lord of the military! And what weapons can’t be used to suppress human rights? Can you specifically name it?
      Elena-Serdyukovsky heritage. Details at http://zn.ua/WORLD/rossiyskaya-armiya-zakupit-naduvnye-tanki-i-samolety-118636_.

      html
  21. sedoii
    sedoii 25 March 2013 18: 43 New
    0
    Everything is simple. UN, roofs the arms market. USA, the roof of the UN. In total, instead of 30%, 99% is obtained.
  22. vjhbc
    vjhbc 25 March 2013 18: 49 New
    0
    why do we need this UN there for a long time nothing has been solved
  23. Goldmitro
    Goldmitro 25 March 2013 19: 41 New
    0
    It’s not in vain that the West, the “common people” have brought to light and are actively using the concept of “human rights”, in parallel, usurping the right to single-handedly determine in which countries these rights are respected, in which they are not and thus use this concept as DUBIN, which they supposedly , they can justifiably be used to overthrow the legitimate state power in any country, it is enough to only state that, TO THEIR OPINION, naturally categorical, human rights are violated in this country. Undoubtedly, our Ministry of Foreign Affairs needs to actively carry out a company to expose this practice of Western gaming democracies, which the world community did not endow with the right to single-handedly judge where human rights are respected and where there is no charge of a country in violation of these rights except as a cover for AGGRESSIVE intentions regarding this!
  24. redwar6
    redwar6 25 March 2013 21: 18 New
    0
    All this is sad.
  25. Martar
    Martar 26 March 2013 11: 37 New
    0
    The United States and those who satisfy their interests through the United States are ready to send millions of people to the meat grinder anywhere in the world so that their income does not fall, and when there is a force that begins to tame their appetites in their zones of influence, they immediately begin to trample, slander, pour mud, expose tyrants, in a word, attribute all of their scanty qualities to someone who actually stands for order, peace and justice.
  26. knn54
    knn54 26 March 2013 21: 39 New
    0
    Where is the text / draft agreement ... what are we discussing?