Military Review

Moscow was ignored. The United Nations’s proposals to limit the UN arms trade did not take into account

54
Moscow was ignored. The United Nations’s proposals to limit the UN arms trade did not take into account

For the resolution giving the draft International Trade Treaty weapons (ATT) - the final status, at the UN General Assembly in April 154 states voted. Syria, Iran and North Korea were against the adoption of the document. 23 countries, including Russia, Belarus, Bolivia, Venezuela, China and Cuba, abstained. The treaty will be open for signature on June 3 and will enter into force on condition that it is ratified by fifty UN member states.


It would seem that the states that put disarmament and the struggle for peace at the center of their policies had no reason to vote against or refrain. But the fact is that the problem looks simple only at first glance. Moreover, all types of conventional weapons fall under the control of the treaty, it will also be carried out for the export of ammunition and spare parts for military equipment.

Why did Moscow take time out? Our diplomats tried to include in the draft treaty a provision on the inadmissibility of the re-sale of armaments, that is, for example, the introduction of an end-user certificate indicating that the weapon acquired by the importer would not fall into third hands. In this case, it will be with whom to ask for the appearance of a particular type of weapon in the zone of any conflict in one of the regions of the world. Among our other proposals is the impossibility of exporting weapons without the sanction of the president. So, as is customary in our country. Another of our initiatives is to fix in the contract a rule according to which weapons cannot be delivered to unauthorized non-state actors.

However, the Russian amendments were not taken into account, UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon welcomed the voting results, calling the document balanced and durable.

Euphoria was more than enough. Western NGO activists even staged a “performance” before voting at the UN headquarters, hoisting models of military equipment “killing people” on the roofs of neighboring houses.

Lech Walesa, the Dalai Lama, and one of the conductors of Western policy in Latin America, the former president of Costa Rica, Oscar Arias, have already come forward with a proposal to issue a document of this kind. The idea sounded great: "Oil instead of guns." They ardently insisted on the need to refrain from the supply of arms, which killed people in the poorest countries. There, where the majority of the population survives almost one dollar a day. At the same time, no one demanded that Western countries be deprived of the opportunity to siphon resources from their former colonies for a pittance, bringing their people to poverty. Jack Straw, the head of the UK foreign affairs department, which was always biased towards Russia, began lobbying this treaty in 1997.

Now the idea is “ripe”. Moscow, it seems raw, but the Western countries are completely satisfied.

The fact is that in “democratic countries” the right to sell weapons is also enjoyed, in addition to the state, by large transnational corporations.

South Korea, for example, enters into a contract to supply the latest F-35 fighter-bomber not with the United States, as a state, but with Lockheed-Martin corporation. It seems to be convenient, less red tape. But after all, control by the authorities too, which is why we proposed to transfer all arms sales to authorized bodies at the state level. By the way: in this case, various foreign dealers could not offer to conclude a contract for the development of dual-use technologies to our defense research institutes.

However, the Western version of the wording passed: “This Treaty does not apply to the international movement of conventional weapons carried out by or on behalf of a State party for use by it, provided that this State party remains the owner of these conventional weapons.” It is difficult to understand, so it is necessary to explain. Hypothetical case: in order to “calm down” fellow citizens dissatisfied with his rule, a certain African dictator “hires” a weapon from a like-minded neighbor. And passes it into the hands of loyal detachments. And those, in turn, are cracking down on the "rebels." According to the current version of the treaty, there is no fault of the authorities that have provided weapons.

If the Russian version had passed, such things could not have been in principle - only state bodies should act as a supplier and recipient of weapons.

After all, Moscow proposed to place emphasis where "there are increased risks for the diversion or arbitrary diversion of weapons to illicit trafficking." But - what happened, happened.

Another provision of the document is a passage stating that weapons should not be supplied "to commit or facilitate the commission of a serious violation of international humanitarian law." And also - if it can be used for violation of human rights, fixed by international agreements. There is also a provision according to which it is forbidden to consent to the export of weapons, if they "are used to commit acts of genocide, crimes against humanity, or other war crimes."

We explain our position. The provisions of the treaty will be applied on the basis of decisions that will be developed in the new special UN secretariat. In accordance with very vague criteria, it will be he who decides how improperly Russian or Chinese weapons are used in importing countries.

And it would be foolish for us to hope for objective assessments of Western experts, in the same Syria our overseas partners call terrorists “freedom fighters”. This may mean that, for example, our arms shipments to Syria to the legitimate government will become impossible.

Of course, no one deprives Russia of the right to object, only then the “verdict” can then be put up for consideration by the UN General Assembly. It makes decisions by simple voting, and we, unlike the Security Council, do not have our veto power. Consequently, we, willy-nilly, will have to obey. And this is a direct infringement of national interests.

The document is also full of absurdities generated by the notorious Western political correctness. For example, one of the articles called on exporting states to take into account the risk of “serious acts of gender-based violence” committed by their armaments. That is, you can’t, say, deliver Tanksif they will shoot women. The authors made another curtsy before the feministly concerned part of Western society. Probably, it would be more appropriate to talk about religious violence, about the high risk of the destruction of cultural property during armed conflicts. It seems that for the authors of the treaty none of this exists, there are only momentary political interests.

It is not profitable for us to accept this agreement for utilitarian reasons. In the ATT, there are passages on the topic that for “managing disarmament, demobilization and reintegration programs, creating model laws and effective implementation methods”, interstate cooperation will be organized. And he will be in charge of the treaty secretariat, which is becoming an influential international institution.

However, as practice shows, Russian representatives in all parts of the UN are not too much in demand. The creation of such a supervisory authority will automatically mean that it will be judged by people who, for the most part, are disposed towards our country is not at all friendly.

That is why Russia did not support the treaty in its current form. There are many beautiful words in the document, Moscow suggested specifics. Mikhail Ulyanov, Director of the Department for Security and Disarmament Affairs at the Foreign Ministry, called the ATT "a weak and sloppy document." Of course, the drafters tried to sweeten the pill: they included in it a clause according to which six years after the entry into force of the document “any state party can propose amendments”. No need to wait for so long, today it is clear that Moscow’s proposals will not be heard and accepted. Like this was not done very recently.

Now the West will begin to accuse Russia even more actively of its unwillingness to “put out” military conflicts in the world. While maintaining their right to supply arms to their members.
Author:
Originator:
http://www.stoletie.ru/
54 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. fortunophile
    fortunophile 21 May 2013 15: 49
    +3
    Our diplomats tried to include in the draft treaty a provision on the inadmissibility of the re-sale of arms, that is, for example, on the introduction of an end-user certificate indicating that the arms acquired by the importer would not fall into third hands. In this case, there will be someone to ask for the appearance of a particular type of weapon in the zone of any conflict in one of the regions of the world. Among our other proposals is the impossibility of exporting weapons without the approval of the president. So, as is customary in our country. Another initiative of ours is to fix in the contract the rule according to which weapons cannot be delivered to unauthorized non-state entities.

    Reasonable suggestions, but not acceptable to the West. They still need to "start" a lot of things, the Syrian bandits, and then Iran "looms" ...
    1. Canep
      Canep 21 May 2013 16: 39
      +9
      If this provision were adopted, an Iran-Contra scam would not have been possible.
      1. APASUS
        APASUS 21 May 2013 19: 32
        10
        Quote: Canep
        If this provision were adopted, an Iran-Contra scam would not have been possible.


        It’s just that armament is now going to Turkey, but is in the hands of cannibals in Syria!
        It will have to be explained, but Americans don’t like passion when they poke their faces into it ....?
        1. Geisenberg
          Geisenberg 21 May 2013 23: 40
          +1
          Quote: APASUS
          Quote: Canep
          If this provision were adopted, an Iran-Contra scam would not have been possible.


          It’s just that armament is now going to Turkey, but is in the hands of cannibals in Syria!
          It will have to be explained, but Americans don’t like passion when they poke their faces into it ....?


          It will end with the fact that a private company will be created to sell weapons in the same Syria, and the GDP will simply not pay attention to it. And this private trader can close and open an infinite number of times. Or even simpler - weapons manufactured for sale in other countries will be marked as manufactured in the USA, for example ...
  2. BARKAS
    BARKAS 21 May 2013 15: 58
    +8
    As the West supplied weapons to various scum and adventurers like Osama, it will continue to do this wondering why there is nothing to do; just give up, it didn’t work out now, it will work out then you need to continue to work further in this direction.
    1. Larus
      Larus 21 May 2013 17: 00
      +3
      The fact is that then there will be a commission meeting, on which the path from the office of the US representative will be trodden on, and we know how they work. And it will be us who will always get nuts from this worthless UN office.
      1. Atlon
        Atlon 21 May 2013 18: 24
        0
        Quote: Larus
        And it will be us who will always get the nuts from this worthless UN office.

        Get out of the UN! To announce a vote of no confidence, to persuade other "offended" to leave. To create your own international organization ... Although, probably all the same, adventurism is ...
        1. atalef
          atalef 21 May 2013 18: 30
          -3
          Quote: Atlon
          Yes get out of the UN!

          belay
          Quote: Atlon
          Announce a vote of no confidence

          lol

          A vote of no confidence is passed by a majority vote
          Quote: Atlon
          persuade other "offended" to leave

          It will be typed exactly as much as recognized by South Ossetia (or even less)
          laughing
          Quote: Atlon
          Create your own international organization ..

          Offended & And who will we influence / Organization of countries so on 5?
          laughing
          Quote: Atlon
          Although, probably all the same adventure is ...

          Adventurism involves at least a drop of common sense, it's just stupid wassat
          1. Phantom Revolution
            Phantom Revolution 21 May 2013 20: 48
            +3
            Quote: atalef
            Adventurism involves at least a drop of common sense; it was just stupidity wassat

            Why BRICS is very heavy, this is not a spontaneous step, but the soil must be prepared.
            Judging by the BRICS Bank, if created, there will be a big blow to the IMF and its holders. You should not leave the UN; there are other ways of influence.
            1. atalef
              atalef 21 May 2013 21: 06
              -1
              Quote: Phantom Revolution
              Why BRICS is so heavy

              Little things, neither political nor economic. An organization uniting (conditionally) countries with completely different political platforms and geopolitical interests. It's like LAS seems to be there, going to meetings. shouts are shoved, unity is portrayed, and as with a foot out the door - each plays his own game

              Quote: Phantom Revolution
              fishing for the BRICS bank if created, there will be a big blow to the IMF and its holders.

              What is the IMF in general? Kuwait Development Fund is much larger. The IMF is a more declarative organization. marina for elite bureaucrats and nothing more.
              By the way, there’s nothing for Brix to lend, and no one (except for countries from which you won’t get any grandmothers), so there are empty voices.

              Quote: Phantom Revolution
              You should not leave the UN; there are other ways of influence.

              surprisingly . but at certain points the UN is the most influential.
              1. Vadivak
                Vadivak 21 May 2013 21: 16
                +3
                Quote: atalef
                but at certain points the UN is the most influential.


                It was the case, the UN troops in Korea, in 1956, after a condemning decision, Israel complied with the UN decision and withdrew its troops from the occupied territories - the Sinai Peninsula and the Gaza Strip, and the UN troops were stationed on them.



                1. atalef
                  atalef 22 May 2013 11: 31
                  0
                  Quote: Vadivak
                  The Sinai Peninsula and the Gaza Strip, and UN troops were stationed on them.

                  Yes, but this absolutely did not stop Egypt (when he needed it) to throw out UN troops from Sinai and declare war on Israel.
                  And in general, remember at least the massacre in Rwanda, when people were slaughtered not just under the nose of UN soldiers, but almost 5 meters away. Who managed to run outside the gates of the base, survived, whom they overtook before the gates - they chopped it down.
              2. Phantom Revolution
                Phantom Revolution 21 May 2013 23: 02
                +2
                Quote: atalef
                Little things, neither political nor economic. An organization uniting (conditionally) countries with completely different political platforms and geopolitical interests. It's like LAS seems to be there, going to meetings. shouts are shoved, unity is portrayed, and as with a foot out the door - each plays his own game

                Dear, these countries are developing and not only in the economic, but also in the military aspect. They also make up almost half of the world's population. So, how else do they represent weight.



                Quote: atalef
                What is the IMF in general? Kuwait Development Fund is much larger. The IMF is a more declarative organization. marina for elite bureaucrats and nothing more.

                Do not be so cunning, can you tell us what currency the Kuwait Development Fund consists of?) The IMF is a global lender, if BRICS will provide loans, then there will be demand for supply. Regarding the ability to lend, do you lie again, or tell you who is currently lending to the United States? Read it will become interesting.
                Quote: atalef
                surprisingly . but at certain points the UN is the most influential.

                Undoubtedly influential at the moment. But in fact it represents a colossus with feet of clay. Whoever wants to, will go vetto to the UN, for example, the USA So let’s say this, it’s nothing more than a sham, like there is a UN, but whoever is strong plays according to his own rules.
                1. atalef
                  atalef 22 May 2013 11: 33
                  0
                  Quote: Phantom Revolution
                  Dear, these countries are developing and not only in the economic, but also in the military aspect. They also make up almost half of the world's population. So, how else do they represent weight.

                  Weight may be based on the amount of population weight. It seems to me that Switzerland alone outweighs (by its influence) half of Africa or Latin America.
        2. SASCHAmIXEEW
          SASCHAmIXEEW 21 May 2013 18: 35
          +4
          So they will agree and sell nuclear weapons to private individuals!
        3. Ezhaak
          Ezhaak 21 May 2013 21: 33
          +2
          Quote: Atlon
          To announce a vote of no confidence, to persuade other "offended" to leave

          And as a result, it turns out that there are two organizations competing among themselves, one of which will be categorically crushed by the United States. And I don’t even see a shadow of competition between them.
    2. avega
      avega 21 May 2013 18: 52
      +5
      in fact you are right))) but nothing prevents us from having a couple of "gaskets" - virtual non-existent organizations, trading from them and continuing to bend our political line ...
      and I’m also concerned about the change period of 6 years .... I don’t want to think up anything ... but the suspicion that this period is not registered spontaneously ... I feel this is a well-considered and balanced term for unhealthy acts ....
  3. domovoi
    domovoi 21 May 2013 16: 06
    11
    Damn **, I don’t understand, really no one understands that the UN, OSCE and other "international communities" are a props that will never harm themselves ?!
    1. Val_y
      Val_y 21 May 2013 16: 50
      +9
      This props was created just for the purpose of “international communities” to cover up their own political and, most importantly, economic interests, only of “democratic” Western countries and will NEVER protect ANYONE else. This was clearly seen during the invasion of Iraq (with its weapons of mass destruction) Libya, now they are afraid of mustard gas to invade Syria. Eh, politics .... The most important thing is that the country's politicians were with strong me .... and then all this tolerant fuss with gender impurities will calm down by itself, as with China, for example, (human rights activists say and everyone shut up). That's it.
      1. atalef
        atalef 21 May 2013 18: 34
        +7
        Quote: Val_Y
        This props and created

        Today, only thanks to Russia's veto in the United Nations, Assad remains in power. Without this, a no-fly zone would have been a long time ago, with all the consequences.
        The UN is a vile organization, little connected with reality and justice. But this is at least some kind of power protecting from complete chaos.
        1. igor.borov775
          igor.borov775 21 May 2013 19: 57
          +2
          It’s not just a matter of words, the UN itself was implicated in an internal conflict, and it was not so long ago, the Blue Helmets organized and stormed the presidential palace, Helicopters and artillery participated, and the same with infantrymen, And the UN Secretary General himself gave the go-ahead,
          1. atalef
            atalef 21 May 2013 21: 09
            +1
            Quote: igor.borov775
            And the UN Secretary General himself gave the green light to this matter,

            In the gene. UN Secretary has no authority to send soldiers. nor to the cottage of any kind.
            Exclusively Owls. without the UN and excluding military action. UN troops, by definition, cannot take part in attacks, assaults, etc. Only observers.
        2. elmir15
          elmir15 21 May 2013 20: 29
          +5
          Quote: atalef
          Today, only thanks to Russia's veto in the United Nations, Assad remains in power. Without this, a no-fly zone would have been a long time ago, with all the consequences.

          Yeah, I see how the veto "helped" us in the Yugoslav conflict. America sneezed at the veto and did everything in its own way.
          1. atalef
            atalef 21 May 2013 21: 13
            +5
            Quote: elmir15
            Yeah, I see how the veto "helped" us in the Yugoslav conflict. America sneezed at the veto and did everything in its own way.

            I don’t remember if the Veto.
            But the Soviet without the UN is not omnipotent. If any country decides to declare war on the second, the UN will not be able to do anything. Unless the Sov. Without deciding (unanimously) to allow a military operation under the auspices of the UN.
            All this billiards is just for that. so that countries participating in the war under the auspices of the UN a priori could not be called aggressors and be protected from lawsuits in the Hague court.
            1. Vadivak
              Vadivak 21 May 2013 21: 30
              +4
              Quote: atalef
              I don’t remember if the Veto.


              There was nothing at all, the NATO operation was carried out without the permission of the UN Security Council, without a UN mandate, and therefore it is considered illegal, subsequently, the UN Resolution condemning NATO’s actions as aggression gathered only three votes in favor (Russia, Namibia and China) with vote in the UN Security Council and failed. The number of votes required for the adoption of the Resolution may be equal to 1/2 of the total number of countries members of the UN Security Council
    2. Larus
      Larus 21 May 2013 17: 01
      0
      When money rules the ball and reminds about debts, then everyone knows everything, but they pretend that everything is honest.
    3. Curculum
      Curculum 21 May 2013 17: 06
      +2
      Quote: domovoi
      UN, OSCE and other "international communities" are a props

      By and large, I agree with you, but nevertheless some "levers" in the UN work (the same veto on Security Council resolutions). And they, at the slightest opportunity, must be used to the full - this is the main task of our diplomats, in my opinion.
      1. SASCHAmIXEEW
        SASCHAmIXEEW 21 May 2013 18: 39
        0
        In moymu, you must try to blackmail them with the use of nuclear weapons!
    4. Interface
      Interface 21 May 2013 17: 45
      +5
      Yes, they went, I'm sorry. into three well-known letters, these are Dovse and UN. In recent years, 20-30 they are only engaged in boltology, and not in real business. But Russia has supplied and will continue to supply armaments wherever it pleases, we are not a small-state power so that
      limit yourself in your own ambitions. Let Turkey, for example, limit itself, crawl wherever it falls, with its Ottomanism.
    5. taseka
      taseka 21 May 2013 19: 09
      +3
      "The court will be ruled by people who, for the most part, are not at all friendly towards our country."- the West is rotting! And this rotting is controlled by businessmen from the USA - Well, nothing, the patricians of Rome also thought that they were eternal!
  4. avt
    avt 21 May 2013 16: 15
    +8
    Quote: domovoi
    Damn **, I don’t understand, really no one understands that the UN, OSCE and other "international communities" are a props that will never harm themselves ?!

    By and large, the UN is already hindering the Naglo-Saxons, this is the legacy of the Yalta security system, which they dismantle with the collapse of the USSR with varying degrees of success, since they are forced to observe "democratic" decency and do not want to openly declare their tough totalitarian power.
    1. Denis
      Denis 21 May 2013 16: 24
      +3
      It's time for Moscow to start ignoring THEM.
      1. Scoun
        Scoun 21 May 2013 17: 04
        10
        Quote: Denis
        It's time for Moscow to start ignoring THEM.

        why ignore? you just have to start playing by their rules.
        We sell "for example" to Iran, Syria, OTRK, MANPADS, and they give this weapon to someone .. and these "somebody" will start shooting down ... but all the complaints about the shooting ..
        and immediately the UN will begin to amend.
        Bastards they are over.
        1. folds
          folds 21 May 2013 17: 32
          +1
          This is not how it should be done - it is necessary to officially sell weapons to the Syrian rebels, and to inform Assad's troops the exact time, place of transfer and whether the receiving party has the forces and means to protect it. And we have "international authority" and Syria will survive! Basically, this is if Moscow intends to pay attention to the tolerastic howl from the UN.
  5. The comment was deleted.
  6. Manager
    Manager 21 May 2013 16: 23
    +7
    Kuram laughs)) What we counted on. Figuratively speaking, they turned our hat along with our opinion.
    That's when we pursue a tough policy and do what we consider necessary, then they will listen to us.
    1. olegyurjewitch
      olegyurjewitch 21 May 2013 19: 09
      0
      Quote: Manager
      Figuratively speaking, they turned our hat along with our opinion.

      This is how to trust and trust the "partners", it is not for nothing that the Americans have been so quiet lately, once again all these democratic countries are pulling our noses! That's right, they see Libya got away with it, Iraq got away with it, but where Whatever it is, they can get away with everything. They wanted to cough at the UN and Security Councils. You can't directly, so they bypass. In the end, we will be left alone against all this shobla-yobley with our policy.
    2. igor.borov775
      igor.borov775 21 May 2013 20: 05
      +1
      It is absolutely true to pursue our own policy, Sell as we think it is necessary, and let diplomats blabber all these claims, the experience is considerable, I think they’ll try to organize a boycott, we have already passed, The more expensive and valuable our weapon will be, by the way the boycott was for anti-tank systems that burned your favorite ABRAMS, although then they simply canceled they could not prove anything
  7. mabuta
    mabuta 21 May 2013 16: 33
    +4
    THE KILLERS. They simply legitimize the resale of weapons and now there is no need to deny: - I'm not me and the toy is not mine. UROO.D.Y.
    1. folds
      folds 21 May 2013 17: 33
      +2
      So we also need to use this hole in the law, to know through whom it is possible to resell weapons to the countries we need.
  8. JonnyT
    JonnyT 21 May 2013 16: 55
    +2
    UN - the defender of world peace ???? no, have not heard)

    We all know whose interests this pseudo-world organization defends, so you should not pay attention. It is necessary to continue to work to strengthen security in the world without looking at the UN. Recently, all the statements of this organization are nothing more than a cover for the crimes of the United States and their satellites. The Weapons Act is a clear advocacy of the interests of the United States and its arms companies, and not concern the world
  9. Larus
    Larus 21 May 2013 16: 57
    +2
    Ban Ki-moon has long stuck to the ass of Amers and does everything as they fucked him from there. Yes, and it's time to dissolve this UN, because. for a long time it does not correspond to the modern realities of world politics, etc. Or we wait for another war, then to come up with something new ....
    1. SASCHAmIXEEW
      SASCHAmIXEEW 21 May 2013 18: 46
      0
      There was the League of Nations, now the UN, what's next?
  10. waisson
    waisson 21 May 2013 17: 09
    +2
    where is the UN and where is Moscow time to move the UN headquarters to some developing African state
  11. Black
    Black 21 May 2013 17: 12
    +1
    Quote: Larus
    Ban Ki-moon has long stuck to the ass of amers and does everything as they pissed him out of there.


    Well, everything is simple. Who feeds the girl that and .... Compare - what money is flowing to the UN from the United States, and from Russia.

    But to abandon the UN is stupid to the point. Is there any other tool we have now? We grow up, we get stronger, and then it will be possible to think.
    1. Larus
      Larus 21 May 2013 17: 26
      0
      Yes, even if we pay more, there will be no sense from this for all sixes have been working under the contract for a long time.
  12. treskoed
    treskoed 21 May 2013 17: 24
    +1
    We said our proposals from the UN rostrum, they did not go through, but were heard. As a country - an exporter of weapons, we even win economically. Time will tell who is right!
  13. arajsman
    arajsman 21 May 2013 17: 29
    10 th
    Well, who will reckon with the country of the 3rd world?! Yes, and for what ?!
    1. Curculum
      Curculum 21 May 2013 17: 39
      +6
      Quote: arajsman
      Well, who will reckon with the country of the 3rd world?! Yes, and for what ?!

      Are you in Russia while studying, on a business trip or as a guest worker?
      1. Manager
        Manager 21 May 2013 17: 53
        +6
        Quote: Kurkul
        Are you in Russia while studying, on a business trip or as a guest worker?


        He probably considers his mountain Aul with donkeys the center of Europe lol
        1. family tree
          family tree 21 May 2013 18: 25
          +5
          arajsman... and the surname is not ours either wassat
  14. lilit.193
    lilit.193 21 May 2013 17: 30
    0
    UN is a bureaucratic party consisting of countries. And the most influential of these countries trade arms, and they will not want to lose such a profitable feeding trough as arms exports. And other countries want to buy weapons from them and equip them with their army. And everything, the circle closed. So what is there to be surprised. wink
  15. Standard Oil
    Standard Oil 21 May 2013 17: 45
    +1
    Moscow was ignored. The United Nations’s proposals to limit the UN arms trade did not take into account
    Something I'm not surprised.
  16. luka095
    luka095 21 May 2013 18: 10
    +4
    There is really nothing to be surprised at. The result of the vote was known in advance. The voting machine is working.
    Russia, obviously, will not ratify this treaty (and what, interestingly, are sanctions for its violation provided?). So, he can act based on his interests ...
  17. Vitaly Anisimov
    Vitaly Anisimov 21 May 2013 18: 31
    +3
    Obama recently proposed that Russia reduce nuclear weapons by several times .. but given the fact that the United States is many times superior to us with high-precision conventional weapons, we refused .. (I think the reason is clear) But this initiative is to control and account for the sale of weapons .. good the idea .. (many regional conflicts could be extinguished initially, or at least know who supplies I’m not talking about Kalash, of course)
  18. spirit
    spirit 21 May 2013 18: 37
    0
    YES THE SAME “Lockheed Martin” IS THE STATE IN THE STATE, they have the whole congress in their pockets !!! They said it’s right to beat with the same weapon. We’ll sell what kind of thread to an open-air company for a couple of billion weapons, and let them let it go around the world )) But I doubt that our leadership will deliver weapons for round sums to even friendly countries in the USSR, and the pressure will be enormous (sanctions, lists, opposition), the trumpet is shorter, that’s all.
  19. The comment was deleted.
  20. kartalovkolya
    kartalovkolya 21 May 2013 18: 39
    +1
    It is high time to act in their own interests, without looking back at the UN! The interests of their country and people should be at the forefront of Russia's policy. And let those ..... let them scream: “... the dog barks, and the caravan is moving!” It's time to do only what is beneficial only to us and to no one else. and will not ignore us.
  21. Vitaly Anisimov
    Vitaly Anisimov 21 May 2013 18: 41
    +2
    Quote: arajsman
    Well, who will reckon with the country of the 3rd world?! Yes, and for what ?!

    I've been reading these statements for 20 years now, listening to ... now just one screeching out of impotence to take anything against Russia .. and it pleases .. !!! Do not worry so much for us, we will figure it out as always .. but ourselves without "teachers"
  22. KononAV
    KononAV 21 May 2013 18: 42
    0
    The opinion of Russia does not interest anyone; all their laws are aimed at evil for us
  23. kind
    kind 21 May 2013 18: 42
    0
    Now the West will begin to accuse Russia even more actively of its unwillingness to “put out” military conflicts in the world. While maintaining their right to supply arms to their members.

    The Pyro shouts the loudest - "Fire".
  24. kartalovkolya
    kartalovkolya 21 May 2013 18: 42
    +1
    That's when We will ignore this riffraff, then they will bow and persuade us. It's time to do only what is beneficial only to us and to no one else.
  25. Ivanovich47
    Ivanovich47 21 May 2013 18: 52
    0
    Our diplomats did the right thing. The documents concocted by the West have always been directed against Russia and her friends! Russia's foreign policy must be independent of American notions of "democracy"!
  26. knn54
    knn54 21 May 2013 19: 03
    +1
    It's just that the West wants to throw Russia (and not only) out of the arms market. And bypassing the principle of non-interference in the affairs of sovereign states, "spitting" towards international law.
    What is the West? This is D.E.R.M.O. in beautiful packaging.
    1. olegyurjewitch
      olegyurjewitch 21 May 2013 19: 17
      0
      Quote: knn54
      What is the West? This is D.E.R.M.O. in beautiful packaging

      However, this is D.E., P, b, M, O. around us, and never before this shit there were principles aimed at improving something or someone, only they are the navels of the earth, the rest something.
  27. avant-garde
    avant-garde 21 May 2013 19: 33
    0
    Democrats are bad, don’t worry, do not worry, and we (Russia) will beat you like that !!! It’s not for nothing that you’re already crawling on your knees, and your delegations have gone behind, there will still be roofing felts ...
  28. Vitaly Anisimov
    Vitaly Anisimov 21 May 2013 19: 37
    +1
    I accidentally got on the site, I read it for two months ... everything .. (very interesting and instructive) I like weapons technology (I watch doc films a star) Just a question for the forum old-timers (I just read what they think about us in the camp of foes and usually write banyat ..))) here too so .. ??? or are they just afraid to go to the site .. ???
    1. zvereok
      zvereok 21 May 2013 22: 35
      0
      And what kind of camp? It seems like the Professor lives here, sometimes he pushes sensible thoughts, but I will not name him as a friend, and yes, as an old-timer. I really didn’t get old, so I could be wrong.
  29. Dimy4
    Dimy4 21 May 2013 19: 55
    0
    And don't we give a damn about these accusations of the West. Whether we abide by the treaty or not, we will ALWAYS be accused of something until we gain strength. And the UN, in my opinion, has long been an empty space and serves to convey the will of the "developed" countries to the rest of the world, which cannot conduct an independent policy.
    1. zvereok
      zvereok 21 May 2013 22: 37
      0
      They will ALWAYS blame us without relatively gaining strength or not. Just from some point, we will stop paying attention to it.
  30. lemal
    lemal 21 May 2013 20: 18
    0
    UN on soap !!!
  31. Conepatus
    Conepatus 21 May 2013 20: 31
    0
    Well, they disobeyed, it wasn’t necessary. But now, under this case, Iran can push everything you want.
    I am more than sure that as soon as Russia starts selling Iran the latest models of military equipment, (not forgetting about possible friction in the Caspian Sea), guests in the person of the same UN Secretary General, all sorts of US foreign ministers will immediately reach Russia, the Saudis will also arrive and Jews (how can it be without them) And these pots will tearfully ask not to sell weapons to Iran, they will promise any dividends, take interesting poses (they are taught this from childhood) But what a thrill, resolutely show these goats, our Slavic "dul" and do it your way.
    1. Karabin
      Karabin 21 May 2013 21: 04
      0
      Quote: Conepatus
      resolutely show these goats, our Slavic "dulia" and do it their own way.

      In order for Russia to decisively show something, it is necessary to abandon, as they put it at one of the forums, from a "soft-spoken" foreign policy. As for the "Slavic mules", we succeeded by showing them to each other. Here's the last one:
      Peacekeepers in Transnistria underwent a transport blockade by Ukraine and Moldova, Colonel General Valery Yevnevich, Assistant Minister of Defense of Russia, said on Tuesday at a roundtable in the State Duma
      http://www.vz.ru/news/2013/5/21/633554.html
  32. Grigorich 1962
    Grigorich 1962 21 May 2013 21: 04
    0
    Russia's voice is weak in international affairs of this magnitude. We have no allies at all. The CIS is fragmented, the BRICS has not yet mastered. But it is the BRICS that could now influence international politics like no other organization, including the corrupt UN.
  33. surveyor
    surveyor 21 May 2013 21: 13
    0
    We must sell the S-300 to the private owner Assad drinks
  34. Alexander_
    Alexander_ 21 May 2013 21: 13
    0
    Not surprised at all. There can be no other, only something can be decided by force.
  35. La hire
    La hire 21 May 2013 21: 18
    +1
    WE, THE PEOPLES OF THE UNITED NATIONS, COMPLETE DECISIONS

    save future generations from the scourge of war
    that twice in our life has brought untold sorrow to humanity, and

    reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women and in the equality of rights of large and small nations, and

    create conditions under which justice and respect for obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law can be respected; and

    to promote social progress and better living conditions with greater freedom,

    AND FOR THESE PURPOSES

    show tolerance and live together, in peace with each other, as good neighbors, and

    join our forces to maintain international peace and securityand

    ensure the adoption of principles and the establishment of methods so that the armed forces are used only in the common interest, and

    use the international apparatus to promote the economic and social progress of all peoples,

    DECIDED TO COMBINE OUR EFFORTS TO ACHIEVE THESE GOALS.

    Accordingly, our respective governments, through representatives gathered in the city of San Francisco, having presented their credentials, found in proper form, have agreed to accept this Charter of the United Nations and hereby establish an international organization called “United Nations”.


    This is a preamble to the UN Charter. Sounds good? It is a pity that it does not correspond to reality.
  36. Vitaly Anisimov
    Vitaly Anisimov 21 May 2013 21: 22
    0
    The main thing is not to hysteria (especially in interest) everything is going according to plan .. (yes here .. yes if .. yes we would ..) it's time to forget .. in the present time .. and our very favorite (maybe it will blow ..) ))) it's time to act and you need to start with yourself from your children .. what we write here is necessary for our children to tell (or rather to show .. military equipment films on hikes to go skating on skis ..)) they look at us with hope. . !!!
  37. andrei332809
    andrei332809 21 May 2013 21: 22
    0
    Damn (not to say stronger), it's not even funny. What kind of "double standards"? democracy will never give up sponsoring wars. and it is not the country that sells, but the firms. and to associate the sale of weapons with someone's pocket is the height of intolerance
  38. darksoul
    darksoul 21 May 2013 21: 55
    0
    it means that you don’t need to refuse anything yourself ... c300 to Syria, help with weapons, train fighters
  39. poquello
    poquello 21 May 2013 22: 17
    +1
    Now the West will begin to accuse Russia even more actively of its unwillingness to “put out” military conflicts in the world. While maintaining their right to supply arms to their members.

    So what? Dogs bark - the caravan is coming. The Americans laid on environmental law and nothing, it’s time for us to put on everything that is against our interests.
  40. QWEST
    QWEST 21 May 2013 22: 20
    0
    this cannot be
  41. EDW
    EDW 21 May 2013 22: 28
    +1
    The UN resolution of Russia only unties its hands.
    Now you can even deliver poplars through intermediaries,
    ... even if I rent an apl with yao to Syria (private owner Assad) (also for 6 years),
    - this is where unpredictable freedom of action opens :)
    (exaggerate, of course, but still) ...
    That’s the turn in the Kremlin if you use the situation wisely.
  42. zvereok
    zvereok 21 May 2013 22: 42
    0
    Well woke up and stop:

    "The General Assembly is empowered to make only non-binding recommendations to states on international issues."
  43. The comment was deleted.
  44. escobar
    escobar 22 May 2013 00: 14
    +1
    YOURSELF BACK:
  45. Nitarius
    Nitarius 22 May 2013 06: 22
    0
    NDA now I feel the need to invest more in the defense industry!
    For it’s not cool, but some countries, in the form of England, etc. It is necessary to mix with shit!
    1. Ulysses
      Ulysses 22 May 2013 09: 54
      0
      The presence on the world map of the British Isles is generally an anachronism and a relic of the last century. wassat
  46. a
    a 22 May 2013 15: 26
    0
    It is time for the country to give a damn about all these screens and act like a strong power does, do what it considers good for itself. All of these UN and other PACE are a political screen for the politics of strong countries. If we are a strong country, they will reckon with us without political games. If wimps, then our destiny is to write resolutions