Talk:Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Suspension by Russia

User MoRsE added a statment that Putin withdrew from the CFE on the 26th of april and provided a reference. Putin did not say he was witdrawing, and the cited reference did not say he was withdrawing either! The reference said he threatened to withdraw, which is a lot different. I removed that entry, if MoRsE or somebody else wants to put in correct information that would be great although his threat for withdrawl does not seem relevant enough at this time to warrant inclusion in this article.

--

Right now the page mentions the Adapted Treaty not being ratified by NATO states but does not mention why. Regardless of what one thinks about the Western argument on this point, this seems like a serious omission. Russia is, after all, occupying part of Moldova and parts of Georgia. Fasrad 05:52, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

--

Article seems to be all about how evil big red-colored Russia is unilateraly withdrawing from treaty of arms limitations signed by many countries for the sake of peace and stability. The fact that Russia along with Kazakhstan and Ukraine were the only countries actually ratified and complying with it all the time, accepting inspections from NATO countries who weren't doing the same gets barely a mention. I suggest the following to improve the article: 1) add information on how treaty was actually working all these years it was signed (after all, that's what treaties are about, working); 2) elaborate on diplomatic practice of demanding extra concessions for ratification of signed treaty; 3) since presidental election of 2008 is mentioned, elaborate on its connection with suspension of treaty. If none found, delete this sentence.--85.30.201.226 08:33, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

You seem to confuse the (normal) CFE Treaty with the adapted CFE Treaty. In general, both NATO and Russia complied with the (normal) CFE Treaty. NATO refused to ratify the adapted CFE treaty because they considered that the withdrawal of Russian troops was a condition for ratification, as both the obligation to withdraw as the adapted CFE treaty were obligations assumed during the 1999 Istanbul summit. Put differently, NATO members considered it a negotiated package deal, i.e. they were willing to have the adapted treaty, but in return Russia had to withdraw its troops. Sijo Ripa 08:42, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I may confuse them, sorry. However, article still needs to be cleaned up a bit. All info related to suspension should be in its own section, rather than that plus introduction, setting tone and focus of article. More through information on how actually the treaty worked should be included. Also, point 3 still stands. --85.30.201.226 08:55, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Ok, done.Sijo Ripa 09:05, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 1992 end date?

The first sentence currently says:

The Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe (CFE) from 1989 to 1992 established comprehensive limits on key categories of conventional military equipment in Europe

Those dates don't make much sense to me in light of the rest of the article... if the treaty stopped being in effect in 1992 then what was Russia suspending compliance with in 2007? --Delirium 09:09, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Ok, fixed it. Negotiations in 1989 (and earlier?), signed in 1990 and entered into force in 1992. Sijo Ripa 14:55, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Real-world effect?

Is Russia actually at or near any of these limits? It would seem surprising for them to still be up to those limits after their economic problems and when so many former Warsaw Bloc countries are now in or near to the EU politically. 204.186.19.57 18:43, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

The following article could partially answer your question: List of equipment of the Russian Ground Forces. As this article is not conclusive, not sourced and not directly related to the CFE treaty (e.g. Russia is allowed to have more troops behind the Urals), it's better not to put the results in this article. Sijo Ripa 19:03, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Russia has been recently (within the last five-ten years) in violation of the original CFE treaty limits because they had more equipment in the 'Flanks' region (the North Caucasus Military District) than they were allowed. I can't speak for now though. In total, the numbers of Russian military equipment (crucially, as Sijo Ripa say, west of the Urals) are I believe, now nowhere near the limits- far below them. Buckshot06 19:29, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Buckshot06, do you have a source about Russia's violation in that region? I think it's more than interesting and relevant enough to be included in this article. I would also wish to read more about that myself. Sijo Ripa 19:58, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
It's covered under the article on the adapted treaty, signed in '99. I am not aware whether the current numbers of equipment in the Leningrad Military District and the NCMD still breach the original 1990 limits. Buckshot06 20:39, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Damn, I wrote that part in the article of the adapted treaty. I was wondering all the time where that "flank" region was (and when the non-compliance began). Kind of silly. Sijo Ripa 20:48, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Major edit

Reasons: (1) Please keep the content related to the title. The problems associated with the adapted CFE treaty belong to the article with that name. Some content is relevant for this article, but keep it short and put it in the right section (under the adapted treaty section, not in the compliance of the original CFE treaty section). (2) Please do not repeat the same content unneccesarely. Most of the stuff related to the linkage between withdrawal and ratification was already mentioned in the suspension section. (3) Please be careful about POV and OR and verifiability (no sourced are used). (Unsourced) Sentences such as "important to note" and "however", "close to be completely withdrawn" (while Russia did indeed withdraw troops and equipment, no additional withdrawals have been made since 2004 and it's debatable what "close to be completely withdrawn" is); "neglible" (debatable), "if weapons are left unprotected they will likely be used for illegal or terrorist activities" (there are already claims and some evidence that many of these weapons have been traded on the black market or used in other illicit activities); "No other force can currently provide this level of protection" (this sentence is an obvious POV: first of all, it seems to claim what Russia's sole purpose would be and seems to be used to defend Russia's stance; secondly, NATO proposed an international replacement force; thirdly, this is OR); "Trans-Dniest republic that physically control this territory does not have the capacity to protect weapons and republic of Moldova does not have a physical control of the territory itself" (debatable; OR); "However, now that Russia has withdrawn from the treaty, this is a moot point" (POv and OR).Sijo Ripa 00:12, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

We either need to remove this section altogether or make sure that it reflect facts. Right now it leaves an impression that there is a connection between withdrawals of troops from Moldova and Georgia. I would not object removing this section altogether. I agree with you that it's a duplication, but I believe you added it, no? Russia have been withdrawing troops from Georgia. There are reports almost monthly it seems that troops are leaving this area. Trans-Dniest republic have stated that they will not allow NATO troops to replace Russian troops, so NATO offer is rather useless.

I will put it back. If ou think that whole section is a duplication please remove this. As it stands this part is clearly not factual. Hifisoftware 01:24, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I already emphasized that Russia did partially withdraw and that there is no legal connection. All the rest is unneccessary for this article and POV. I just added it for a third time (now in the compliance section), what I find unnecessary. If you think that certain additions should be made, could we discuss them first and find the right section and sources together? Sijo Ripa 11:53, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Sounds very good to me. I like your edit much better as well. Fair and balanced now. :-) Thanks. Hifisoftware 16:24, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

What's missing now is mentioning of NATO violations of this treaty. Right now it only mentions issues from one side. Obviously highly biased. I propose this: "US, one of the NATO countries that signed and ratified this treaty, has plans to create bases in Romania and Bulgaria. Creation of these bases would be in breach of US obligation under this treaty. In response to this criticisms US responded that 5500 troops is "hardly any". Russia has only 1100 troops in Moldova. [1]"

Let me know if have a better edit of this part. Hifisoftware 22:33, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I have read your source and added some content. The source however only (clearly at least) says that the "permanent" nature is a breach of the treaty, and not the (amount of) troops. Perhaps, the (amount of) troops is a breach, but the source does not say so, so I only added the stuff about the permanent nature. Sijo Ripa 23:53, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] OR

I removed the following text - at least temporarely.

 This article or section may contain original research or unverified claims.
Please improve the article by adding references. See the talk page for details. (October 2007)
According to Russia, the Iskander-M deployment could mitigate some security risks potentially arising from the planned US ABM bases.[citation needed] Putin also indicated that Russia is hopeful that US strategic forces will not be deployed near the Russian border and that no countermeasures will be required.[2] Putin further said that "We do not want confrontation, we want cooperation; we do not need bases near any country". But Putin warned that "[i]f part of the U.S.' strategic nuclear arsenal is located in Europe and our military experts find that it poses a threat to Russia, we will have to take appropriate retaliatory steps," he said "We will have new targets in Europe."

I fear that we started synthesizing stuff by putting several things together, thereby violating WP:NOR. The Time magazine article shortly mentioned the Iskander-M in the context of (Russia's suspension of) the CFE treaty. The further additions however do not deal with the CFE treaty, but about the problems Russia perceives with the planned US ABM sites. Put differently, "we" are putting those two topics together because "we" think they belong together. That is OR. Sijo Ripa 23:34, 20 July 2007 (UTC)