Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Putin to Suspend Pact With NATO

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Putin to Suspend Pact With NATO

    Putin to Suspend Pact With NATO


    By C. J. CHIVERS and MARK LANDLER
    Published: April 27, 2007

    MOSCOW, April 26 — President Vladimir V. Putin said Thursday that Russia would suspend its compliance with a treaty on conventional arms in Europe that was forged at the end of the cold war, opening a fresh and intense dispute in the souring relations between NATO and the Kremlin.

    The announcement, made in Mr. Putin’s annual address to Parliament, underscored the Kremlin’s anger at the United States for proposing a new missile defense system in Europe, which the Bush administration insists is meant to counter potential threats from North Korea and Iran.

    Mr. Putin suggested that Russia would use its future compliance with the treaty as a bargaining point in that disagreement with the United States.

    The new standoff also demonstrated the Kremlin’s lingering frustration over NATO’s expansion toward Russia’s borders and with the treaties negotiated in the 1990s when Russia, still staggering through its post-Soviet woes, was much weaker and less assertive on the world stage than it is today.

    Although Mr. Putin did not mention it on Thursday, Russia is angry that in 2001 the Bush administration unilaterally pulled out of the Antiballistic Missile Treaty of 1972.

    On Monday, Mr. Putin’s defense minister, Anatoly E. Serdyukov, rejected an offer from the visiting American defense secretary, Robert M. Gates, to share antimissile technology, which had been intended as a way to assuage Moscow’s opposition to Washington’s missile defense plan.

    Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, speaking in Oslo at a gathering of diplomats from NATO countries, reacted coldly to Mr. Putin’s speech.

    “These are treaty obligations, and everyone is expected to live up to treaty obligations,” she said.

    Ms. Rice also dismissed Russian concerns that introducing new military technology to Europe could upset the balance of forces there and set off an escalation that could lead to a new cold war. She called such claims “purely ludicrous” and said the scale of the proposed missile defense system was obviously far too small to defend against the Russian nuclear arsenal.

    Though the step by Mr. Putin was incremental, it was highly symbolic and reminiscent of brinkmanship in the cold war.

    The agreement in question, the Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe, known by the initials C.F.E., was signed in 1990 by the members of NATO and of the Warsaw Pact, including Russia.

    It required the reduction and relocation of much of the main battle equipment then located along the East-West dividing lines, including tanks, artillery pieces, armored vehicles and attack aircraft. It also established an inspection regime.

    Under the treaty more than 50,000 pieces of military equipment were converted or destroyed by 1995. With its initial ambitions largely achieved, it was renegotiated in 1999, adding a requirement that Russia withdraw its forces from Georgia and Moldova, two former Soviet republics where tensions and intrigue with Moscow run high.

    Russia has not withdrawn its troops, and the revised treaty has not been ratified by most of the signing nations, including the United States, which has withheld ratification until the Kremlin complies with the troop withdrawal commitments.

    Though in many ways the treaty has already stalled, it has remained a powerful diplomatic marker, a central element in the group of agreements that defused the threat of war in Europe as Communism collapsed.

    Jaap de Hoop Scheffer, NATO’s secretary general, expressed dismay at the Kremlin’s decision, saying the alliance greeted Russia’s announcement with “concern, grave concern, disappointment and regret” and calling the treaty “one of the cornerstones of European security.”

    Mr. Putin abruptly called the treaty’s future into question. In doing so, he pointedly did not use any of the conciliatory language he sometimes inserts into his speeches to leaven his criticisms of the United States.

    He did not define specifically what he meant by a moratorium, nor did his foreign minister, Sergey V. Lavrov, when asked in an appearance in Oslo whether Russia might resist inspections or shift conventional forces now that it was no longer observing the treaty. “Everything will be in moratorium,” Mr. Lavrov said. “It is clear, is it not?”

    Mr. Lavrov’s hard-line position in public was preceded by what one senior American official described as a “riveting” session with NATO diplomats in private. In an intense 10-minute monologue, he presented a list of grievances about NATO and its role in the world, from its enlarged membership to the missile defense system.

    The officials said Mr. Lavrov’s tone prompted stern responses from several NATO members. “The push-back was universal,” the official said, “including some countries that have been reserved about missile defense. It did not have the effect that he may have anticipated.”

    The back-and-forth underscored the intensity and breadth of the dispute, and the degree to which the two sides have parted.

    Mr. Putin and Mr. Lavrov warned that Russia might withdraw completely from the treaty if the Kremlin was not satisfied with the results of negotiations in the NATO-Russia Council, an organization created in 2002 to increase cooperation between the former enemies.

    “I propose discussing this problem,” Mr. Putin said, “and should there be no progress in the negotiations, to look at the possibility of ceasing our commitments under the C.F.E. treaty.”

    His comments drew the loudest applause of the day from Russia’s largely compliant Parliament, which for the most part sat quietly during his 70-minute speech.

    The Russian president’s remarks coincided with the latest effort by the Bush administration to promote its missile defense system, which it says is necessary to protect Europe if diplomacy fails to deter Iran from developing nuclear weapons. The system would take at least several years to install and be put into operation, American officials say, and the project would be running on a parallel clock against Iran’s suspected weapons program.

    Mr. Lavrov said forcefully that Russia saw no such danger, and that in any event Russia, Europe and the United States should assess the region’s strategic risks jointly. “Our starting point is that we should conduct a joint analysis of whom we should protect ourselves against,” he said. “Who are our enemies?”

    He added, “We cannot see at the moment any kind of justified threat.”

    American officials were equally adamant in dismissing Russia’s contention that the system would threaten its security.

    “The idea that somehow 10 interceptors and a few radars in Eastern Europe are going to threaten the Soviet strategic deterrent is purely ludicrous, and everybody knows it,” Ms. Rice said, slipping inadvertently into cold war terminology with her reference to the Soviet Union.

    Aside from the military issues, Mr. Putin chided the West for what he called meddling in Russia’s domestic affairs in the guise of democracy promotion efforts.

    The argument simultaneously evoked old times and raised questions about how, and through whom, the latest disagreement might be resolved. Mr. Putin restated to the Parliament his intention to leave office next year, at the end of his second four-year term, which would mean that the issues raised on Thursday could well fall to a successor.

    The Russian Constitution limits the president to a maximum of two terms, but there have been calls by politicians loyal to Mr. Putin to set the rule aside and let him remain in office, and speculation has never fully subsided that he might do so. But on Thursday, Mr. Putin was clear about his intentions, saying this annual address was his last.

    “In the spring of next year my duties end, and the next state of the nation speech will be delivered by a different head of state,” he said.

    The disagreement with the West seemed certain to extend well into that next term. “On missile defense,” Mr. de Hoop Scheffer said, “we do not see eye to eye.”


    C. J. Chivers reported from Moscow, and Mark Landler from Oslo.
    http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/27/wo...ld&oref=slogin
    Putin has good reason to be unhappy because the ABM defence supposed to be against North Korea and Iran positioned in Poland and Czechoslovakia appears to be skewed in the context of the ABM Treaty.

    Preserving and strengthening the ABM Treaty, which was created to avert competitive nuclear weapons buildup between Russia and the United States, is still the best way to reign in proliferation that might arise in other countries. Abandoning the ABM will likely result in China stepping up its own nuclear weapons program, and possibly increase its arsenal, in response. Washington’s allies are yet to be convinced of Bush’s assurances over these fears.

    Scientific experts assert that the United States can continue to test a missile defense system without breaking the ABM Treaty for many years to come. Philip Coyle, former director of Operational Test and Evaluation, said in August, “For the testing that has yet to be done for many, many years the ABM system will not be a problem. Kwajalein is a test range that is permitted under the ABM treaty, so is White Sands missile range in New Mexico, so we can continue to test there.”

    Further, it requires a fertile imagination that Iran and North Korea has or will have the capability of addressing Europe in the immediate future.

    Likewise, the unholy manner in which the NATO is expanding its borders, though very correct from the strategic viewpoint, nonetheless poses a 'threat' to Russia and does rile them since it was but recently there backyard.

    Russia still has the inclination to feel she is a superpower, even if a trifle moth eaten. Hence, she does feel all these military expansion is basically aimed to ruin her credibility as also pushing into a box, so to say.

    Dr Rice, not being a Russian, would obviously feel that the Russian apprehensions are ludicrous. Indeed, Russia should live upto the Treaty obligation, but then so should the US and the NATO.

    This type of mismatch in intent and execution will inevitably lead to the armed peace as was in the Cold War and the world will merely boil up and divided once again into two groups.

    It is time to sit down and dialogue instead of high 'temperatured' rhetoric.


    "Some have learnt many Tricks of sly Evasion, Instead of Truth they use Equivocation, And eke it out with mental Reservation, Which is to good Men an Abomination."

    I don't have to attend every argument I'm invited to.

    HAKUNA MATATA

  • #2
    Finland is having second thoughts.


    Finland could change its official position on NATO membership after the new EU treaty clarifies if there will be any new EU-level defence deal, but in the meantime Helsinki's defence ministry is pushing to join NATO and its army is making technical preparations for membership.

    Finland Waits for New EU Treaty Before NATO Membership Review By: Andrew Rettman | EU Observer
    EUobserver.com


    "Some have learnt many Tricks of sly Evasion, Instead of Truth they use Equivocation, And eke it out with mental Reservation, Which is to good Men an Abomination."

    I don't have to attend every argument I'm invited to.

    HAKUNA MATATA

    Comment


    • #3
      Moscow is threatening Tallinn with sanctions that "will have an extremely painful impact on the state of the Estonian economy."

      Estonia Buries Relations with Russia
      Estonia Buries Relations with Russia - Kommersant Moscow

      In short, slowly the clock returns to the Cold War!


      "Some have learnt many Tricks of sly Evasion, Instead of Truth they use Equivocation, And eke it out with mental Reservation, Which is to good Men an Abomination."

      I don't have to attend every argument I'm invited to.

      HAKUNA MATATA

      Comment


      • #4
        This is how it is felt in Lebanon.

        How not to promote American missile defense in Europe

        By F. Stephen Larrabee and Andrzej Karkoszka
        Commentary by
        Friday, April 27, 2007

        Missile defense has suddenly emerged as a divisive issue in Europe. Rather than enhancing European security, the Bush administration's plan to deploy elements of a missile defense system in Poland and the Czech Republic threatens to increase strains with Russia and deepen divisions with America's European allies, particularly those in Eastern Europe, where support for the United States' polices has been strongest.

        The growing opposition to the US missile defense deployment is rooted in the way in which America has managed - or rather mismanaged - the presentation of its deployment plans.

        First, US officials did not lay the political and psychological groundwork for deployment. They assumed that Czech and Polish leaders - who were strongly pro-American - would willingly agree to deployment, and that public opinion in both countries would go along with whatever the governments decided.

        But America failed to develop a coherent public rationale for its planned deployment of a system designed to destroy a missile fired by a rogue regime. As a result, the Czech and Polish governments were unable to answer fundamental questions about the costs and benefits of the deployment for Polish and Czech national security. This allowed skeptics and opponents of missile defense to gain the upper hand in the internal debates in both countries.

        Second, American officials initially tended to view missile defense largely as a technological issue divorced from its political context. For most Europeans, however, the military-technical issues are less important than the broader political implications of deployment for European stability and security. The initial American briefings to European allies ignored this fact.

        Third, the US underestimated the role of public opinion in Poland and the Czech Republic. American officials assumed that it was sufficient to have the consent of the governments and failed to recognize the degree to which these countries have become increasingly "Europeanized" in the last decade. Membership in the European Union has resulted in the proliferation of ties to Europe at many levels, as well as a major influx of EU money. This has had an enormous impact on public attitudes in Eastern Europe.

        In Poland, a big gap exists between the government's attitude and that of the population regarding the EU. The Polish government is dominated by Euro-skeptics and has pursued a highly nationalistic policy that has often antagonized EU officials. Ordinary Poles, by contrast, are strongly pro-European. According to recent polls, 80 percent of the population supports Poland's membership in the EU - the highest level of support in Europe.
        The Daily Star - Lebanon - The Middle East's Leading English Language Newspaper

        Fourth, American officials have tended to assume that the countries of Eastern Europe will remain staunchly pro-American and automatically support US policy. That was true five years ago, but it is much less true today. As Eastern European countries become more closely integrated into the EU, they increasingly have to calculate the impact of their policies on relations with Europe.

        At the same time, the war in Iraq and abuses associated with it have tarnished America's image in Eastern Europe. This is true even in Poland, which is the most pro-American country in the region. The Polish government strongly supported the US in Iraq, sending the third largest contingent of forces, after the US and Great Britain. However, Polish public opinion, like public opinion in Western Europe, was overwhelmingly opposed to the Iraq invasion.

        Moreover, many Poles feel they have little to show for the government's support. As former Polish Defense Minister Radek Sikorski noted recently, there is a sense among many Poles that the US takes Poland for granted. Sikorski's argument shocked many US officials, because he is considered one of the most pro-American politicians in Poland. But it reflects a widespread sentiment among many Poles, including those who are staunch supporters of close ties to the US.

        Unlike the Iraq operation, the planned missile defense deployment will almost certainly require approval by the Polish Parliament. This approval cannot be taken for granted. The government will need to explain to a skeptical Polish population and Parliament why the deployment is in Poland's national interest - not just America's interest - and how it enhances Polish security. Simply saying, "because the Americans want it" will not be enough.

        The US can still win the missile debate in Europe, but only if it stops treating missile defense primarily as a technological issue and addresses the broader political concerns that are driving the debate among European publics, including those in Eastern Europe.

        F. Stephen Larrabee holds the Corporate Chair in European Security at the RAND

        Corporation. Andrzej Karkoszka was state secretary for defense in Poland from 1995 to 1998 and director of the Strategic Defense Review in the Polish Ministry of Defense from 2003 to 2006. THE DAILY STAR publishes this commentary in collaboration with Project Syndicate (c) (www.project-syndicate.org).



        The Daily Star - Opinion Articles - How not to promote American missile defense in Europe


        "Some have learnt many Tricks of sly Evasion, Instead of Truth they use Equivocation, And eke it out with mental Reservation, Which is to good Men an Abomination."

        I don't have to attend every argument I'm invited to.

        HAKUNA MATATA

        Comment


        • #5
          This is how it is felt in Lebanon.

          How not to promote American missile defense in Europe

          By F. Stephen Larrabee and Andrzej Karkoszka
          Commentary by
          Friday, April 27, 2007

          Missile defense has suddenly emerged as a divisive issue in Europe. Rather than enhancing European security, the Bush administration's plan to deploy elements of a missile defense system in Poland and the Czech Republic threatens to increase strains with Russia and deepen divisions with America's European allies, particularly those in Eastern Europe, where support for the United States' polices has been strongest.

          The growing opposition to the US missile defense deployment is rooted in the way in which America has managed - or rather mismanaged - the presentation of its deployment plans.

          First, US officials did not lay the political and psychological groundwork for deployment. They assumed that Czech and Polish leaders - who were strongly pro-American - would willingly agree to deployment, and that public opinion in both countries would go along with whatever the governments decided.

          But America failed to develop a coherent public rationale for its planned deployment of a system designed to destroy a missile fired by a rogue regime. As a result, the Czech and Polish governments were unable to answer fundamental questions about the costs and benefits of the deployment for Polish and Czech national security. This allowed skeptics and opponents of missile defense to gain the upper hand in the internal debates in both countries.

          Second, American officials initially tended to view missile defense largely as a technological issue divorced from its political context. For most Europeans, however, the military-technical issues are less important than the broader political implications of deployment for European stability and security. The initial American briefings to European allies ignored this fact.

          Third, the US underestimated the role of public opinion in Poland and the Czech Republic. American officials assumed that it was sufficient to have the consent of the governments and failed to recognize the degree to which these countries have become increasingly "Europeanized" in the last decade. Membership in the European Union has resulted in the proliferation of ties to Europe at many levels, as well as a major influx of EU money. This has had an enormous impact on public attitudes in Eastern Europe.

          In Poland, a big gap exists between the government's attitude and that of the population regarding the EU. The Polish government is dominated by Euro-skeptics and has pursued a highly nationalistic policy that has often antagonized EU officials. Ordinary Poles, by contrast, are strongly pro-European. According to recent polls, 80 percent of the population supports Poland's membership in the EU - the highest level of support in Europe.
          The Daily Star - Lebanon - The Middle East's Leading English Language Newspaper

          Fourth, American officials have tended to assume that the countries of Eastern Europe will remain staunchly pro-American and automatically support US policy. That was true five years ago, but it is much less true today. As Eastern European countries become more closely integrated into the EU, they increasingly have to calculate the impact of their policies on relations with Europe.

          At the same time, the war in Iraq and abuses associated with it have tarnished America's image in Eastern Europe. This is true even in Poland, which is the most pro-American country in the region. The Polish government strongly supported the US in Iraq, sending the third largest contingent of forces, after the US and Great Britain. However, Polish public opinion, like public opinion in Western Europe, was overwhelmingly opposed to the Iraq invasion.

          Moreover, many Poles feel they have little to show for the government's support. As former Polish Defense Minister Radek Sikorski noted recently, there is a sense among many Poles that the US takes Poland for granted. Sikorski's argument shocked many US officials, because he is considered one of the most pro-American politicians in Poland. But it reflects a widespread sentiment among many Poles, including those who are staunch supporters of close ties to the US.

          Unlike the Iraq operation, the planned missile defense deployment will almost certainly require approval by the Polish Parliament. This approval cannot be taken for granted. The government will need to explain to a skeptical Polish population and Parliament why the deployment is in Poland's national interest - not just America's interest - and how it enhances Polish security. Simply saying, "because the Americans want it" will not be enough.

          The US can still win the missile debate in Europe, but only if it stops treating missile defense primarily as a technological issue and addresses the broader political concerns that are driving the debate among European publics, including those in Eastern Europe.

          F. Stephen Larrabee holds the Corporate Chair in European Security at the RAND

          Corporation. Andrzej Karkoszka was state secretary for defense in Poland from 1995 to 1998 and director of the Strategic Defense Review in the Polish Ministry of Defense from 2003 to 2006. THE DAILY STAR publishes this commentary in collaboration with Project Syndicate (c) (www.project-syndicate.org).



          The Daily Star - Opinion Articles - How not to promote American missile defense in Europe


          "Some have learnt many Tricks of sly Evasion, Instead of Truth they use Equivocation, And eke it out with mental Reservation, Which is to good Men an Abomination."

          I don't have to attend every argument I'm invited to.

          HAKUNA MATATA

          Comment


          • #6
            Who's in the "pact or no pact with Nato are both fine" crowd?

            Comment


            • #7
              Isn't this move mostly symbolic since the treaty's pretty much stillborn?

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Lunatock View Post
                Who's in the "pact or no pact with Nato are both fine" crowd?
                Me.
                sigpic

                Comment

                Working...
                X