Russia: No CFE treaty for you! - Page 4

Tripledoc · February 10, 2004, 11:46

The Russians seem like a fairly peaceful people to me.

Ned · February 10, 2004, 11:53

I think the Bear is reacting to US "plans" to put US bases in Poland and the Baltic states. We already have bases in Bulgaria and Romania. In contrast, we're closing 499 bases in Germany.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/ne...eployments.htm

"Defense Department officials said that the reordering of US forces, expected to take five or six years, is meant to move the military out of its lingering and outdated Cold War system of basing and deployment towards a model better suited for dealing with terrorism and the main threats of the 21st century. That model would be quicker, leaner, more agile, and, most importantly, better suited to respond to global unpredictability."

"Saturday, February 7, 2004 MUNICH, Germany -- Russia's defense minister on Saturday urged NATO to give his country permanent access to any new alliance bases in Poland or the Baltic states, underscoring Moscow's concerns about a possible eastward redeployment of U.S. troops in Europe.

Sergei Ivanov told the gathering of leading security officials and experts from around the world that Russia should have monitoring facilities at NATO bases "to verify the fact that the ways of use of those facilities, as we are told, pose no threat to Russia."

Ivanov's comments come as the United States prepares a major redeployment of its forces in Europe. The plans are expected to include moving some troops further east to new NATO members, but nothing concrete has been announced.

Poland joined NATO in 1999 with Hungary and the Czech Republic; the Baltic states are to join with Slovenia, Slovakia, Romania and Bulgaria by May.

NATO officials said Ivanov's demand went beyond existing agreements that allow spot checks on each other's bases and observers at maneuvers.

The Baltic states said there were no plans to set up the bases yet but rejected the proposal. They said Russia had no right to impose conditions if NATO decides to locate bases there.

"We do not see the necessity even to think about such monitors ... it's very strange," Latvian Defense Minister Girts Kristovskis told The Associated Press. "It's our own task to solve our security problems; it's not the responsibility of Russia."

Ivanov acknowledged that new facilities in Romania and Bulgaria could be needed as "hopping bases" for anti-terrorist operations in the Middle East. But he asked NATO to explain the terrorist threat that necessitated new military facilities in Poland and the Baltics.

Visiting Moscow last week, U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell insisted America's troop redeployment plans would not threaten Russia.

Ivanov also repeated long-standing Russian concerns that Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia and Slovenia were joining NATO without having signed a Cold War-era treaty to limit forces in Europe.

The base disputes have clouded generally improving relations between Russia and NATO since the former Cold War foes signed a partnership agreement in 2002.

Still, Ivanov had praise for increased NATO-Russia cooperation in areas ranging from counterterrorism to submarine rescue.

However, he also complained that NATO's peacekeeping mission in Afghanistan was not doing enough to crack down on burgeoning drug smuggling there which was "posing a serious threat" to national security in Russia.

He called for NATO, Russia and Central Asian nations to create a "joint group" to counter drug trafficking from Afghanistan.

"The situation where international terrorist communities merge with drug lords and organized crime ... is extremely precarious," he warned, asserting that such links were visible in Afghanistan and Kosovo."

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/nation...=NATO%20Russia

Patroklos · February 10, 2004, 12:07

Germany, as did France and Britain, bent over backwards to talk sence into Russia who was going start a world war over SERBIA!!! A Serbia, who by the way, did everything they possibly could to instigate a war with Austria.

Austria was more than justified by he morality of the time to invade. Hell even now nobody would object to a few airstrikes is some country did the same sort of thing. Russia just wanted to shout

"Look guys I'm still here! Guys? Anyone? Dammit I AM still important!"

Quote:

Russian army should have been re-armed and would reach tech level of German army

Are you drunk Serb, this is beyond even your level of idiocy.

Quote:

IIRC Kaizer, gave the secret order for mobilization of German army at the same day when he send warning to Russia.

As any sane person would do when an irrational regime that is also unstable mobilizes a large though ineefficient army on your border.

Heresson · February 10, 2004, 12:17

NATO has right to plase its bases wherever it wishes, as long as the countries they are supposed to be built in do not have anything against it, and it's none of Russia's buiseness. It seems Moscow haven't noticed last 15 years and still haven't learned anything about that all states should be treaten the same, not dependingly to their strenght. It missed also it is not a might anymore, as well. Their threats are laughworthy. They can not even, using most brutal tactics, subdue tiny Caucasian republic.
Serb, My God, haven't You heard something about tiny incomparatibility between communism and nationalism?
It seems many Russians haven't.

Tripledoc · February 10, 2004, 12:27

Quote:

Originally posted by Heresson
Their threats are laughworthy. They can not even, using most brutal tactics, subdue tiny Caucasian republic.

How is it a threat to ask for acces to bases bordering it's territory. Surely the Russians will grant acces to their bases.

And making fun of the Russian's fight against Chechnian nationalists and fundamentalists, who want to split from the internationally recognized territory of Russia, when Russia has just lost fifty citizens in a Chechen attack in Moscow is a bit tasteless.

But maybe the Poles hope to get back the territory they lost to the Soviet Union in 1945. Well Poland was adequately compensated and given German land instead.

Maybe if the Polish government thought a little less about their own importance they might actually contribute something to making EU a feasable project, instead of running after big brother USA and hope for some crumbs from the table.

Patroklos · February 10, 2004, 13:42

Right, because stealing territory from someone else and giving Poland that instead of giving back the land you stole FROM Poland in a genecidal campaing while allied to facist sure makes the world right.

Alright, all you Poles (the few we haven't killed) you are now Russian. All you Germans (that have not fled or we haven't killed) you are now Polish. See, wasn't that easy?

Bereta_Eder · February 10, 2004, 13:44

US plans to have bases in ... Romania and Bulgaria...

Bereta_Eder · February 10, 2004, 13:46

And after the golden opportunity at yugoslavia with the "help" of milosevic and the training of albanian extremists by the US/UK well obviously it isn't playing very nice.

Bereta_Eder · February 10, 2004, 13:47

In short, army power and geopolitical leverage = more bargaining power. it was the same game played in the cold war. theonly difference is that now some countries have weakened in their capacity to withstand. obviously whtever can be done to counter that will be done.

Bereta_Eder · February 10, 2004, 13:55

this is why it is important for the EU to isolate the UK (or at best case scenario get rid of it without repercussions) and forge much more closer relations with Russia.

US/UK geopolitical interests are incompatible with europe.

US gets its power to intervene from the acceptable of others for this role and from getting passages from a variety of countries. the moment these passages and easyness is withrdwn US is cut off and powerless.

but the european powers still prefer US doing their dirty work so they let her.

US from its side realizes that and of course tries to get as many geopolitical and commercial interests as it can from this.

when such interest accumulating becomes irritating for the european powers theere WILL be a shift of relations.

maybe it is better torealize this sooner than later. unless us/uk change their policies but I doubt this can be done without being forced to do so.

Tripledoc · February 10, 2004, 14:03

I think the main challange is for the Russians, The Germans, and the French to convince Britain to join their side.

It is clear to me that the Labour party in Britain has been hijacked by an evil force. After the next election, hopefully Blair will be ousted in favour of a better labour candidate who understands the importance of joining the international peace faction.

Bereta_Eder · February 10, 2004, 14:05

I don't think complacency towards the UK is the way to go. I think the only langauge it understands is force. It has never shared the european ideal and degaulle's phrase of the brits being the worm that will eat the red apple from within becomes more and more prophetic.
In particular brown's hatred for europe is almost pathological.

Bereta_Eder · February 10, 2004, 14:07

I also don't think it is important to have the UK in "our" side. just get it out in the open in the opposite side where clear and fast work can be done without it having any say in it.

Az · February 10, 2004, 14:08

Quote:

the international peace faction.

Who's there right now?

Patroklos · February 10, 2004, 14:08

International Peace Faction, thats a good one.

Europe doesn't want a strong Russia any more than it wants to be dominated by a stong America.

Russia and Europe have far less in common than America and Europe. Now if Europe wants to DOMINATE Russia for its gain (as alot of people think we do to Europe and others right now) then go right ahead. You might want to ask Serb what he thinks about that first.

Sava · February 10, 2004, 14:09

hmmmm the same ppl complaing about Russia backing out of the treaty are the same ppl who didn't care the US backed out of the ABM treaty...

Bereta_Eder · February 10, 2004, 14:11

"domination" of one over the other is old diplomatic thinking. that's what I say when i talk about the european ideal. some have it, other don't.

The diplomat · February 10, 2004, 14:48

Well, I have always said since the very begining, that NATO expansion was a huge mistake. You can't include former Soviet Union States into your alliance and expect Russia not to see it as an encroachment on their national security.

DinoDoc · February 10, 2004, 15:14

Quote:

Originally posted by Patroklos
Germany, as did France and Britain, bent over backwards to talk sence into Russia who was going start a world war over SERBIA!!!

I call BS over the assertion that Germany wasn't spoiling for a fight.

Az · February 10, 2004, 15:17

Quote:

Originally posted by The diplomat
Well, I have always said since the very begining, that NATO expansion was a huge mistake. You can't include former Soviet Union States into your alliance and expect Russia not to see it as an encroachment on their national security.

Sandman · February 10, 2004, 15:29

Quote:

I don't think complacency towards the UK is the way to go. I think the only langauge it understands is force. It has never shared the european ideal and degaulle's phrase of the brits being the worm that will eat the red apple from within becomes more and more prophetic.

The only difference between Britain and France or Germany is that Britain joined late. Because of that, it's accorded a special status as a trouble-maker, whilst France and Germany get to flout whatever EU rules they wish, and get away with it.

It's like how middle class boys are 'boisterous', whilst working class kids are 'yobs'.

Barinthus · February 10, 2004, 15:31

Quote:

Originally posted by Tripledoc
The Russians seem like a fairly peaceful people to me.

Tell that to the Afghan people. But actually, like Serb said a while ago, there's no nation on this planet that doesn't have their hands bloodied with someone else's blood. That goes for the Americans too.

Re: Napoleonic invasion of the Russian Empire, it was the sorched earth policy on Russians' part that did in Napoleon's Grand Army. Same thing for Hilter. People have kept on underestimating Russia and paid the great price in exchange.

While I don't see why Russia feel threatened by those expansions. Perhaps I'm wrong but I bet you most Westerners do not want a military conflict with Russia - it's not worth the fuss. However based on recent history between the West and Russia, I bet you Americans would be nervous if Russians established bases in Mexico and Canada like someone suggested.

Which means there needs to be greater dialogue between NATO and Russia and more efforts into allaying the Russian concerns.

Patroklos · February 10, 2004, 15:31

You can call BS on it if you want. Of course you will be spouting BS.

Germany not only urged Russia to back down its mobilization, it also held back Austria Hungry for quite a bit on attacking Serbia. Austria didn't attack the very next day, there was quite a bit of waiting.

Serbian state backed terrorism assasinated the heir to one of the great European powers, and the Russians actually tried to back them up for that! All the key players in Europe wanted nothing more than the status quo. But those crazy Ruskkies....

Bereta_Eder · February 10, 2004, 16:31

Quote:

Originally posted by Sandman

The only difference between Britain and France or Germany is that Britain joined late. Because of that, it's accorded a special status as a trouble-maker, whilst France and Germany get to flout whatever EU rules they wish, and get away with it.

It's like how middle class boys are 'boisterous', whilst working class kids are 'yobs'.

I wish that was the case. (on a side note many other countries joined later than the UK). It is a definite distance of mentalities which is translated into concrete "anti-EU" actions. The UK never really embraced "the european idea".

Myrddin · February 10, 2004, 18:46

Whose idea of " the european idea"?

Pekka · February 10, 2004, 19:19

Russia has never been aggressor, and there is no aids in Africa.

To Russias benefit, the aggressions are few and far between, but they have happened.
So I guess we have a good reason to be paranoid too, and start getting nukes, right? I'm glad we're not paranoid. It's BS.

GePap · February 10, 2004, 19:23

Quote:

Originally posted by Patroklos

Austria was more than justified by he morality of the time to invade. Hell even now nobody would object to a few airstrikes is some country did the same sort of thing. Russia just wanted to shout

Hmm, NO. The Austro-Hunagrians served the Serbians with a ultimatum that asked them to completely violate thier sovereignty in order to give to the Austro-Hungarians what they wanted. The Serbs agreed to all the was reasonable-those things they did not agree with were in there to be rejected. The Austrian were looking for a war.

Imran Siddiqui · February 10, 2004, 19:27

Quote:

The Serbs agreed to all the was reasonable-those things they did not agree with were in there to be rejected.

Not quite. The Serbs were prepared to accept ALL provisions until Tsar Nickie called up and said they'd back the Serbs 100%. After that, the Serbs decided they didn't think a few clauses were 'reasonable'.

GePap · February 10, 2004, 19:32

Quote:

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Not quite. The Serbs were prepared to accept ALL provisions until Tsar Nickie called up and said they'd back the Serbs 100%. After that, the Serbs decided they didn't think a few clauses were 'reasonable'.

Lets see..small state being asked unreasonble things by much larger neighbor with no friends preppares to give in..until somone big tells them..hey, we will support you..

Yup, sounds utterly criminal- also, I have never heard that assertion, so some source would be greatly appreciated.

Kuciwalker · February 10, 2004, 19:33

Quote:

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Quote:

The Serbs agreed to all the was reasonable-those things they did not agree with were in there to be rejected.

Not quite. The Serbs were prepared to accept ALL provisions until Tsar Nickie called up and said they'd back the Serbs 100%. After that, the Serbs decided they didn't think a few clauses were 'reasonable'.

Wrong (at least according to Nicholas and Alexandra). The Austrians gave the Serbs 48 hours to agree, the Serbs agreed, and the Austrians attacked anyways.