Russia: No CFE treaty for you!

[GePap]

The Ultimatum:
(Preamble) The Royal Serbian Government . . . has[since 1909] tolerated the criminal machinations of various societies and associations directed against the [Austro-Hungarian] Monarchy, unrestrained language on the part of the press, glorification of the perpetrators of outrages, participation of officers and officials in subversive agitation, unwholesome propaganda in public education, in short tolerated all the manifestations of a nature to inculcate in the Serbian population hatred of the Monarchy and contempt for its institutions . . .
It is shown by the depositions and confessions of the criminal authors of the outrage of 28 June that the Sarajevo murders [of the Archduke and his wife] were planned in Belgrade [capital of Serbia], that the arms and explosives with which the murderers were found to be provided had been given them by Serbian officers and officials belonging to the Narodna Odbrana [a Serbia-based nationalist organization promoting the ideal of a Greater Serbia, i.e., the political union of Bosnia and Serbia] and finally that the passage into Bosnia of the criminals and their arms was organized and effectuated by chiefs of the Serbian frontier service.

. . . the results . . impose on [the A-H Monarchy] the duty of putting an end to the intrigues which constitute a permanent threat to the tranquillity of the Monarchy.

In order to give a formal character to this undertaking the Royal Government of Serbia shall cause to be published on the front page of the Official Journal [i.e., the Serbian government gazette] of the 26 July the following declaration:

[Serbia] condemns the propaganda directed against Austria-Hungary . . . and it sincerely deplores the fatal consequences of these criminal proceedings

[Serbia] considers it its duty formally to warn the officers, officials and all the population of the Kingdom that henceforward it will proceed with the utmost rigor against all persons who may render themselves guilty [of participating in anti-Austrian propaganda] . . .
The Royal Serbian Government further undertakes:


To suppress any publication which incites to hatred and contempt of the Monarchy . . .

To dissolve immediately the society styled Narodna Odbrana . . and to proceed in the same manner against the other societies . . which engage in propaganda against [Austria]

To eliminate without delay from public instruction in Serbia, both as regards the teaching body and the methods of instruction, all that serves or might serve to foment the propaganda against Austria-Hungary

To remove from the military service and the administration in general all officers guilty of propaganda against [Austria--names to be given over by the Austrian govt.]

To accept the collaboration in Serbia of organs of [A-H govt.] in the suppression of the subversive movement directed against the territorial integrity of the Monarchy

To take judicial proceedings against the accessories to the plot of 28 June who are on Serbian territory; Organs delegated by [A-H] will take part in the investigations relating thereto

To proceed without delay to the arrest of [two named persons implicated according to the preliminary investigation undertaken by Austria]

To prevent by effective measures the cooperation of [Serbia] in the illicit traffic in arms and explosives across the frontier . . . .

To furnish [Austria] with explanations regarding the unjustifiable utterances of high Serbian officials both in Serbia and abroad, who . . .have not hesitated since the outrage of 28 June to express themselves . .in terms of hostility towards [Austria]

To notify [Austria] without delay of the execution of the[se] measures . .

also serbian response

Preamble)
. . .[Serbia] cannot be held responsible for manifestations of a private character, such as articles in the press and the peaceable work of societies . . .[The Serbian government] have been pained and surprised at the statements, according to which members of the Kingdom of Serbia are supposed to have participated in the preparations of the crime . .[However, Serbia is] prepared to hand over for trial any Serbian subject . .of whose complicity in the crime of sarajevo proofs are forthcoming [as well as officially condemn all propaganda against A-H]


[Serbia will] introduce . . a provision into the press law providing for the most severe punishment of incitement to hatred and contempt of the [A-H] Monarchy . . .

[The Serbian govt.] possesses no proof . . that the Narodna Odbrana and other similar societies have committed up to the present any criminal act of this nature . . Nevertheless, [Serbia] will . . dissolve the Narodna Obrana and every other society which . . .

[Serbia will] eliminate without delay from public instruction . . everything that serves or might serve to foment the propaganda against [A-H], whenever [Austria] furnish them with facts and proofs . .

[Serbia] also agree to remove from the military service all such persons as the judicial inquiry may have proved to be guilty of acts directed against the integrity of the territory of [A-H], and they expect [Austria] to communicate . .the names and acts of these officers for the purpose of the proceedings which are to be taken against them

[The Serbian govt. does] not clearly grasp the meaning or the scope of the demand . . that Serbia shall undertake to accept the collaboration of the representatives of [A-H], but they declare that they will admit such collaboration as agrees with the principle of international law, with criminal procedure, and with good neighborly relations

. . . As regards the participation in this inquiry [which Serbia intends to hold] of Austro-Hungarian agents.......... [Serbia] cannot accept such an arrangement, as it would be a violation of the Constitution . . .

[states it has not yet been possible to arrest one of the persons named; request proofs of guilt from Austria]

[ agrees to reinforce measures against illegal trafficking of arms and explosives across the frontier with Bosnia-Herzegovine]

[offers explanations of anti-Austrian comments by Serb officials if Austria sends examples of their actually having been made]

[Serbia will duly notify the measures taken, but if Austria is not satisfied with the reply] the Serbian government . . are ready . . to accept a pacific understanding, either by referring this question to the decision of the International Tribunal of the Hague [i.e., the World Court], or to the Great Powers . . .

[Patroklos]

Exactly, despite the victors revisionism it is very plain that SERBIA was itching for a war but they didn't realize that the Russian bear was drunk behind the wheel.

Considering what Serbia did to Austria (a monarchy), and the Crown Prinz was the last straw not the first, Austria had every reason and right to demand whatever they wanted.

If the Moroccan state asasinated the President elect of France (assuming it wasn't Chirac) you can bet Morraco would not exist in any similar form a few months down the line.

So I guess Serbia was the true agressor, but it was Russia who excalated it into a general world war instead of limited one month Serbia smack down. Remember that Serbia and Russia's alliance was secret. The rest of the world just thought they had close ties, not an alliance.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Patroklos
Exactly, despite the victors revisionism it is very plain that SERBIA was itching for a war but they didn't realize that the Russian bear was drunk behind the wheel.

Considering what Serbia did to Austria (a monarchy), and the Crown Prinz was the last straw not the first, Austria had every reason and right to demand whatever they wanted.

If the Moroccan state asasinated the President elect of France (assuming it wasn't Chirac) you can bet Morraco would not exist in any similar form a few months down the line.

So I guess Serbia was the true agressor, but it was Russia who excalated it into a general world war instead of limited one month Serbia smack down. Remember that Serbia and Russia's alliance was secret. The rest of the world just thought they had close ties, not an alliance.

Read above to see the actual ultimatum.

Yup, read how the bloodthirsty Serbian government was unwilling to clamp down on those nasty private opinions and close down all press willing to critizise the Austro-Hunagarina monarchy...and they even demanded evidence! Bastard! Surely they must have wanted war!

[Kuciwalker]

reread GePap's post

[GePap]

Originally posted by skywalker
reread GePap's post

Why? It will ruin his rant.

[Patroklos]

I did read it. He just posted it while I was typing the last response.

If the Taliban had made the most sincere promise to spank the Al Quida for us would that have been enough? Should it have been? No on both accounts.

It was Serbian STATE POLICY to liberate and annex Bosnia and had supported the activities of such groups for that purpose. Saying "oops my bad" after the fact means jack. The response from Serbia you posted was a scared sh*tless government doing whatever it could to avoid its punishment. The Serbian government had no more power to desolve the Narodna Obrana than Saudi Arabia has the power to disband Al Quada.

It is awesome how the Serbian line changed once their "great power"(which is a hilarious joke in and of itself) took their back. Shows how sincere their responce was.

[Tripledoc]

Also I recall that there was something very curious about the assasination attempt itself. When the Archduke and his wife rode in a car through Sarajevo, there was first a failed bombing attempt on them. Yet the Archduke and his wife continued the tour. Why were they not brought into safety after the bombing attempt?

[Patroklos]

The Arch Duke refused to be intimidated and ordered a resumption of the parade/review, stupid I know.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by GePap
[The Serbian govt. does] not clearly grasp the meaning or the scope of the demand . . that Serbia shall undertake to accept the collaboration of the representatives of [A-H], but they declare that they will admit such collaboration as agrees with the principle of international law, with criminal procedure, and with good neighborly relations

. . . As regards the participation in this inquiry [which Serbia intends to hold] of Austro-Hungarian agents.......... [Serbia] cannot accept such an arrangement, as it would be a violation of the Constitution . . .

Too bad for Europe that it was not against their constitution to support the people who murdered a foreign prince.

It was an ultimatum, GePap. Do this, or war. It's kind of funny they tried to hide behind their constitution and international law when their constitution and their application of international law led them to provide their neighbour with a clear casus belli.

Anyways... the trigger of WW I and Russia's part in it actually lends support to Russia's position today, in my mind. Alliance systems have caused minor (relatively) incidents to escalate into wide spread catastrophes before.

Now we have little states on the border of Russia joining an alliance system. That should be OK, but obviously from the attitudes expressed here, there is still a lot of bad blood between these neighbours. What assurances do Russians have that the governments of their neighbours will act responsibly once they are safely part of NATO? Should they just trust that everything will work out?

Maybe NATO should realise that Russia has a stake in European security like everybody else. Would it be too hard to discuss it with them and come up with a new treaty that everyone would be comfortable with?

[Patroklos]

I don't think Russia has any bad blod, sure got their end of the deal after 60 years or rape and pillage.

I agree on the Alliance thing. What it does is exchange several small wars for the potential for a huge ultimelty more devestating one.

It is a good deal for sometimes. Cold War allainces certainly kept peace, large wars and small wars, amongst the major players.

[Sandman]

Originally posted by paiktis22
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".

You call them definite and concrete, but, really, it's nothing but prejudice and unjustified suspicion. What anti-EU actions has the UK taken that are unequalled by anything France or Germany have done?

[Ben Kenobi]

The British were obliged to defend Belgium, not France. It think that the Germans had forgotten about a British defensive pact with Belgium from 1850 or so. So when the Germans invaded France through Belgium the British had to react.

No. Germany refused to recognise the treaty, because there was no Germany until 1872. They were not bound because they had not existed.

Secondly, it was more of a technicality than anything else. The Germans had a plan from 1905, the Schlieffen plan, that called for pinwheeling through Belgium to sweep around Paris.

They came very very close to actually pulling it off.

[GePap]

Originally posted by notyoueither


Too bad for Europe that it was not against their constitution to support the people who murdered a foreign prince.

It was an ultimatum, GePap. Do this, or war. It's kind of funny they tried to hide behind their constitution and international law when their constitution and their application of international law led them to provide their neighbour with a clear casus belli.

Sorry, but bull. Talk about historical revisionism. Certainly the Serbs wanted Bosnia- and many people in Serbia were very vocal, specially after the 1950 change in government (before 1905 Srbia's government was very pro-Austria-Hungary), but everyone and thier uncle back in 1914 saw the Austrian ultimatum for what it was- something designed to be unacceptable.

Austria-Hunagry had every right to demand a crackdown- to demand the power to force Serbia to deport citizens without proof or to rmeove officers form the military at thwe whim of a foreing power? Sorry, NO. Not acceptable. Conrad and other Austrain leaders were all for the war_ the fact that it took 3 weeks for this ultimatum to be handed out says a lot- if the Austrians were so scandalized, they would have moved sooner.

[Lonestar]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


No. Germany refused to recognise the treaty, because there was no Germany until 1872. They were not bound because they had not existed.

Secondly, it was more of a technicality than anything else. The Germans had a plan from 1905, the Schlieffen plan, that called for pinwheeling through Belgium to sweep around Paris.

They came very very close to actually pulling it off.

And that was with the German Commander taking steps to weaken it!

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by GePap
Sorry, but bull. Talk about historical revisionism. Certainly the Serbs wanted Bosnia- and many people in Serbia were very vocal, specially after the 1950 change in government (before 1905 Srbia's government was very pro-Austria-Hungary), but everyone and thier uncle back in 1914 saw the Austrian ultimatum for what it was- something designed to be unacceptable.

Austria-Hunagry had every right to demand a crackdown- to demand the power to force Serbia to deport citizens without proof or to rmeove officers form the military at thwe whim of a foreing power? Sorry, NO. Not acceptable. Conrad and other Austrain leaders were all for the war_ the fact that it took 3 weeks for this ultimatum to be handed out says a lot- if the Austrians were so scandalized, they would have moved sooner.

They had every right to just go to war, GePap.

[Saras]

Originally posted by notyoueither
Now we have little states on the border of Russia joining an alliance system. That should be OK, but obviously from the attitudes expressed here, there is still a lot of bad blood between these neighbours. What assurances do Russians have that the governments of their neighbours will act responsibly once they are safely part of NATO? Should they just trust that everything will work out?

Maybe NATO should realise that Russia has a stake in European security like everybody else. Would it be too hard to discuss it with them and come up with a new treaty that everyone would be comfortable with?

And let Russia dictate (because that's what's gonna happen) how sovereign countries shape their security alliances. Even some minor knowledge of Russian foreign policy and domestic rhetoric, compared with the policies and domestic rhetoric of the "little states", will make you understand that you should NOT cozy up to any whims Russia has vis-a-vis alliances of its "Blizhneje Zarubezhije" (a Russian term coined to describe FSU republics, meant as "imperial domains").

I can surely understand why there's an undercurrent of Rusophilia in the western culture, but you should not let that blind you in dealing with that, ahem, interesting country.

[Serb]

And you've said that Russians are too paranoid...



Looks like we are playing in the same league here.

[Serb]

Originally posted by Patroklos
Are you drunk Serb, this is beyond even your level of idiocy.

You're such an ignorant , Patro.

[Saras]

We're not paranoid. We're experienced.

[notyoueither]

Well, I doubt they will 'dictate' NATO policies in the Baltic States. However, the question remains, do you want the Russian Army deployed on your door step, or do you want the bulk of it behind the Urals, which the CFE requires?

If there are no restrictions on NATO deployments in Poland, the Baltics, and the Caucasus, why should the Russians restrict the deployment of their forces?

[Serb]

Originally posted by Saras
We're not paranoid. We're experienced.

We too.

[Serb]

Originally posted by notyoueither
If there are no restrictions on NATO deployments in Poland, the Baltics, and the Caucasus, why should the Russians restrict the deployment of their forces?

EXACTLY!!!

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Saras
I can surely understand why there's an undercurrent of Rusophilia in the western culture, but you should not let that blind you in dealing with that, ahem, interesting country.

We should also not be blind that real security requires that everyone be comfortable with the arrangements. Isolating and encroaching on a major power will not lead to security, it will lead to an enemy.

[Serb]

Canada should lead NATO instead of Yanks.

[Saras]

Originally posted by notyoueither


We should also not be blind that real security requires that everyone be comfortable with the arrangements. Isolating and encroaching on a major power will not lead to security, it will lead to an enemy.

100% agree. But you should only listen to reasonable demands & requests. Like, no short & intermediary nukes in Baltics.

OTOH, there's really no threat coming from Russia as a state. My worst scenario is Belarus going nuts, or some sort of domestic disturbance in Russia that might lead some hawkish general to the idea that he can do some live fire exercise around Vilnius.

[notyoueither]

All the more reason to engage Russia as a real partner for peace that can be sustained. Nobody said anything about accepting unreasonable demands. Real negotiations are based on what we need, what they need, and finding the common ground.

What I see is Russia not being comfortable with how things have progressed since the end of the Cold War and the end of the SU. They have a legitimate (to me) point that they will not be bound by a Cold War document when the circumstances that led to that document have radically changed. We have a choice. We can deploy as we like within NATO, and the Russians will act like an isolated super power while ignoring that treaty. Or, we can actually walk the talk of 'partners for peace' and find a new formula that we are all comfortable with.

btw, Saras, simply being a member of NATO, no troops involved, is a major choke for Russia to get over. Membership does not give the Baltic States a blank cheque, but it commits The United States, Canada, and the better parts of Europe to your security from invasion. We're all signed on the line that if Russia did something like in '40, it would be very bad for the entire world. I for one do not think they would do it, do you?

[Saras]

Originally posted by notyoueither
All the more reason to engage Russia as a real partner for peace that can be sustained. Nobody said anything about accepting unreasonable demands. Real negotiations are based on what we need, what they need, and finding the common ground.

What I see is Russia not being comfortable with how things have progressed since the end of the Cold War and the end of the SU. They have a legitimate (to me) point that they will not be bound by a Cold War document when the circumstances that led to that document have radically changed. We have a choice. We can deploy as we like within NATO, and the Russians will act like an isolated super power while ignoring that treaty. Or, we can actually walk the talk of 'partners for peace' and find a new formula that we are all comfortable with.

btw, Saras, simply being a member of NATO, no troops involved, is a major choke for Russia to get over. Membership does not give the Baltic States a blank cheque, but it commits The United States, Canada, and the better parts of Europe to your security from invasion. We're all signed on the line that if Russia did something like in '40, it would be very bad for the entire world. I for one do not think they would do it, do you?

You will notice that I haven't objected to Russia scrapping that treaty. Frankly, I don't really care. It's not like they will invade NATO.

Also, you should note the second paragraph in my last post.

[notyoueither]

I saw that paragraph, and it made me wonder why my government is backing a willy nilly expansion of NATO to the East. No offence, Saras, but we are talking WW3 if something goes wrong.

Actually, it really means there is all the more reason for NATO and Russia to reach a better understanding that will leave the Russians much less likely to risk backing a bad plan from one of the other disfunctional former-SSRs. If NATO is on your side, and Russia is not backing them, who is going to mess with your thing?

[Saras]

Originally posted by notyoueither
I saw that paragraph, and it made me wonder why my government is backing a willy nilly expansion of NATO to the East. No offence, Saras, but we are talking WW3 if something goes wrong.

WW3 over a deranged dictator or a warmongering fool of a renegade general?

[notyoueither]

Uhhh, no, Saras, WW3 over the United States and Russia coming into direct conflict. What do you think happens when a NATO member is in a situation that triggers the alliance and it escalates in a very bad way? Do you think NATO is a knitting club?