Russia suspends CFE Treaty

[Razor61]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/7082501.stm

What implications does this have on something like the current EUCOM Exercises NATO undertakes with Russia and so on each year?

Just as everyone is pulling their ground forces out of Germany, the Russians decide to re-organise their forces on the border.

The same went with the USAF pulling their forces out of Keflavik and as soon as they did, the old bombers start to trundle down more often. I'm not saying that was a precursor for the increased bomber sorties as i doubt it had little to do with it.

[dallas]

I think Russia has a point. As it says in the article, Russia thinks the treaty no longer responds to the security interests of the Russian Federation and I broadly agree. Look at the last 18ish years and the big growth area has been NATO - nemesis to Russia's own former alliance - and several former Russian allies have actually swapped sides. So while we in the West have technically expanded, Russia has been controlled by the CFE treaty.

If you look at it from a purely Western angle Russia is becoming increasingly aggressive - first the increase in Bear flights, now the decision to ignore the thrust of CFE - but balance that out with NATO's far from dormant growth over the past few years, including US missile defence proposals that would also happen to neutralise Russian ICBMs and I'm surprised it's taken Russia so long to figure they might have been had.

Russia is finally responding, not stirring trouble.

[ORAC]

Just as everyone is pulling their ground forces out of Germany, the Russians decide to re-organise their forces on the border. Which border is that then, and what value would troops based in Germany be against them? :hmm:

[Razor61]

I didn't mean it being the border with Germany, i mean't the border of NATO countries and Russia as is, i should have phrased it better.
Germany being the closest of the original NATO forces to Russia on mainland Europe (apart from Norway) and which provides/provided the bulk of NATO forces then within it. US/Canada/UK forces are pulling out gradually and moving back home leaving the border to be guarded by former Warpact forces.

[GasFitter]

I suppose we can all stop measuring our doors that exceed 2m now!

[dallas]

I didn't mean it being the border with Germany, i mean't the border of NATO countries and Russia as is, i should have phrased it better. Germany being the closest of the original NATO forces to Russia on mainland Europe (apart from Norway) and which provides/provided the bulk of NATO forces then within it. US/Canada/UK forces are pulling out gradually and moving back home leaving the border to be guarded by former Warpact forces.
I think that just reinforces my point. Pre-CFE the border was Germany, now it's way further East as we've absorbed (assimilated? :ooh:) former WarPac countries. Russia has definitely had the thin end of the CFE wedge, losing territory, allies and the inability to base forces as it wants in response.

[SirToppamHat]

Razor61

The BBC article is pretty (some would say unusually) well balanced.

The 1999 Treaty is what is known in the business as 'Adapted' CFE. It addresses long-held concerns (of the Russians) that original CFE Treaty was no longer fit for purpose.

There are several issues with the current CFE, not least of which is fact that it would appear to have done what was intended of it. There are no longer massed Warsaw Pact forces lined-up against the NATO borders, and similar forces facing them. The total volume of Treaty Limited Equipment has reduced dramatically on both sides with the effect that there is no longer the risk of a no-notice massed attack on the west.

The Treaty doesn't really deal with the flanks very well either and this has long been a bone of contention with the Russian Federation.
Remember also, the country groupings on both sides of the fence have changed significantly. Quite apart from the internal restructuring of the Former Soviet Union, some of the Former Warsaw Pact nations have changed sides, and it is easy to see why the Russian Federation is uneasy about the current Treaty. It's a bit like Ireland agreeing that we can keep 6 sqns of Jags at RAF Jurby (haha), versus them having the same number of fighters in Dublin. This is a nice balance until the Isle of Man changes sides ... and taking the Jags with them!

The following couple of paras are fom here:

http://http://www.cdi.org/russia/johnson/2007-137-28.cfm (http://www.cdi.org/russia/johnson/2007-137-28.cfm)

Right now, even the staunchly anti-Russian Baltic States, which were once Soviet republics, are viewed by the CFE as potential allies of Russia and not of NATO.
According to Rogov's estimates, when the CFE treaty was signed in 1990, the Soviet bloc had at its disposal 41,000 tanks, while NATO had only 30,000. Currently, Russia has 5,000 tanks and the expanded NATO has 14,000 tanks. Moreover, some of these forces are now located in much greater proximity to Russia's borders than in 1990.

The barriers to CFE coming in seem to rest mainly with the links that certain countries want to attach to the so-called Istanbul Agreement; put simply this relates to withdrawal of Russian troops from Georgia and Moldova ... I believe there is some sympathy with the Russian position, that the 2 issues are not related.

So what happens next?

We will see in mid Dec whether the Russian Federation continues along the same track - it is then that they have the opportunity to withdraw from the Treaty Article XIX of the Treaty states 'A State Party intending to withdraw shall give notice of its decision to do so to the Depositary and to all other States Parties. Such notice shall be given at least 150 days prior to the intended withdrawal from this Treaty.' What the Russian Federation has done is announce its intent to announce its withdrawal - there is no facility in the Treaty to 'suspend' membership. If they go ahead, the announcement should occur on 15 Dec, then the withdrawal will occur 150 days thereafter.

As far as Ratification of the Adapted CFE is concerned, the UK can do this quite quickly (without going back to Parliament), but some countries aren't so lucky, and there may be some delay, even if there is an agreement to go ahead and ratify.

Irrespective, I believe CFE will continue between those Nation States still playing and so will the activities under other treaties (Vienna Document, Open Skies etc).

As for the other activities, I don't think they are directly related, though it is clear Putin feels he can flex his muscles. I am not sure if this isn't actually a good thing for the west. A balance of power, albeit at far lower levels than in the 80s, with a well-controlled and organised professional military is surely better than one in which one is falling apart and vulnerable to individual breakaway actions.

Sorry about all that, got a bit carried away. Anyway, if my diatribe hasn't already sent you to sleep, I am sure this will:

CFE Treaty (http://www.state.gov/t/ac/trt/4781.htm)

and so will this:

Adapted CFE (http://www.sipri.org/contents/worldsec/adap.CFE.pdf)

STH

[OwnNav]

This is good news for John le Carre and James Bond fans, not much happened since the Glienicke bridge days !

[incubus]

About time to get Russia into NATO?

[Razor61]

Thanks for the informative reply STH.
I see Gorbachev is back in the running, starting up another 'party' for when Mr. Putin decides to slither away. I wonder what would happen if they do get another President which has the same views of the previous communists before Boris Yeltsin got into power and collasped the USSR to what it is now?

Would we see an even more increased 'power' surge of forces being deployed elsewhere and air activity?

As i had asked before, would NATO then be obliged to exercise with Russian forces such as BALTOPS and other EUCOM ground exercises?

[Not Long Here]

STH,

Very erudite and good value, however your quote below:

Irrespective, I believe CFE will continue between those Nation States still playing and so will the activities under other treaties (Vienna Document, Open Skies etc).

Was not sure if you counted Russia as a participant amongst those "other treaties" as I understand that Russia has withdrawn from Open Skies.

Pity, I had a great week in Moscow a few years ago and very interesting flying in the mighty Andover :bored:

[SirToppamHat]

Not Long Here

I understand that Russia has withdrawn from Open Skies.



Your information is absolutely wrong about the Open Skies Treaty - the Russian Federation has neither withdrawn nor expressed any intent to withdraw from the Treaty. Neither has anyone else.

With the possibility of issues with the CFE, there are those who would argue that the remaining treaties take on an even greater significance - it's essential that we keep up good communications with the Russians, by whatever means.

Weather permitting, I expect there will be a number of interesting trips to Russia next year and beyond. The Andover is still going strong (but slowly!).

STH