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
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
and so will this:
Adapted CFE
STH