Compressing the Spring

Posted by Sean on April 27, 2007 Leave a comment (127) Go to comments

By Nikolay

On Monday Robert Gates met with President Putin and other officials in Moscow to discuss US plans to deploy the US ABM complex in Europe, and most importantly to offer cooperation on the issue: a potential linking of Russian and US systems and the ability for Russia to initiate inspection checks to the newly-built facilities. These plans were publicly rejected by Russia‘s newly-appointed Minister of Defense Anatoliy Serdyukov and Mr. Ivanov (Russia‘s first-vice-premier). Russia continues to remain skeptical that Iran possesses any type of threat to Russia and to Europe. Similarly, the US, in the face of Secretary of State Rice has called Russia’s concerns over plans to deploy the ABM systems “ludicrous”, the New York Times reported.

In his annual address to parliament, President Putin made it clear that Russia will respond immediately to US plans by withdrawing from the Adapted Conventional Armed Forces Treaty in Europe, which was based on an earlier treaty of 1990 during the dissolution of the Cold War and the Soviet Union. Russia‘s claims are that it is the only nation to have fully ratified the treaty and refuses to continue to fulfill its obligations unless other members (specifically NATO members) ratify it. NATO has declared its surprise over such actions as it believes Russia was never fulfilling its promises under the treaty.

Because of numerous confusions in the press, it is important to go back and determine the realities of the treaties. An adapted copy of both treaties (1990) and (1999) can be found on the Arms Control Association Websites. The New York Times reports that:

 

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 N.A.T.O. nations and the nations of the former Warsaw Pact, including Russia. It required the reduction and relocation of much of the main battle equipment then located along the former east-west dividing line, 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.

 

The fact of “force withdrawal” remains very controversial. NATO members in 2002 had accepted that Russia fulfilled all of its requirements under the treaty, specifically regarding the fact of withdrawal of TPE (treaty prohibited weapons) from Georgia and Moldova and other territories. Russia claims that its obligations essentially stop here, and a withdrawal of forces is a gesture of goodwill; NATO members claim that Russia made promises to withdraw its troops also. The treaty was originally signed to ensure the collective security of Europe and security from a “blitzkrieg-type” attack when one state would concentrate a large number of weapons on another’s border. Thus, severe caps on TPEs were implemented (specifically tanks, jet fighters, light-armored vehicles, cannons, etc.) Consequently, troop presence would not be an issue to collective security, neither would the US ABM bases (clearly a missile deterrent system).

In addition to the above, Russia’s attempt to withdraw from the treaty is set to completely confuse all negotiations, as the treaty seems to be read differently by both sides. With Russia having ratified it but slow on implementation and NATO members, having not ratified it accusing Russia of slow progress. Even before Russia’s announcement, the Guardian reported that:

 

The Bush administration has this week been struggling to convince sceptical European partners that the missile shield is a good idea.

In an interview yesterday, Germany’s deputy foreign minister, Gernot Erler, revealed that at least six allies, including Germany, raised doubts about the project at a Nato meeting last week — amid fears of another cold war on European soil.

 

The CFE treaty is not the first treaty Russia has threatened to withdraw from. Russian officials initially opened up their protests by suggesting likely withdrawal from the 1987 treaty limiting medium-range missiles. It is a paradox that both treaties are virtually outdated, with Russia and US having mostly scrapped their medium-range missiles, while six other countries still possess them. With regard to the CFE treaty, the militarization and force-withdrawals have mostly been achieved already, and Russia remains the beneficiary under the treaty due to its massive territory. While other countries had to scrap their weapons, Russia shifted its TPEs beyond the limit-free Urals in Siberia. Yet the treaties are highly symbolic and are the essential foundations of collective security in the post Cold War period.

The Financial Times reports that, the US was the first country that began breaking such treaties, through its 2001 unilateral withdrawal from the ABM treaty:

 

However, Thursday’s decision is strategically important because it signals Russia’s growing readiness to tear up the post-1990 diplomatic order. Moscow believes today’s strong Russia can revisit the deals done in the 1990s by a weak Russia. The Kremlin also argues the US has repeatedly acted unilaterally, including over Iraq and over recent plans for Czech and Polish missile defence bases. If the US can set aside bilateral or multilateral pacts, says Moscow, so can Russia.

These developments take the world into perilous waters. While there is no open ideological conflict between east and west, there are deep differences over democracy and the rule of law. It will be dangerous if these disputes prevent Russia, the European Union and the US co-operating on matters of mutual interest, including energy, the war against terrorism and nuclear non-proliferation.

 

The US is entitled to look after its own security. But it must accept security is often easier to build in partnership with others than alone. America, not Russia, was the first to pull out of a cold war arms pact when in 2001 it abandoned the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty. Washington’s recent effort to explain its missile defence plans to sceptical European states, including Russia, is long overdue.

Russia is behaving irresponsibly in a diplomatic sense and is severely threatening collective security in Europe. But the US is doing the same, yet indirectly. Analysts have rightly pointed out that withdrawal from both treaties will make Russia‘s position worse: it has barely the right capital to finance development and deployment of medium-range ballistic missiles, and to engage in a large-scale rearmament of its European part. These capabilities are dwarfed by 10 times by the US military budget. But clearly Russia has no choice. Its policy of countering NATO’s dominance must start now, at a time when relations are moderately cool. The fact of no ideological difference between the East and the Wets means no serious threat of confrontation will occur. Yet, it is worrisome if Russia and the US scrap their commitments to security in Europe, especially given the experience of the 20th century. We are living in a different world, but relations among countries sour easily, and alliances and counter-alliances form just as fast.

The end goal of its diplomatic game is not to scrap its commitment to European security, but to make the rest of Europe aware that such issues as the ABM deployment if pushed unilaterally by the US without NATO approval could bring instability. Yet, the threats that Russia has made show that it is engaged in almost full-scale bluff, the US knows and understands this. Germany understands this even better. This poker game is very long, and the stakes may rise with every passing day. Unless serious negotiations start soon, Russia will turn its bluff into action. If a treaty withdrawal will occur, there is a marginal prospect of US rearmament in Europe. This would be quite an unfortunate prospect.

Nikolay, Student, Boston U., Business Major, Russian. Interests: International Relations (1930-1945); Russian 20th century History, Capital Markets, Private Equity. He also runs the blog Russia’s True Tales of Terra.

Tags: |||||
US-Russia
Leave a comment

127 Comments.

  1. Irishman May 7, 2007 at 11:29 am

    Mike,

    I dont have anything against you, contrary to what you may actually believe.

    But what you have written above is TOTAL rubbish. And repeating that rubbish is not going to make it become ‘not rubbish’. The TTT is a political pamphlet, end of story. Dont be trying to fill us with crap, we can see a mile away that its just a mouthpiece for PMR independence, the use of which I can only assume is to try somehow to alter western opinion. Megalomaniac is in Cairo telling us all about Scotland and Karen Ryan should be ashamed of herself if she’s one of ours. Go home Karen, Ireland is awash with money.
    We are all able to make a sound evaluation of the TTT Mike, you’re not the only adult in this conversation. And at least 5 of us have said its a pamphlet. Only you, who funnily enough write for it, have said otherwise.

    One of the great realisations of this life Mike – it usually hits us as teens – is that inspite of how right we think we are, that may not actually be the case. Clearly this basic element of self understanding has eluded you even thus far into your 40s.

  2. Lyndon May 7, 2007 at 11:36 am

    You’re sounding like La Russophobe with your latest hit claim.

    Whereas you sound like LR on a regular basis (as “others have noted”).

    Others have noted how such claims are often made in a non-accurate manner.

    Yes, and I’ve been one of those others. It’s certainly no more ridiculous to look at Google results than to measure the value of blog content based on the number of comments at a post (as both you and LR have done).

    Mike, why is it that you feel the need to vehemently attack me whenever I write something about TTT that hits home? You seem to have a pretty big personal stake in that website’s success.

    If you’re going to criticize, show substance. To date, you’ve yet to find much if anything at fault with my commentary.

    Mike, just a few comments above, you referred us to a TTT article (that reference qualifies as your “commentary”), and I critiqued it on substance. I have done this repeatedly, and it only leads to ad hominem attacks peppered with rants about the “establishment,” David Johnson and other media figures who you apparently envy with some level of bitterness.

    I am not a “flack” for anyone; I have mentioned several times jere that there is simply no need to discuss other media sources here, as they are not relevant to a discussion of the flawed material that appears in TTT under your name and otherwise.

    Furthermore, the organizational affiliation (Jamestown) and sources of funding for EDM are matters of public record, it does not fabricate the existence of a print edition, etc., unlike TTT, all of which I’ve noted elsewhere.

    A fairness doctrine of sorts in lieu of Lyndon Allin’s unfair criticims of FSU media coverage.

    Not sure exactly what that’s supposed to mean. You introduced a TTT article and I critiqued it on substance. You are the one raising the issue of EDM’s accuracy, in what as far as I can tell is a continued attempt to divert attention from the propaganda website you so proudly affiliate yourself with.

    You must be joking if you expect me to look at a bunch of articles written by other people about a topic that I didn’t raise and try to rebut every point in them. However, in your own feeble contribution to the cut-and-paste vomit you posted, you said this:

    Geographically, is Vladimir Socor calling Trans-Dniester the “left bank” and if so, shouldn’t it be referred to as the “right bank”?

    You just can’t help betraying your ignorance with every keystroke, can you, Mike? Are you not aware that when people refer to left- and right-bank, the term refers to the side of the river as you face in the direction it flows? This is not about “viewing from the north” as you explained later, it is about the standard way of referring to the “left” or “right” bank of the river. Please correct me if I’m wrong.

    I understand that as you sit in Malvern Park or wherever you make your home and look at a map, it looks like Transnistria is to the right of the Dnestr river. But if you go by the direction of the river’s flow, it is on the left bank. Hence my references in previous comments here to the larger part of Moldova as “right-bank Moldova.” I guess that tells us how closely you read my earlier comments.

    Tim:

    It’s funny, I have found a pattern here: when I use a turn of phrase, you adopt it a comment or two later.

    I have noticed exactly the same thing about Mike. He seems to think that by simply bouncing someone’s words back to them, his arguments become as powerful as theirs.

  3. Michael Averko May 7, 2007 at 11:39 am

    Non-substance again from Ger and the same old same old from Lyndon.

    My critique of JRL has far more validity than what Lyndon has said of TTT. Tim and Ger being no better than him in making an honest evaluation of it.

    Once again, Johnson and Lavelle are older than me.

  4. Michael Averko May 7, 2007 at 11:43 am

    Misinformation aside, here’s what I actua lly said on 4/21:

    Re: http://english.mn.ru/english/issue.php?2007-15-32

    Another example of Russian government funded money going to waste. A soft interview and a most disappointing one given who the involved interviewer is.

    That involved interviewer is well aware of David Johnson’s not so Russia friendly tactics. This also includes holding censorship grudges for prolonged periods. JRL banned eXile for a lengthy period. At least this is the very plausibly stated view of Mark Ames and several others. JRL’s favoritism for La Russophobe over The Tiraspol Times and the AJRSS is one of many examples of JRL’s bias.

    JRL posted an absurd anti-Russian poli sports piece from Oliver Bronsen/La Russophobe without ever having posted a coherent reply to it. There was at least one such submitted reply. This bias is further exemplified by JRL’s posting of La Russophobe’s Siberian Light interview without posting any others from that series. As per the points raised in this paragraph, see: http://www.siberianlight.net/2007/03/01/interview-mike-averko/. Right after my Siberian Light interview (which was critical of JRL), JRLs’ were no longer received at my Yahoo account.

    Despite being very well received commentary (in terms of views, replies and being picked up elsewhere), JRL never posted any of my Serbianna, Tiraspol Times (including my most recent), Russia Blog, Sean’s Russia Blog, and Intelligent.ru commentary. Instead, JRL often promotes individuals subscribing to topics and views which can’t be confused with being Russocentric (the definition of Russocentric is in the answer to question 14 in the link in the last paragraph).

    Sean Guillory of Sean’s Russia Blog just claimed that JRL carried my Sean’s Russia Blog article on Andrei Vlasov in its Feb. 8, edition. I didn’t receive it while having received JRLs before and after it. Even if true, my points are 100% valid. The validity is shown in the kind of favoritism JRL plays with its frequent posting of source material from the likes of Julian Evans, Anna Arutunyan, Jake Rudnitsky, Alexi Pankin and Dmitry Babich. Russocentric folks and a number of others aren’t so greatly impressed by what they offer. David Johnson’s bias is further shown by what he chooses to archive (link) at his site (not all of the JRL posted material is linked), in addition to his best of JRL posted material at The Moscow Times influenced Russia Profile. Note how David Johnson claims to seek solid defenses of Russia. The supposition being that they’re hard to find. BS! WHY then did he not post my last Serbianna column “Russia’s Sane Position on Kosovo” as well as some of my other commentary?

    At the now downed http://english.intelligent.ru site (which I understand can be picked up via a way back machine.net service), the JRL editor said in a posted Oct. ’05 Letters exchange that Anders Aslund, Masha Gessen and the Washington Post are credible sources. In the same instance, he called me a disease. In a private discussion, he rationalized that comment by saying that he felt that I take the attitude that all is fair in war. Translation: it’s okay for not so Russia friendly forces to be aggressive. On the other hand, if Russia friendly forces provide a measured reply, David Johnson has a problem with that. His hypocrisy reeks big time. For example, he had no problems posting someone who referred to Texas Congressman Ron Paul as a kook.

    Regarding the posted kook comment on Ron Paul – David Johnson has been known to privately lecture people on the more Russia friendly side on proper manner (he did that with at least three others besides myself). I’m sure he didn’t lecture Gessen when (in one of her last Moscow Times articles) she called a colleague by his name “slime”.

    As communicated elsewhere, one will be hard pressed to find anything at JRL on the Captive Nations Committee, which is probably the most institutionalized form of anti-Russian bigotry.

    Sorry Robert Bridge, but your softball interview isn’t indicative of what’s required to improve the English language coverage of the former USSR. Some of those sincerely committed to improving that coverage are well aware of what’s been going on. Others aren’t, while some court appointed Russia friendlys (who aren’t always the best source material) are happy or at least content as long as they’re getting the nod.

  5. Irishman May 7, 2007 at 11:47 am

    He did again. Another copy and paste job.

    Have you no shame at all?

  6. Lyndon May 7, 2007 at 11:54 am

    Tim:

    Then Lyndon pointed out that they did publish you, but you didn’t receive it.

    To be fair, Sean originally pointed this out. I just happened to be the one who kept pointing it out in the face of Averko’s ongoing difficult relationship with the truth. I can’t believe we’re back on this issue again, since it was exhaustively discussed here already.

  7. Tim Newman May 7, 2007 at 12:00 pm

    You seem to have a pretty big personal stake in that website’s success.

    He does. It is the only media outlet, and I use that term loosely, which still publishes his stuff. The Tiraspol Times is the east bank of the Volga for Averko. If that falls, he is finished.

  8. Fanyukha May 7, 2007 at 12:01 pm

    Unlike your pathetic self, I don’t have to…

    Au contraire, mon frere. Indeed, what you’ve demonstrated in the vast majority of your comments, above all, is a tendency toward logical fallacy and sloppy thinking. Two of the more common tactics:

    1. You seem to assume that others’ failure to critize something therefore means they support it (i.e., you mock others for their failure to critize certain publications that you find biased, and then claim that such people therefore share the same biases).

    2. You seem to think that receiving unsolicited letters of support from other people is somehow quantitatively meaningful. (I’m sure it feels nice to have others appreciate your work, but be aware that those who write you are hardly a respresentative sample). I’d suggest you find more meaninful gauges of your popularity. (Publish a book and see how well it does in sales and see what kind of book reviews it gets in the press, for example — obviously, this is something that many an expert on this part of the world has done–not to mention many a non-expert).

    Am I really that deluded, or did you never take logic 101?

  9. Michael Averko May 7, 2007 at 12:31 pm

    As I correctly suspected would likely be the case, there’s nothing of substance since my last visit here.

    This Fanyukha has all of the makings of CD or friend of CD, who isn’t posting here after some recent regularity.

    Its (I’ll return its earlier reference to me as it) belief of having a superior logic reveals a definite warpedness on its part.

    Ger is all hot air with no substance. Lyndon shuns dealing in a more direct way on the issues for obvious reasons. Specifically, his biases lose out in such a discussion.

  10. Fanya May 7, 2007 at 12:47 pm

    Hmm… Yet another example of Averko being trapped in some kind of logical-fallacy universe… one of the last resorts of a true svoloch is the straw man (see belief of having a superior logic). I never boasted superior logic, I merely said your own is pretty shoddy. I am not CD. I am not a sock puppet. I am the ghost of the not-so-sharpshooting Fani K.

  11. Michael Averko May 7, 2007 at 12:52 pm

    More like you carry on like a dim witted twit who in recent memory has had nothing of significance to say about FSU issues.

    That no one here has outted you on this says something about their own credibility when passing judgment on me.

  12. Fanya May 7, 2007 at 12:57 pm

    That no one here has outted you on this says something about their own credibility when passing judgment on me.

    Are you intentionally wrapping your arguments in logical fallacies? Again, you are suggesting that those who haven’t criticized me must, therefore, support me. Is English your native language?

  13. Michael Averko May 7, 2007 at 1:06 pm

    You prove my point yet again as you carry on like a troll, uninterested in discussing FSU topics unlike yours truly.

  14. Fanochka May 7, 2007 at 2:03 pm

    I’ve focused on your style of argument, true, but I’d be happy to discuss other matters.

    Note, however, that instead of attacking my claims about your inhabiting a netherworld of logical fallicy — or, even more to the point, instead of raising an FSU-related topic — you have resorted to calling me a troll. Which really really hurts.

  15. Chris May 7, 2007 at 2:17 pm

    Lavelle and Johnson may both be older than you, but they don’t live with their momz and refer to themselves as “The Stud” in internet fora.

  16. The Wanking Averko May 7, 2007 at 2:36 pm

    Is there any chance, even a snowball’s chance in hell, that this formerly fine blog will again become what it used to be before it was invaded by “The Mighty Averko and his Sockpuppet – Army” ?

  17. Lyndon May 7, 2007 at 2:48 pm

    Lyndon shuns dealing in a more direct way on the issues for obvious reasons.

    No, Mike, I shun dealing with you for obvious reasons. Namely, that you are incapable of substantive, civil debate with people who disagree with you on the issues you claim to know so much about.

  18. Michael Averko May 7, 2007 at 6:33 pm

    Chris Doss:

    I don’t live with my momz and unlike yourself, I’m not a flack for the existing inequities. You carry on like some bum living off of your mom and dad.

    Unlike Lavelle and Johnson – I don’t hide from criticism.

    Lyndon Allin:

    Like Chris Doss, you appear incapable of dealing with specifics that you don’t personally like.

    BTW, Alexander Holt will be in St. Pete next week to discuss matter realted to the recent TT artcile of his.

    Like Doss, you participate in troll like manner which any reasoned person can see.

    I’m glad to say that I dont support such activity.

  19. Chris May 7, 2007 at 6:52 pm

    @Sean:

    “Not knowing much of anything about Estonia myself, I asked a friend who is a historian of the place. He told me last night that this was the case too. To think I figured all the Russian cries of fascism had no basis. I guess they just might.”

    Part of me thinks this might be a repeat of the 1990s, when Russia was carrying on about the rising threat posed by Islamism extremism and the West joined laughed them off as paranoid.

    @Mike:

    You do too live with your momz. She complained to me about it the last time I had her over at my place, before we got down to business, if you get my meaning. She’s also afraid you might be gay, given that you’re 44 and have never had a girlfriend.

  20. Lyndon May 7, 2007 at 6:53 pm

    Alexander Holt will be in St. Pete next week to discuss matter realted to the recent TT artcile of his.

    Where/when will this talk be, Mike? Or is it not a public event?

    And what is Mr. (Dr.?) Holt’s institutional affiliation? The TTT only provides the following identifying information:

    Alex Holt who has researched the issue in depth and written on the history of Pridnestrovie for The Tiraspol Times.

    So…his commentary in TTT should be taken seriously based on previous commentary in TTT? I guess there’s a certain, um, logic to that.

    Will this individual also discuss his article dated March 10, in which a photo caption makes the following claim?

    In World War II, Jews were murdered in Auschwitz and other camps of the Holocaust. But no place was larger than Transnistria.

    I would be interested to see him back that claim up.

  21. Sean Guillory May 7, 2007 at 7:03 pm

    But no place was larger than Transnistria.

    I guess he forgot about a little place called Poland.

  22. Michael Averko May 7, 2007 at 7:16 pm

    Chris Doss, that last quote from you about me is a tell all of the kind of prick like flack you are.

    You never met my mom (thank G-d) in addition to revealing that you’ve some kind of perverse sexual hangup having nothing to do with this discussion.

    To stoop to your very low level, are your parents as low a form of life as yourself?

    Lyndon Allin:

    I’m not so well read on that particular aspect of history. You’d a unique opportuntity to write a column for TT. I’m sure that offer is still on the table.

  23. Mike's Mom May 7, 2007 at 7:37 pm

    I want all you bad people to stop picking on Mike. He is good boy even though he from family widout no edukation. He always be righting storeys and leters to the newspaper since he a little boy in our house in Arkansas. I know he be a little slow, you just gotta be patienter and like with him.

  24. Michael Averko May 7, 2007 at 7:45 pm

    Very intelligent Chris Doss.

    You prove my point yet again.

    How about an ISP check on that one?

    I did get a translation of the posted chatter on such matter from last week.

    Doss’ mom would have a tough time defending the manner of her son here.

  25. Chris' Badass Mom May 7, 2007 at 7:51 pm

    You dissing my son Mike? I gon come to New York and kick yo sorry ass! It’s time to ruuuuumble!

  26. Michael Averko May 7, 2007 at 7:59 pm

    Chris has really sunk low. What kind of a normal person would post some of the content he has here?

    I can believe that his mom fights his battles.

  27. Andrew Waller May 8, 2007 at 4:03 am

    Good for you Mike. Those with guts make a stand on such manner.

1 2 3