Results 1 to 40 of 54
-
11-16-2007, 12:38 PM #1
" Russia abandons key Cold War arms treaty"
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20071116...ThGnZjl8Cs0NUE
MOSCOW (AFP) - The Russian senate voted Friday to suspend compliance with a key Cold War treaty limiting conventional military forces across Europe, drawing renewed Western criticism.
The unanimous vote in the upper house Federation Council followed last week's decision in the lower house of parliament, the State Duma, to freeze Moscow's participation in the Conventional Forces in Europe (CFE) treaty from December 12.
The 1990 CFE treaty places strict limitations on the deployment of tanks and other military hardware across Europe.
President Vladimir Putin ordered the moratorium on July 13 amid a row over US plans to install an anti-missile shield in eastern Europe.
In a statement, the Federation Council said Russia had been forced to look at suspending the treaty "for as long as all the countries of NATO have not ratified" an adapted version of the accord.
General Yury Baluyevsky, Russia's chief of the general staff, said the move was "the correct, logical step from the political and military point of view," ITAR-TASS news agency reported.
Responding to Friday's vote the Western military alliance NATO reiterated earlier criticism it had made.
"Any measure which takes forward the process by which Russia would unilaterally withdraw from the treaty is regrettable," said NATO spokesman James Appathurai.
The state-run RIA Novosti news agency said Russia could still return to the CFE if Putin reversed parliament's decision.
But a NATO diplomat, requesting anonymity, questioned what Russia meant by suspending the treaty, saying it contained no provision for suspension and that Moscow was intentionally muddying the waters.
"Russia's decision to use the term 'suspension' only adds an element of doubt," he said.
"Does this mean the CFE treaty is dead? Nothing is clear. It's an ambiguous situation that could satisfy both parties," he said.
The treaty's demise highlights deteriorating relations between Moscow and countries of the Atlantic alliance as Putin's administration pushes to reassert Russia on the international stage.
"This will be an indicator of Russia's seriousness in its uncompromising stand on ensuring its defensive capabilities, including in answer to US plans to put anti-missile defences in eastern Europe," State Duma deputy Leonid Slutsky told ITAR-TASS.
Last week Deputy Defence Minister Alexander Kolmakov said that plans were being considered for boosting troop deployments on the western flank, something impossible under the CFE.
This is not the first indication of a return to Cold War-style tensions.
Russia has also this year renewed long-distance strategic bomber patrols, threatened to retarget nuclear missiles at European cities, and to withdraw from other bedrock disarmament treaties.
Moscow says the CFE is not working because an updated version agreed on in 1999 has been ratified by Russia, but not by NATO countries.
NATO members, led by the United States, say they cannot ratify the pact because of Russia's military presence in ex-Soviet Georgia and Moldova.
But for NATO, Appathurai stressed: "NATO countries want to see the adapted treaty enter into force as soon as possible."
Although Russia this week handed over a third Soviet-era base to the pro-Western Georgian authorities, there is controversy over a fourth.
Although Russia says that the base has been decommissioned, Georgian officials are unable to inspect the facility because it is in the Russian-backed separatist Abkhazia region.
Adding to the tension is the growing unease in the West with wide-ranging limitations imposed by Putin on democratic reforms and what critics call Russia's aggressive use of massive energy resources.
Moscow accuses Washington of interfering in Russia's backyard and attempting to rule the world as the sole superpower.
Speaking about the decision to quit the CFE, Baluyevsky said: "The US and NATO political leadership hoped that Russia would flinch at the last moment and not take the decision about introducing a moratorium," RIA Novosti reported
-
11-16-2007, 08:09 PM #2
-
11-17-2007, 11:29 AM #3
-
11-17-2007, 12:01 PM #4
Logan you cant deny that the missile shield is a bad idea alltogheter.
-
11-17-2007, 03:06 PM #5
As Tock said in his example....I dont believe the US would be indifferent or tolerant of actions stated in his example.
Moscow accuses Washington of interfering in Russia's backyard and attempting to rule the world as the sole superpower.
-
Yeah I dont blame russia at all.
-
11-17-2007, 06:02 PM #7Originally Posted by MuscleScience
god i am sick of the states trying to run the show over the entire world
-
11-18-2007, 07:29 PM #8
Well, Logan, it appears that you are of the "My Country Right Or Wrong" mentality.
Seems to me that it's more patriotic to call your political leaders on stupidity than to support them in it.
JMHO.
Last edited by Tock; 11-18-2007 at 07:31 PM.
-
11-18-2007, 09:49 PM #9
-
-
11-18-2007, 09:54 PM #11
you know what a worse idea was. Allowing China and Russia to control our hand in sanctioning Iran. No one wants war with iran, but without an international effort through the UN, war will surely come. Putin is a dangerous man. This is a defensive shield, not an offensive one.
-
11-18-2007, 09:58 PM #12
-
11-18-2007, 11:13 PM #13
-
11-19-2007, 12:15 PM #14
-
11-19-2007, 12:18 PM #15Originally Posted by Kärnfysikern
-
11-19-2007, 03:19 PM #16
-
11-19-2007, 03:21 PM #17
-
11-19-2007, 10:38 PM #18
-
11-20-2007, 03:53 PM #19
-
11-20-2007, 04:36 PM #20
-
11-21-2007, 02:26 AM #21
-
11-21-2007, 10:17 AM #22
If you are constantly going to live in the past, that's your business and could be applied to any country. The fact remains that everyone and every country makes mistakes over time, the difference is how each one deals with it after the fact. As far as imperialism, save that bullshit rhetoric for your rallies.
The fact that you require rational for why an american would back the US over Putin, Chavez, and Ahmenajad makes my taking the time to do so a waste. You have your own issues to get through.Last edited by Logan13; 11-21-2007 at 10:20 AM.
-
11-21-2007, 11:34 AM #23
I am with Russia on this guys.
Not for the fact of who is right and who is wrong, but at the end of the day if it came down to it, I can walk to Russia if I wanted, USA? I cant walk there can I!.
-
11-21-2007, 12:11 PM #24
Its really pointless to speculate on where my loyalties lie with things like this. I've already stated my position several times, I am 100% patriotic, but I do not back up policies which require us to meddal in the affairs of other countries or to threaten their sovreignty. I believe the US should go back to being an Isolationist country.
The missle defense system I however agree with. As long as the system is purely defensive, the Russians or any other country should have no problem with it. It's equivalent to telling a person from the US they aren't allowed to wear a bullet proof vest because another person from Russia might want to shoot&kill them at some point.
My bone to pick, however, is with the general foreign policy this country is following, in which more than half of the American people disagree with. The country is supposed to be run by the people, and represent what the people WANT, not by a handful of jerkoffs in Washington who can do whatever they want without any accountability to the people.
-
11-21-2007, 12:17 PM #25
-
11-21-2007, 01:42 PM #26
If it was your intention for me to reply to a post that correlates the US to a rapist or robber, please do not hold your breath in anticipation. Another interesting way of thinking; When your country gets off the fence I will consider your input on such worldly matters.
-
11-21-2007, 01:43 PM #27
-
11-21-2007, 02:31 PM #28
-
11-21-2007, 02:34 PM #29
So if Russia did build a missle shield in Cuba and Mexico you would not object?
The objection from Russia is ridicilous in the sense that it wont have the slightest impact on Russias deterant capability, but it is logical when considering what a huge insult it is towards russia.
-
11-21-2007, 02:46 PM #30Originally Posted by Kärnfysikern
-
11-21-2007, 02:58 PM #31
-
11-21-2007, 03:03 PM #32New Member
- Join Date
- Nov 2007
- Posts
- 3
Russia
Why would any American care about a defense shield in Cuba? Shoot.....next thing you know China will be drilling for oil off the coast of Florida!............Oh, Wait, they are! The fact of the matter is......Russia, Iran, Syria and now Hugo Chavez are all teaming up against America and most Americans have their heads in the sand and are oblivious to it. They are attempting to collapse our dollar and crumble our economy. While I don't agree with some of the things Bush has done, he is making moves right now for the unavoidable coming war. The cause of the war will not be America, it will be Russia and China blocking sactions and Iran pursuing a nuclear bomb. What other options are left when Iran has already threatened to wipe The US (Big Satan) and Isreal (Little Satan) off the map?
-
11-21-2007, 03:18 PM #33Originally Posted by ministerofexercise
-
11-21-2007, 03:45 PM #34
-
11-21-2007, 03:46 PM #35
-
11-21-2007, 03:49 PM #36
-
11-21-2007, 03:53 PM #37
I do not think that it is a bad idea as I do not trust Putin's quest for power. It is a defensive shield after all. What does russia have to be upset about, that they cannot unload missles into Europe uninhibitated? There is a reason for it, whether you and I have access to such info. or not.
-
11-21-2007, 04:13 PM #38New Member
- Join Date
- Nov 2007
- Posts
- 3
Russia
Its true that as of now, China depends somewhat on america however, China has recently dumped over $30 billion of investments in the American $ and invested in the EU. By your theory then Russia is clearly benefiting on that front. Russia has also just agreed to sell nuclear technology to Egypt. I don't know how anyone can say the Americans are the aggressor? Also, By abondoning the $ China has helped de-value it. If it continues to fall, how will China be dependent on us? Our money will be worth nothing. Also, keep in mind that in big business, war means profit so saying that war is not an option because it cannot be won is clearly not an argument.
Iran is currently opperating fully 3000 centrifuges. IAEA estimates that Iran will have enough weapons grade plutonium to build a bomb in 2 years.......at that rate. If they can operate those centifuges at a more optimum level (which they are currently attempting to do), they will have a bomb even sooner. That is just what we know, who knows what they are hiding? I believe that if they were hiding nothing, they would devulge all info the IAEA has requested. With very few allies in the Middle East and Russia abondoning its cold war treaty, we need to put missile defense systems everywhere. We are not the aggressors, only the country taken advantage of because so many of us p***y's try to be to "Politically Correct". Everyone hates America but where is the first place people come running in the event of a natural disaster or when they need help? Thats right AMERICA!Last edited by ministerofexercise; 11-21-2007 at 04:16 PM.
-
11-21-2007, 04:15 PM #39New Member
- Join Date
- Nov 2007
- Posts
- 3
-
11-21-2007, 04:18 PM #40
Thread Information
Users Browsing this Thread
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Heart and hair safe summer cycle?
03-25-2024, 07:30 PM in ANABOLIC STEROIDS - QUESTIONS & ANSWERS