Russia to temporarily withdraw from Treaty on Conventional Forces in Europe

[Patroklos]

Really? Then stop pretending that you don't consider Russia as an enemy anymore. You did't disbant your anti-Russian military machine, even when we disbandedn Communism. So it's not about about our political system, it's about your hatred towards Russia.

No Serb. Again, we didn't disband because we won. Why would we disband a security architecture that kept us safe from probably the most evil state to ever exist in human history? It worked. Plus, it makes sense to maintain an organization that fosters discourse and cooperation.

Those whores now happy to be your your cannon fodder. Nothing really changed for them.

Sure it did, as they ASKED to be part of NATO. We don't even have to station whole armies within their borders to keep them in line, bet your jealous of that.

The missile launch warning system is the part of your nuclear potential, just like it's the part of the Russian nuclear potential. It's build to detect the missile launch of your enemy to let you immediately retaliate with your own nuclear weapons.

No Serb, we can already do that with satelites. This sytem detects missiles in time so we can shoot them down, SO THAT WE DON'T HAVE TO RETALIATE WITH NUCLEAR WEAPONS!

IIRC, we shut-down a radar at Cuba, not a navy base.
As for our ships, see the bottom of my post.

Yes I see, our prefered route of attack to the USSR, down to Cuba, U-turn, and over the Arctic

Again, why do we care if you shut down some useless bases somewhere?

Exactly. Your democracies didn't make regulations of that treaty a LAW.

WHY SHOULD WE?

Becasue you did ratify it (or rather Putin signed it, so much more simple!) so it is law for you. We can't break a treaty if none exists. Not that we have, our troop levels are well within even those non binding limits.

Did I said you violated it? I've said that NATO countries DO NOT FULFIL their obligations.

Same thing Serb. If we don't fullfill obligations, are we not violating them? But again, we are not obligated to do ****. What obligates us?

So you have no right to complain about Russia withdrawing from the treaty, because nobody except Russia, Ukraine, Byelorussia and Kazkhstan never ratified it. And for 26 countries who signed it in 1999 (aside four countries mentioned above) such treaty simply DOESN'T EXIST.
The NATO countries don't give a **** about the treaty.

Boohoo, you ratified it, deal with it. You seem more worried about us violating obligations that are not obligations than we are about you actually violating a treaty. Move all the forces you want, you could barely make it to Serbia in peacetime unopposed, what do we have to fear from your crackerjack soldiers?

Doesn't matter, since no NATO country has ratified the treaty. Do not expect us to fulfil obligations of the treaty, if you don't fulfil yours. Period.

Once again, we have no obligations. And once again, if we did, we would still be complaint. We don't require treaties to make common sense decisions like not placing army groups to counter a Russian threat that doesn't exist. We just did it out of the goodness of our hearts.

Doesn't matter.
The treaty is not ratified by parliaments of those countries. From legal point of view they can increase their military presence in Europe any time.

So you care more about the piece of paper than the actual troop levels? Deal, we will sign it and then quadrupple our ABM defenses in Poland since we will still be in full compliance with the treaty. Might move a few divisions to Poland to.

That was easy!

The Putin's message was very clear - either all countries who signed the treaty will ratify it, or we will quit. Simple as that. Eight years is more than enough to made that. If you won't do that now - that means the treaty doesn't exist.

I am pretty sure it traslated to "I have a small penis."

The heavy armament of the 14th Army have been destroyed in presence of your military observers.
And Yeltsin is burning in hell only for that alone. The Russian tanks have been destroyed,

I bet your soldiers were dancing in the streets as their 1960's era death boxes were taken away. Probably felt like a new lease on life.

we get nothing in return. So shut the **** up about us withdrawing from the treaty.
You have cheated us.

Really? I thought your people get to live in an era where the chances of you (and it could only have been you) starting a world devestating nuclear war where they are destined to lose one way of the other was an impossibilty.

You know, sometimes, when I read Lonestar's posts I feel respect for the US Navy. Sometimes, when I read your farts (some people belive to be posts) I feel safe.
As long as such old farts are serving in US Navy - Russia is safe.
The force of such overwhelming in their ignorance, morons will never beat us.

As you've said not so long ago - any time any place.


p.s. Have a nice day.

And you lose your nerve...

Unfortunetly to meet me, your ships would actually have to get underway from the peir. So I guess I am out of luck

[Serb]

later.

[Patroklos]

Russia, Ukraine and Byelorussia are three branches of the same people. They had a common state at the beginning of their existense - the Kiev Rus, and were in fact the one people. It was hundreds and hundreds of years before the continent where your country is located, has been discovered by europeans.
And re-unification of Russia and Ukraine was in 1654.

Is your arithmetics is as good as your knowledge of Russian history? Or you are ably to calculate 1654+250 ?
And then explain what kind of significant even for Russian-Ukranian relationships had happened in 1904+?

Ukraine and Russia, holding hands, dancing around the rainbows, right?

[ElTigre]

Originally posted by Serb

Did I said you violated it? I've said that NATO countries DO NOT FULFIL their obligations.

To the contrary, it's Russia that doesn't fulfill its obligations. In 1999, when the treaty was renegotiated, Russia signed the "Istanbul Commitments", promising to withdraw its forces from Georgia and Moldova. So far Russia hasn't done so. No western nation will sign the adapted CFE Treaty until Russia implements the "Istanbul Commitments".

Originally signed in 1990, the CFE Treaty underwent adaptation at the 1999 OSCE Istanbul summit, in one package with the Final Act that includes what came to be known as Russia's "Istanbul Commitments"; namely, to withdraw its forces from Georgia and Moldova. While the original 1990 treaty remains in force, the 1999-adapted treaty never entered into force because Russia has not fulfilled those commitments. Moreover, Armenian forces deploy Russian-supplied heavy weaponry exceeding CFE treaty limits in areas seized from Azerbaijan, out of bounds to international inspection.

http://halldor2.blogspot.com/2006/05/istanbul-commitments.html

Nevertheless, Russia retains three bases in Georgia (Gudauta, Batumi, Akhalkalaki), and has avoided any serious negotiations on the matter in the last two years. Instead, it advances demands that imply a long-term hold on those bases. It also retains in Moldova the troops that were to be withdraw, and has transferred some of those troops into Trans-Dniester's army. Residual amounts of Russia's heavy weaponry (designated as "unaccounted-for TLE") have been handed over to the illegal forces of Trans-Dniester, Abkhazia and South Ossetia. The host countries' consent, required by the CFE Treaty (no stationing of foreign forces without freely-given consent), is deemed unnecessary by Moscow. Meanwhile, Armenian forces deploy their Russian-supplied, unaccounted-for TLE within Azerbaijan's territory beyond Karabakh. Throughout the region, Russia's forces and the forces of unrecognized "statelets" are out of bounds to verification.

The U.S., NATO and their partners always conditioned the ratification of the CFE Treaty on Russia's compliance with its Istanbul Commitments to withdraw forces from Moldova and Georgia.

http://www.jamestown.org/publications_details.php?volume_id=401&issue_id=2962&article_id=236752

[Arrian]

Who cares what your citizens think? The policy of your state that is what matter, not opinion of your citizens.

Serb, you might want to consider that, typically, a democratic state's policy is not independent of public opinion. Foreign policy is perhaps less impacted by public opinion than domestic policy, but public opinion does matter. I know that might be difficult to grasp for a citizen of Strongmanistan.

The missile defense system is a bit of a joke. Russia's reaction to it is hysterical, in both senses of the word.

Also amusing is your concept of NATO as an alliance in which everybody takes orders from Washington. You haven't been paying attention, have you?

-Arrian

[PLATO]

Originally posted by Arrian




Serb, you might want to consider that, typically, a democratic state's policy is not independent of public opinion. Foreign policy is perhaps less impacted by public opinion than domestic policy, but public opinion does matter. I know that might be difficult to grasp for a citizen of Strongmanistan.

The missile defense system is a bit of a joke. Russia's reaction to it is hysterical, in both senses of the word.

Also amusing is your concept of NATO as an alliance in which everybody takes orders from Washington. You haven't been paying attention, have you?

-Arrian

QFT

...and a great summation as well!

[Heresson]

Originally posted by Serb
Russia, Ukraine and Byelorussia are three branches of the same people. They had a common state at the beginning of their existense - the Kiev Rus, and were in fact the one people.

At that point of time, all Slavs were one people, the there were only slavic dialect yet to evolve into languages.

And re-unification of Russia and Ukraine was in 1654.

1) It was only after 6 years of civil war in Ukraine between polish-backed gentry, and only after they started losing (Beresteczko 1653), that they decided to ask Russia for help. Until then, they claimed they want to be a part of the Commonwealth - which they were denied.
2) Soon enough, cossacks turned away from Russia, and signed an union with Poland (Hadziacz Union). If they were so happy with Russia, why did they do that?
3) When the union with Poland didn't work, they preferred to ask Turkey for help than to become "united" with Russia (Doroszenko's policy).
They tried to get independant again under Mazepa, and had to be crushed completely by Catherine II to accept russian dominance.
Indeed, Ukraine and Russia together, hand in hand, dancing around the rainbows.

1) We are not allied with Ukraine.

But they are your brothers! You are one RODINA!!!

If Ukraine or Georgia, etc wants Russian gas for a funny price - they SHOULD BE FRIENDLY TO RUSSIA, NOT HOSTILE.

Heressonic translation of Serb's "friendly to Russia" =
"Russia's puppets"

How?
Explain, how Southern Osetia and Abkhazia are diffrent from Kosovo.

I am actually in favour of their independance if they wish to do it, especially that Ossetians (Alans) are a country of rich culture and glorious past.
Bah, I wish for an independant, united South and North Ossetia , just like I wish for independant Tchechenia and Tatarstan...
That's the point; while Russia is denying independance or broader autonomy to its own republics, it "supports" it when it comes to its smaller neighbours.
Also, Albanians were indeed mistreated in Kosovo, were Abchasians or Ossetians?

[Lancer]

Originally posted by Serb


A higher % of what?

Moslems.

[Lonestar]

Originally posted by Serb


1) Not fire control, but French night vision sights.

http://www.newindpress.com/NewsItems.asp?ID=IEL20070603002448&Page=L&Title=B+R+E+A+K+I+N+G++++N+E+W+S&Topic=0&

(IIRC, the site is wrong here. The deal is about one billion USD for 350 tanks)

Uhm...are you saying that the part used to see in the dark is somehow not firecontrol related?

2) These days arms manufacture involves a good share of international cooperation. For example, your Abrams tank has a British Chobham armor

The original M1 did, and the M1A2 probably does as well, although the US Government has made some signifigant alterations. (But I see your point there)

(Incidently, the British handing over Chobham is one of the reasons why i think we should hand over the source code for the F-35 to them)

and a German Rheinmetall gun (two obvious features, not to mention other things).

That's more of a stretch, the Rheinmetall barrel came out of a joint research program.

3) The export variants of our weapons are usually downgraded. And it's a widespread practice to keep the best for yourself.

Fair enough. But obviously "downgraded" French sights are sufficiently capable over the downgraded Russki sights that there's probably a significant gap to start with.

4) If the customer wants a French nigh visions - fine. I can't see how it's different from buying a top-class Porshe, then installing a non-German stereo or mirrors. The customer is always right, afterall.

More like buying a Camaro and installing Porsche mirrors.

5) The fact that customer wants a French night visions, doesn't necessary means those sights are the best. It could be a matter of its own positive experience with use of such equipment in the past.

Which would seem to indicate that Russki sights have failed to impress in the past.

It could be a matter of standartization of equipment, etc.

Most Indian armor is of Russian orgin, is it not?

No, like a REAL FLYING TANK!

Looks like a vulnerable underbelly to me.

[Lancer]

Serb, the leadership of NATO is not in the hands of the US all the time. Correct me if I'm wrong (shouldn't be a problem since you correct me if I'm right) but I recall that NATO leadership rotates among the member states. The US would only be leader if it's our turn.

It's kind of like the Warsaw Pact excepting that it's not always Russia's turn.

[The Vagabond]

What a naive way of reasoning, Lancer

You just forgot to mention that NATO's General Secretary is never an American.

[Lancer]

Sometimes the US trys to be the leader but recently we've just been leading ourselves, with a few notable exceptions that will know better in the future.

[Heresson]

Originally posted by Serb

I have two legs. You think it's bad? How much legs do you have?



So, thus you admit the anti-Russian nature of NATO?

Yes, wanting to defend against possible USSR / Russia's attack is a horrible anti-russian crime

YOU, YOUR GOVERNMENT ARE STILL LIVING IN THE COLD WAR ERA. And they do not want to see in Russia anything, but the enemy.
The end of story.

No, honey, You do. When You want to have spheres of influence, when You ally with Iran, Yugoslavia just to attract attention and show You still count, when You threaten other countries, start embargos, kill uncomfy journalists or emmigrants etc. You live as if You were still USSR.

Nobody ever explained me why the hell anyone should susidize hostile regimes?

Their alleged hostility is not wanting to be russian toys.

Serbia was the first example of NATO (defensive alliance, my ass) collective agression.

Yes, we should let massacres and ethnic clearsings happen. Otherwise, someone may turn their too-curious eyes to Russia and Tchechenia, right?

[Heresson]

But while Poles trans-brieded with Germans, the Dutch, Jews, Lithuanians, Belarusians, Ukrainians, French and Armenians, You trans-brieded with strange siberian wild tribes, Tatars, Mongols, Kazakhs etc.

German / Jew > Mongol / Finn

[Ming]

Time for the "way back" machine... Thanks to a few people, this turned into a complete spam fest.

I've deleted the last few days of pure crap, and maybe this thread can get back on topic. I doubt it, but I thought I would give it a try.

And if the same people try again, they will just get restricted and PCRed...