Experts Concur: Russia and U.S. Will Not Soon Agree on CFE Treaty and Missile Defense
Published in RIA Novosti
(Russia) on 23 November 2011
by (link to original)
(Russia) on 23 November 2011
by (link to original)
Translated from
by Jon Sachar.
Edited by Mark DeLucas.
The U.S. decision to suspend the execution of certain obligations to Russia within the framework of the Conventional Forces in Europe (CFE) Treaty could increase mutual distrust. According to surveyed RIA Novosti experts, an agreement between the parties regarding the CFE Treaty and missile defense is unlikely in the near future.
The U.S. announced the suspension of certain CFE Treaty obligations with regard to Russia on Tuesday in Vienna. The United States announced that over the course of four years, Washington and NATO allies have unsuccessfully "tried... to find a diplomatic solution following Russia’s decision in 2007 to cease implementation with respect to all other 29 CFE States." Throughout the four years, Russia has refused to provide CFE participants information about their armed forces. At the same time, the U.S. State Department revealed that the U.S. is continuing to search for a path of cooperation with Russia regarding missile defense.
"The decision is directly connected with Russia's position on missile defense. Russia suspended its obligations relative to CFE four years ago and the Americans did not respond to this. Therefore, of course, this (the U.S. decision) muscle-flexing game provides a certain intensification of our position in the dispute over the fate of missile defense," reported RIA Novosti Director of the International Institute of Political Expertise, Yevgeni Minchenko.
Responding to a question of whether or not Russia and the U.S. can agree on missile defense as well as the CFE Treaty, the expert noted that it is "unlikely to happen in the near future."
"I think that there will be a minimum of a year of some pushing. It is clear that Obama is interested in it so he can reach some breakthroughs in relations with Russia ahead of the presidential elections because one of his 'chips' on the foreign agenda is the 'reset,'" he said.
Minchenko added that "technically, the process of passing the decision in the U.S. involves a large number of people and institutions that seriously complicates any progress towards missile defense and CFE, and all the more so when the Democrats lost their majority in the House of Representatives."
Aleksandr Khramchikin, head of the Analytical Department at the Institute of Political and Military Analysis, agrees.
"I don't see any possibility (of agreement on missile defense and CFE in the near term), because, generally, the sides are taking quite irreconcilable positions and don't have the smallest desire to compromise, but at the same time, objectively speaking, there is no practical value, especially in relation to the CFE Treaty," noted the expert.
Also, in his opinion, the decision of the U.S. on the CFE Treaty is "indirectly related to Russia's position on missile defense."
"This is apparently some kind of action to put pressure on Russia, and quite symbolically, because it is meaningful only on paper," he said.
The Director of the Center for Public Policy Research, Vladimir Yevseyev, also noted a belief that a U.S. suspension of cooperation within the framework agreement of the adaptation of the CFE Treaty is the result of deliberate policy that used the agreement as a lever for pressuring Russia. Therefore, in this situation, suggested Yevseyev, Moscow can discuss a complete withdrawal from the CFE Treaty.
"I consider this a step in the wrong direction. It creates additional problems in the development of Russian-American relations, especially important during the electoral campaigns both here and in the U.S.," he said.
"It is necessary to be very sensitive now and avoid steps which will further aggravate the situation," added the expert.
According to him, the current situation with the CFE Treaty is very closely connected with Georgia. "I see a direct connection between Russian-Georgian relations, the war in August of 2008 and the agreement on the CFE Treaty," noted Yevseyev.
He recalled that Russia is constantly subject to criticism from the West in relation to the implementation of the Istanbul agreements, which specifically require the withdrawal of Russian troops from Georgia and Transdniester.
"Unfortunately, the West interpret these Istanbul agreements however it suits them," says the expert.
He also suggested the actions being undertaken in pulling out of the CFE Treaty, can be interpreted as an attempt to cover up the failure of European policy in relation to Georgia in 2008. It is wrong to use the agreement as a means of pressure on Moscow, said Yevseyev.
The expert added that the CFE Treaty is necessary today in both Russia and the U.S. — particularly, he believes, for reciprocal inspections.
"There now exists a very serious distrust between Russia and the West, and Russia and the U.S. specifically. And in this situation, if the U.S. withdraws from the CFE Treaty, they will intensify this distrust," he noted.
"This is contrary to the reset of Russian-American relations declared by Washington," Yevseyev believes.
The CFE Treaty provides for limitations on five categories of conventional weapons and equipment: tanks, armored combat vehicles, artillery of a caliber greater than 100 millimeters, combat aircraft and attack helicopters. The agreement also envisions information exchange and broad inspection activity. The updated version of the CFE Treaty, which takes into account new conditions (dissolution of the Warsaw Pact and expansion of NATO), was signed in 1999 at the OSCE summit in Istanbul.
In 2007, Russia put a moratorium on participation in the CFE Treaty and related international agreements. The decision was solely due to "exceptional circumstances affecting the security of the Russian Federation." At the same time, Moscow has refused to accept the adapted CFE Treaty and is waiting for it to be accepted by NATO partners. In the new agreement there should be a transition from a block structure to a national and territorial level of arms and equipment for every member state.
Russia and NATO agreed to cooperate on the EUROPRO (the European Missile Defense Project) summit in November 2010 in Lisbon. However, negotiations hit a roadblock because the U.S. refused to provide a legal guarantee that the systems would not be directed against Russia's deployed deterrence force.
The U.S. announced the suspension of certain CFE Treaty obligations with regard to Russia on Tuesday in Vienna. The United States announced that over the course of four years, Washington and NATO allies have unsuccessfully "tried... to find a diplomatic solution following Russia’s decision in 2007 to cease implementation with respect to all other 29 CFE States." Throughout the four years, Russia has refused to provide CFE participants information about their armed forces. At the same time, the U.S. State Department revealed that the U.S. is continuing to search for a path of cooperation with Russia regarding missile defense.
"The decision is directly connected with Russia's position on missile defense. Russia suspended its obligations relative to CFE four years ago and the Americans did not respond to this. Therefore, of course, this (the U.S. decision) muscle-flexing game provides a certain intensification of our position in the dispute over the fate of missile defense," reported RIA Novosti Director of the International Institute of Political Expertise, Yevgeni Minchenko.
Responding to a question of whether or not Russia and the U.S. can agree on missile defense as well as the CFE Treaty, the expert noted that it is "unlikely to happen in the near future."
"I think that there will be a minimum of a year of some pushing. It is clear that Obama is interested in it so he can reach some breakthroughs in relations with Russia ahead of the presidential elections because one of his 'chips' on the foreign agenda is the 'reset,'" he said.
Minchenko added that "technically, the process of passing the decision in the U.S. involves a large number of people and institutions that seriously complicates any progress towards missile defense and CFE, and all the more so when the Democrats lost their majority in the House of Representatives."
Aleksandr Khramchikin, head of the Analytical Department at the Institute of Political and Military Analysis, agrees.
"I don't see any possibility (of agreement on missile defense and CFE in the near term), because, generally, the sides are taking quite irreconcilable positions and don't have the smallest desire to compromise, but at the same time, objectively speaking, there is no practical value, especially in relation to the CFE Treaty," noted the expert.
Also, in his opinion, the decision of the U.S. on the CFE Treaty is "indirectly related to Russia's position on missile defense."
"This is apparently some kind of action to put pressure on Russia, and quite symbolically, because it is meaningful only on paper," he said.
The Director of the Center for Public Policy Research, Vladimir Yevseyev, also noted a belief that a U.S. suspension of cooperation within the framework agreement of the adaptation of the CFE Treaty is the result of deliberate policy that used the agreement as a lever for pressuring Russia. Therefore, in this situation, suggested Yevseyev, Moscow can discuss a complete withdrawal from the CFE Treaty.
"I consider this a step in the wrong direction. It creates additional problems in the development of Russian-American relations, especially important during the electoral campaigns both here and in the U.S.," he said.
"It is necessary to be very sensitive now and avoid steps which will further aggravate the situation," added the expert.
According to him, the current situation with the CFE Treaty is very closely connected with Georgia. "I see a direct connection between Russian-Georgian relations, the war in August of 2008 and the agreement on the CFE Treaty," noted Yevseyev.
He recalled that Russia is constantly subject to criticism from the West in relation to the implementation of the Istanbul agreements, which specifically require the withdrawal of Russian troops from Georgia and Transdniester.
"Unfortunately, the West interpret these Istanbul agreements however it suits them," says the expert.
He also suggested the actions being undertaken in pulling out of the CFE Treaty, can be interpreted as an attempt to cover up the failure of European policy in relation to Georgia in 2008. It is wrong to use the agreement as a means of pressure on Moscow, said Yevseyev.
The expert added that the CFE Treaty is necessary today in both Russia and the U.S. — particularly, he believes, for reciprocal inspections.
"There now exists a very serious distrust between Russia and the West, and Russia and the U.S. specifically. And in this situation, if the U.S. withdraws from the CFE Treaty, they will intensify this distrust," he noted.
"This is contrary to the reset of Russian-American relations declared by Washington," Yevseyev believes.
The CFE Treaty provides for limitations on five categories of conventional weapons and equipment: tanks, armored combat vehicles, artillery of a caliber greater than 100 millimeters, combat aircraft and attack helicopters. The agreement also envisions information exchange and broad inspection activity. The updated version of the CFE Treaty, which takes into account new conditions (dissolution of the Warsaw Pact and expansion of NATO), was signed in 1999 at the OSCE summit in Istanbul.
In 2007, Russia put a moratorium on participation in the CFE Treaty and related international agreements. The decision was solely due to "exceptional circumstances affecting the security of the Russian Federation." At the same time, Moscow has refused to accept the adapted CFE Treaty and is waiting for it to be accepted by NATO partners. In the new agreement there should be a transition from a block structure to a national and territorial level of arms and equipment for every member state.
Russia and NATO agreed to cooperate on the EUROPRO (the European Missile Defense Project) summit in November 2010 in Lisbon. However, negotiations hit a roadblock because the U.S. refused to provide a legal guarantee that the systems would not be directed against Russia's deployed deterrence force.