DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: _JS on October 12, 2007, 10:25:07 AM
-
Putin threatens withdrawal from cold war nuclear treaty
Luke Harding in Moscow
Friday October 12, 2007
Guardian Unlimited (http://www.guardian.co.uk/russia/article/0,,2189860,00.html?gusrc=rss&feed=12)
(http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2007/10/12/pootie372.jpg)
The Russian president, Vladimir Putin, attends a meeting with the US secretary of state, Condoleezza Rice, and the US defence secretary, Robert Gates, at his presidential dacha outside Moscow. Photograph: Alexander Zemlianichenko/AP
President Vladimir Putin warned today that Russia was considering withdrawal from a major cold war arms treaty restricting intermediate range nuclear missiles unless it is expanded to include other states.
Mr Putin said that Moscow is planning to dump the intermediate range nuclear forces treaty (INF) - signed in a landmark deal between the US and Soviet Union in 1987 - unless countries like China are included in its provisions.
His comments came just before talks in Moscow today between the US secretary of state, Condoleezza Rice, and the US defence secretary, Robert Gates, with Russia's foreign minister, Sergei Lavrov, and the defence minister, Anatoly Serdyukov.
Mr Putin also repeated his opposition to the Bush administrations plans to site elements of its missile defence shield in central Europe. The project threatened the US and Russia's strategic relationship, he suggested.
'We need other international participants to assume the same obligations which have been assumed by the Russian Federation and the US,' said Mr Putin, who met Ms Rice and Mr Gates at his leafy presidential dacha just outside Moscow.
'If we are unable to attain such a goal ... it will be difficult for us to keep within the framework of the treaty in a situation where other countries do develop such weapons systems, and among those are countries in our near vicinity,' he said.
Mr Putin appeared to be referring to the INF treaty - a major cold war agreement signed by Mikhail Gorbachev and Ronald Reagan. Under it, both sides agreed to scrap their arsenals of intermediate range nuclear and conventional ground-launched ballistic and cruise missiles.
Russian defence experts said today that the Kremlin had been unhappy for some time about the treaty because of concerns over the growing mid-range nuclear arsenals of its immediate neighbours such as China, Pakistan and India. Iran is also developing a medium-range missile programme.
The treaty currently only applies to the US and Russia - as well as to the former Soviet republics of Ukraine and Belarus. It was widely regarded as being highly disadvantageous to the Soviet Union as it did not include the US's naval nuclear cruise missiles or the nuclear arsenals of Britain or France.
"Russia's nuclear arsenal is still mainly a legacy of the Soviet Union. Its platforms are ageing. Russia feels more and more vulnerable not only from the nuclear forces of the US but from other threats as well," Yevgeny Miasnikov, a senior research scientist at the Centre for Arms Control, Energy and Environment Studies in Moscow told the Guardian. "This move fits into Russia's policy towards arms treaties these days."
Since denouncing the US during a memorable speech in Munich earlier this year, Mr Putin has withdrawn from the conventional arms forces in Europe treaty and resumed long-range patrols by Russia's strategic nuclear bombers - prompting Nato aircraft to scramble in response. Russia has also claimed a giant if symbolic chunk of the Arctic.
Today Mr Putin urged Washington not to rush ahead with its plans to locate elements of a planned missile defence shield in Poland and the Czech Republic. Russia says the shield is a threat to its security and wrecks Europe's strategic balance.
"We hope that in the process of such complex and multifaceted talks, you will not be forcing forward your relations with the eastern European countries," he said.
Ms Rice and Mr Gates spoke to Mr Putin before starting "two-plus-two" talks with their Russian counterparts aimed at airing differences over the missile shield, but which are also expected to touch on disagreements over Iran.
Mr Putin, who does not support western calls for a new round of UN sanctions on Iran, heads to Tehran next week, where he will meet the Iranian president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
Washington says the shield - which includes placing a radar and interceptor missiles in Poland and the Czech Republic - is needed to protect against attack by "rogue" states, such as Iran and North Korea.
Mr Putin has proposed using a Russian-operated early warning radar in Azerbaijan, in exchange for Washington dropping the Polish and Czech sites. There was little sign today of any agreement over missile defence.
In opening remarks at the meeting with Mr Putin, however, Ms Rice said she was hopeful that the two-day talks could narrow differences.
"That which unites us in trying to deal with the threats of terrorism, of proliferation are much greater than the issues that divide us," she said.
"The president promised, and we are here to act upon the promise, that we would try and find ways to cooperate for the common good," she said, referring to a US commitment given earlier this year by George Bush.
Shortly before the talks with Mr Putin began, the Russian foreign minister, Sergey Lavrov, strolled into the dacha's billiards room, where US reporters had gathered for a cigarette break. He was asked whether he expected any breakthroughs in the talks. "Breaks, definitely. Through or down, I don't know," he said.
Guardian Unlimited ? Guardian News and Media Limited 2007
-
That's a great nugget in the last paragraph.
-
Are we now to be concerned about other countries with nuclear power?
What's the threat?
-
Juniorbush has already broken the treaty signed with Gorbachov in which the US agreed that neither the USA nor the USSR would test or produce any more nukes. He claimed that the agreement was void because the USSR no longer existed.
So the "withdrawal" would be what? That the Russkies are the only party adhering to the agreement?
Or was this some other agreement?
It seems to me that Putin considers the Russian Federation to be the continuation of the USSR. It is surely the largest chunk of the former USSR, isn't it?
-
Looks like the U.S.S.R. wasn't concerned about nukes from France or the UK because they were more vulnerable to Russian counterstrikes, whereas the U.S.A., being a much greater and more distant landmass, as well as possessing a much more formidable first-strike capacity had to be tied up by the treaty. Wonder what's the new thinking? That the U.S.A. is more aggressive now and its subs aren't caught by the treaty anyway? Or that nuclear proliferation by non-participants in the treaty has raised their risk?
-
Mr Putin said that Moscow is planning to dump the intermediate range nuclear forces treaty (INF) - signed in a landmark deal between the US and Soviet Union in 1987 - unless countries like China are included in its provisions.
And North Korea and i guess Iran.
-
>>Juniorbush has already broken the treaty signed with Gorbachov in which the US agreed that neither the USA nor the USSR ...<<
I'd like to point out something to you. There is no more USSR. How can you have a treaty with a nation that no longer exists? Put aside your love for the former Soviet Union for a second and ask yourself that question.
-
<<I'd like to point out something to you. There is no more USSR. How can you have a treaty with a nation that no longer exists? Put aside your love for the former Soviet Union for a second and ask yourself that question.>>
It's called succession, Rich. States form, dissolve and re-form all the time. When the Village of Forest Hill amalgamated into the City of Toronto, its streets didn't disappear from the earth, and its contracts with its municipal workers didn't dissolve into thin air. The City of Toronto succeeded to the Village of Forest Hill. Then the City of Toronto merged into the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto. Same thing all over again. Then the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto morphed back into the City of Toronto again. Sorta like New York, the five boroughs, etc. You think every time one state or municipality combines or breaks up, all its contracts suddenly become null and void?
Where do you live, in a cave in the Ozark Mountains?
-
Mike, get your head out of your ass.
Would you like us to honor our treaties we had with say Napoleon's France? Time marches on for some of us. We do what's in the best interest of the good ole USA.
So sorry Mike, we are no longer bound to honor treaties that we made with your Communist friends who've gone the way of the doe doe.
-
Would you like us to honor our treaties we had with say Napoleon's France?
Um Yeah, if they're still relevant.
The USSR is NOT that long dead. We still have nukes and so do they. I think the treaty applies absolutely. Why do you guys have such an insane lust for war and such an inane disdain for trust and partnership?
-
>>The USSR is NOT that long dead.<<
It's been nearly twenty years.
Old treaties are useless. New one's could be in order, but there's no sense in honoring an agreement with a party that no longer exists.
-
<<Mike, get your head out of your ass.>>
OK Rich, now what?
<<Would you like us to honor our treaties we had with say Napoleon's France? >>
That's how it works, Rich. Treaties are made nation-to-nation, not regime-to-regime. Otherwise a treaty made in your fantasy world would have to be renegotiated every time the regime of one of the contracting parties changed. Do you think a collective agreement between employer and its unionized employees changes every time the employer merges or amalgamates with another corporation?
<<Time marches on for some of us. >>
Aren't you special.
<<We do what's in the best interest of the good ole USA.>>
We've all noticed. Regardless of your treaty obligations.
<<So sorry Mike, we are no longer bound to honor treaties that we made with your Communist friends who've gone the way of the doe doe.>>
Seems like you're not bound to honour ANY treaties you made with anyone, including the Charter of the United Nations, the UN Convention Against Torture, the Charter of the Organization of American States or even the North American Free Trade Agreement. I'm impressed. Your signature on a Treaty or a Convention doesn't mean shit. You've come a long way, baby. You've finally found a leader that's worthy of you.
-
<<Mike, get your head out of your ass.>>
OK Rich, now what?
<<Would you like us to honor our treaties we had with say Napoleon's France? >>
That's how it works, Rich. Treaties are made nation-to-nation, not regime-to-regime. Otherwise a treaty made in your fantasy world would have to be renegotiated every time the regime of one of the contracting parties changed. Do you think a collective agreement between employer and its unionized employees changes every time the employer merges or amalgamates with another corporation?
<<Time marches on for some of us. >>
Aren't you special.
<<We do what's in the best interest of the good ole USA.>>
We've all noticed. Regardless of your treaty obligations.
<<So sorry Mike, we are no longer bound to honor treaties that we made with your Communist friends who've gone the way of the doe doe.>>
Seems like you're not bound to honour ANY treaties you made with anyone, including the Charter of the United Nations, the UN Convention Against Torture, the Charter of the Organization of American States or even the North American Free Trade Agreement. I'm impressed. Your signature on a Treaty or a Convention doesn't mean shit. You've come a long way, baby. You've finally found a leader that's worthy of you.
Interesting how this breezy contempt for the country's foundations came onto the public stage.
Both Bush and his little perro Gonzales make trivializing remarks about the Constitution, how it was outdated and "just a piece of paper" as well as similar trashs from other, always glib Neocons. I once saw Brother Jeb on the tube starting to dismiss it once while being interveiwed, but seemed to stop just short. It was like he heard it a club rally, but we had not, but, being smarter than your average Neocon, he played dumb-ass to his brother's smart-ass.
And all the while, their spin machine putting out 24/7 how their opponents are "UnAmerican."
Folks like Richie may have learned it at the megachurch. Now that is scary.
What will work politically is someone coming along who will make the public realize it is justifiably confused, given the success of the propaganda industry, and that they are mixed-up directly proportionate to how mixed-up our processes have become. Advertising should not be more powerful than Education.
Never in the history of America has America needed a leader more.
If the messianic metaphor is indeed applicable, the only outsider out side enough to count is Gore.
The people would trust somebody who got promised pink, got knocked down, and stood back up with that "you fucked with the wrong person" look in their steady, glowering eye.
In these days and times, you cannot trust anyone to go up against those deserving powers that be unless they are capable of kicking ass. Buttering up corporate barbarism with blissninny will not work. Americans have felt somewhat safer since the Neocons were slapped down from their rank, outrageous bullying, but they also know they have to have somebody who can kick ass.
Had I the choice, it would be that redheaded fellow from Va.
And, to demonstate my latent bi partianship, I would pick John Dean for Attorney General.
-
Why is Putin worried that NATO would attack Russia?
A lot of NATO is EU and that they would want to attack Russia sees unlikely in the very extreme.
A poitical use for the fiction is more evident than a military threat to Russia from Europe.
-
<<Why is Putin worried that NATO would attack Russia?
<< A lot of NATO is EU and that they would want to attack Russia sees unlikely in the very extreme.>>
Come now, plane. You seem like a very historically-minded fellow. Surely you can't have forgotten that the two leading continental members of the EU, France and Germany, have both attacked Russia in the past. As have Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Romania, Italy and Croatia, to name the few that I can think of off-hand. Non-European members of NATO that have attacked Russia include Canada and the U.S.A. in an assault that France and the U.K. also participated in. Russia has plenty of good reasons to fear an attack from NATO or the EU and every reason to prepare against it. A better question for you might well be: Who IF NOT the EU or NATO would ever attack Russia?
And an even better question, of course, would be "Why did the U.S. claim to be worried that Iraq might attack it?"
-
I'd also say that Russia is probably looking beyond just this treaty and looking at something more complex than worrying about a NATO attack.
The United States is in a rather weak position to be negotiating international treaties, as not only is our international credibility very low (though, to her credit Condi has removed much of the political appointees and brought back diplomatic experience to the State Department) but our Supreme Military Might has shown itself to be more of a paper tiger in actual implementation.
I think this is more of a chess move than the sole focus of play.
-
<<The United States is in a rather weak position to be negotiating international treaties, as not only is our international credibility very low . . . >>>
That's a real understatement. Under the Bush administration, America has demonstrated to the whole world that anything signed by the U.S.A. isn't worth the paper it's printed on. Morons like Rich actually celebrate the fact.
The U.S.A. is rapidly becoming an irrelevancy. It's already being by-passed on numerous diplomatic fronts and this is only going to accelerate as China, India and Russia grow into their full statures.
-
<<Why is Putin worried that NATO would attack Russia?
<< A lot of NATO is EU and that they would want to attack Russia sees unlikely in the very extreme.>>
Come now, plane. You seem like a very historically-minded fellow. Surely you can't have forgotten that the two leading continental members of the EU, France and Germany, have both attacked Russia in the past. As have Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Romania, Italy and Croatia, to name the few that I can think of off-hand. Non-European members of NATO that have attacked Russia include Canada and the U.S.A. in an assault that France and the U.K. also participated in. Russia has plenty of good reasons to fear an attack from NATO or the EU and every reason to prepare against it. A better question for you might well be: Who IF NOT the EU or NATO would ever attack Russia?
And an even better question, of course, would be "Why did the U.S. claim to be worried that Iraq might attack it?"
Chechnia , Iran , Pickyourstan.
-
>>OK Rich, now what?<<
Based on the rest of your response, you need to keep trying.
>>That's how it works, Rich. Treaties are made nation-to-nation, not regime-to-regime.<<
Really? So the treaties we had with Japan prior to WWII are still in effect?
Get a fucking clue.
-
<<Really? So the treaties we had with Japan prior to WWII are still in effect?>>
Yes, they would be if they were not renegotiated, cancelled by mutual agreement, or expired by lapse of time as provided for in the treaty itself. If you care to point to any pre-war treaty between the U.S.A. and Japan, I could probably show you what happened to it.
As a matter of fact, during WWII, the British were able to establish radar posts in the Azores (which in effect they handed over to the Americans to operate) because of an Anglo-Portuguese treaty which dated back to the Napoleonic Wars of the early 19th Century.
<<Get a fucking clue.>>
I'm not the one who needs a fucking clue, ass-hole.
-
Good lord but you're stupid.
-
Tee is right of course.
A good example is that the British honored treaties that Italy had made with her colonies in Ethiopia and Eritrea, despite the fact that Fascist Italy had been conquered and destroyed (the British took administrative control of the two colonies). Well, technically Ethiopia was not a colony, but was a conquered independent nation, but the point remains the same.
-
There's no reason to continue a treaty with a country that no longer exists. Especially with a country we were at war with. These liberals truly do live in a world of their own making. What sane person would think that way?
Sure, let's honor our commitments to a country that never lived up to the treaties in the first place, which at this point in history, doesn't even exist.
Yeah, sure. Well, I guess it's to be expacted from these traitorous leftists. They're still looking out for the best interest of the Soviet Union, just as they did during the Cold War.
-
International law is not as cut and dry as you think. It really depends upon the treaty and the parties involved. These are very complex issues and they don't simply dissolve when boundaries change.
-
Actually what it depends on is the parties involved. If a treaty is no longer working, for any reason, any country involved can claim it invalid.
Simple as that.
-
Actually what it depends on is the parties involved. If a treaty is no longer working, for any reason, any country involved can claim it invalid.
Simple as that.
They don't do that though. Why? Because to renege, even on a token treaty at the international level, puts one's credibility at stake. It may look perfectly reasonable from a pragmatic or Machiavellian point of view. Yet, a nation that makes it a habit becomes a nation that loses trust, for both major and minor treaties.
Dimplomacy is not for the bull in the china shop.
-
<<Actually what it depends on is the parties involved. If a treaty is no longer working, for any reason, any country involved can claim it invalid.
<<Simple as that.>>
There you have it. The Richpo64 Theory of International Treaty Obligations. (And THIS is the guy who is calling ME "stupid.")
ROTFLMFAO.
-
I believe it is Putin that wants to renege on a treaty right now , but does it matter?
The strength of the Soviet Union was frittered away on Economic foolishness and it isn't really back yet at the rate Russia is improving.
Lets just not fritter away our own stringth is a like manner.
-
>>They don't do that though. Why? Because to renege, even on a token treaty at the international level, puts one's credibility at stake. <<
Throughout the history of nations on this Earth treaties have come and gone. A treaty is never permanently binding. There are procedures used to notify any party involved in the treaty to let them know you are withdrawing from said treaty. Also, if any of the parties involved in the treaty are found to be in violation of the grounds of the treaty it can be temporarily suspended or terminated. If a nation no longer exists, suspension or termination would certainly be in order.