The Russian troops will stay in Transdniestr and the CFE has still not been ratified. Transdniestr hope to use Montenegro's independence as a
precedent for their own independence. They have announced that its 550,000 people will vote in September on whether to seek formal independence from
Moldova. Russia would back independence for Transdniestr while the West would not. We might be looking at a new cold war and a new arms race with
build up of conventional forces in Europe. The exact scenario which led to the past two world wars...
The Sunday Times: Calls for freedom make the jigsaw of Europe more
complicated than ever
June 02, 2006
Igor Smirnov, Transdniestr’s “President”, has announced that its 550,000 people will vote in a referendum in September on whether to seek formal
independence from Moldova. “The recent example of Montenegro proves that a referendum is becoming a norm for solving conflicts,”, said Mr Smirnov,
64, a former metalworker.
Although never recognised internationally, it has close ties to Russia, which helped the ethnic Russians in the war and has maintained 1,500 troops
there. Officially, they are there to keep the peace and guard a stockpile of 40,000 tonnes of weapons stored there in case of a Nato invasion. In
reality, this remains Moscow’s westernmost strategic outpost — a bulwark against the expanding EU and Nato. It is also a haven for
money-laundering, smuggling and illegal weapons sales. Mr Smirnov runs it as a personal fiefdom, financed by local oligarchs and propped up by
nostalgia for the Soviet Union. It has its own currency based on the old Soviet rouble, uses the old Soviet Moldovan flag, and stages annual
Soviet-style military parades. Police wear uniforms bearing the hammer and sickle. There is no direct telephone link to Moldova and no mobile
network.
Please visit the link provided for the complete story.RIA Novosti: Russia lays responsibility for CFE treaty on NATO states
02/ 06/ 2006
"Given the unconstructive position of NATO member countries, and their unwillingness to launch the ratification process of the adaptation agreement,
all responsibility for the CFE's future will rest with our Western partners," said Anatoly Antonov, who heads the Foreign Ministry's department on
security and disarmament. "Russia will conduct a comprehensive analysis of the situation regarding control over armaments," he said, adding that the
treaty no longer reflected the signatories' interests.
Please visit the link provided for the complete story.
RIA Novosti: CFE Treaty unviable, out of touch with reality - Russia diplomat
31/ 05/ 2006
The Conventional Forces in Europe Treaty was signed in 1990 to classify and set the ceiling for weapons that can exist in the European theater. In
1999, an adapted version of the treaty was signed and has been ratified by Russia, Belarus, Kazakhstan and Ukraine, but the document has sparked
debates over some clauses that have been interpreted differently by the signatory states. "The balance of rights and commitments [of the countries
party to the treaty] has been upset," Anatoly Antonov, the chief Russian delegate to a Vienna conference on the CFE Treaty, said Tuesday.
"Today the blocking basis of the treaty offers considerable privileges to members of the military and political alliance [NATO] at the expense of
those countries who are not in the alliance, including Russia," he said. Antonov said the document, which had originally been intended as a mechanism
for preserving and consolidating control over conventional weapons in Europe, was used by some countries as "an instrument for attaining their
geopolitical interests in the former Soviet republics." The diplomat blamed this approach for undermining the work of the Organization for Security
and Cooperation in Europe, the world's largest regional security organization, and for causing serious problems in relations between Russia and
NATO.
Please visit the link provided for the complete story.
RIA Novosti: Treaty not only Russia needs
09/ 12/ 2005
Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov commented on the agreement between Romania and the United States on the deployment of four American military
bases: "We are engaged in a dialog with the United States, and it has been settled that all changes to military structures should be transparent and
comply with agreements on stability in Europe." Moreover, "we are interested how these changes fit in with the adapted Conventional Forces in Europe
(CFE) Treaty," he said. "Unfortunately, our Western colleagues have used various far-fetched excuses not to ratify this document."
The Treaty stipulates the use of tanks, armored vehicles and artillery with a caliber over 100-mm, airplanes, helicopters and personnel. But their
number and purpose in Romania and elsewhere cannot be verified: the United States, as well as other NATO members, have not ratified the adapted Treaty
using all sorts of implausible excuses. What should Russian generals do? Can they believe what they are told? After all, this is a serious matter. The
country's security is at issue, and it is in the nature of the military to prepare for the worst. This means a new arms race, a backslide to the Cold
War. Do we really need that?
This raises another question: does Russia need the CFE Treaty? The United States has withdrawn from the Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty. NATO
refuses to ratify the CFE, demanding that Moscow honor its Istanbul commitments (made at the OSCE summit in 1999), although their fulfillment was
hindered by NATO leaders. General Yuri Baluyevsky, Russian chief of Staff, has once proposed to give up all obligations of transparency Russia has
undertaken. Should we do as he says? After all, the recent moves of our NATO allies push us toward this decision.
are again moving freely across the border. Like it was in the
good ol' days when there was no "nosy Moldovans" checking it.
