This is disturbing but there is one silver lining to this event:

Prior to WWI and WWII there were treaties (especially WWII) which limited the production of certain machines, mechanisms and fighting units. Even with these in place countries went about military buildup.

At least in this situation, countries could keep a catious eye on the theoretical build up of visible forces.

Not the best situation, but something to think about when considering this event.

Russia has suspended participation in the CFE becuase of violations of that said CFE by other european countries. The US is placing military installations near Russias border... this violates that treaty aswell.

No-one in their right mind is going to follow a treaty that prevents a country from having a military cross a border, if the rest of the countries that are supposed to uphold that same treaty decide they don't want to anymore.

Russias doing the right thing here. They're not doing it so they can also deploy forces, they're doing it in protest. Hoping the other countries will start taking the treaty seriously again.

[edit on 26-4-2007 by johnsky]

Originally posted by johnsky
No-one in their right mind is going to follow a treaty that prevents a country from having a military cross a border, if the rest of the countries that are supposed to uphold that same treaty decide they don't want to anymore.

Russias doing the right thing here. They're not doing it so they can also deploy forces, they're doing it in protest. Hoping the other countries will start taking the treaty seriously again.

Only Russia and a couple of other countries have ratified the new treaty agreement. The rest have yet to do so. I agree with you.


I guess its easy for the other side to say Russia is breaking the treaty while the rest haven't agreed to it. No point in following it if there are only 4 countries adhering to its regulations.


Pie

Hi Hellmutt/

I have been following this in Greek now for a few days....
Thanks for the reference links.
The Greeks provide the information, but with no links.

take care,
IX
helen

CFE is obsolete due to nuclear weapons. You try to mount a large-scale conventional invasion in Europe, you get your ass nuked off. Simple as that.

Actually, the CFE was enacted in 1989, which is almost 40 years into the history of strategic nuclear weaponary.

It's by no means obsolete in the face of nuclear weapons.

[edit on 27-4-2007 by johnsky]

CFE is kind of obsolete as USA isn't playing along the rules. And i can see that Russia is pissed of as USA is constatly supplying weapons and training to for example Georgia. As those who've been following the Abkhazia thread know, Georgia is preparing to invade Abkhazia as soon as Russians leave the region.

I honestly hope that the CFE stays valid, because it's the only thing keeping Russian forces at our border in a "manageable" numbers. But as NATO is not playing along the rules, i see no hope of Russia unilateraly handicapping itself.

Originally posted by uberarcanist
CFE is obsolete due to nuclear weapons. You try to mount a large-scale conventional invasion in Europe, you get your ass nuked off. Simple as that.

I fully disagree with your assesment of CFE.

I think we all pretty much agree when all the chest thumping ends, no one in their right mind would use nuclear weapons..(I Hope!)

They are nothing more than a deterent.
You may have huge army, blah, blah, but we have nukes.....

If everyone is afraid to use nuclear weapons, then only conventional forces matter.

In that light, controling the size of conventional militiaries is of the upmost importance.

Originally posted by uberarcanist
CFE is obsolete due to nuclear weapons. You try to mount a large-scale conventional invasion in Europe, you get your ass nuked off. Simple as that.

Learn this term:

Mutual assured destruction.

It means, there will never be a nuclear war. Does not make sense to nuke 5 cities and have 8 of your cities nuked in turn. To push the button is to execute your self on the spot.

There will however always be conventional wars.. Russia cannot be threatened with nuclear weapons because they have the largest stock pile in the world.

The US is putting defensive systems in the area against possible attackes from the middle east, not offensive systems. Russians are making the situation more than it should be.

No one in their right mind would want to go to war with Russia or China. Not worth the cost and causulty. Plus, what will u get in return from a war with those countries, nothing except grief.

As i stated Missile shield is just a small part in this situation. Natos expansion to east, US bases in central asia, support to hostile (towards Russia) nations... List goes on

Originally posted by Rockpuck

Originally posted by uberarcanist
CFE is obsolete due to nuclear weapons. You try to mount a large-scale conventional invasion in Europe, you get your ass nuked off. Simple as that.

Learn this term:

Mutual assured destruction.

It means, there will never be a nuclear war. Does not make sense to nuke 5 cities and have 8 of your cities nuked in turn. To push the button is to execute your self on the spot.

There will however always be onconventional wars.. Russia cannot be threatened with nuclear weapons because they have the largest stock pile in the world.

Rocky, you're missing the point. Why did America never conventionally invade China, Russia, or North Korea. The answer is easy-NUKES! War is obsolete, the toughest enemies cannot be beaten even by the toughest enemies through mutually assured destruction as you yourself said and the weakest enemies never die through the magic of insurgency. Now only if everyone realized that...

Russia is back in action. New nuclear submarine. New long-range supersonic bomber and 5th generation fighter under development. New ICBM's under development. But hey- it's just following the trend set by the sole super-power in the world - US! Why does US expect everyone to sit still while it is building new military technologies that could potentially offset the military balance of the entire world- and already do to some extent?

US wants to place Anti Ballistic Missile systems in Eastern Europe? More power to you. Why not just skip a few steps and stop the BS and do what you really wanna do- place military bases there. But when the big neighbors respond don't act surprised, and don't shout BREAKING NEWS- Russia is Evil and Wants to Steal your Freedoms by Maintaing a Sizeable Military Force to Defend Itself. US is the sole Superpower. It is the trend-sender. So if you don't like the trend, guess who is to blame?

Rocky, you're missing the point. Why did America never conventionally invade China, Russia, or North Korea. The answer is easy-NUKES! War is obsolete, the toughest enemies cannot be beaten even by the toughest enemies through mutually assured destruction as you yourself said and the weakest enemies never die through the magic of insurgency. Now only if everyone realized that...

Easy really.

Never fight a land war in Asia.

Please, name me an empire, kingdom or nation state that has successfully invaded and destroyed Russia.

America could never, and most likely still cannot invade Russia, especially back then when their military was more on par with ours.

Also, I completely agree with what Maloy has said.

NATO should have ratified the CFE even though Russia still had (and still has) troops in Moldova and Georgia. But they didn't. Big mistake.

By the way do the Polish and the Czech realize that the moment that missile shield becomes activated, they will have at least a dozen Russian nuclear missiles pointed their way ready to launch? And don't get upset either- it's all part of the game that their numbskull politicians are getting them into. And if another Cold War starts guess who just put themselves in the front of the line for nuclear winter?

They could have been neutral countries, but now all bets are off. When the little dogs choose sides with the big dogs, they only get trampled on.

Originally posted by Rockpuck

Rocky, you're missing the point. Why did America never conventionally invade China, Russia, or North Korea. The answer is easy-NUKES! War is obsolete, the toughest enemies cannot be beaten even by the toughest enemies through mutually assured destruction as you yourself said and the weakest enemies never die through the magic of insurgency. Now only if everyone realized that...

Easy really.

Never fight a land war in Asia.

Please, name me an empire, kingdom or nation state that has successfully invaded and destroyed Russia.

America could never, and most likely still cannot invade Russia, especially back then when their military was more on par with ours.

Also, I completely agree with what Maloy has said.

Ahem, and why were we not hesitant in Vietnam or the Middle Eastern conflicts? Both of these areas are Asian. No, sir, while I will agree that the Asians are staunch opponents indeed, the most determinative factor in preventing invasions is whether or not a nation or its close allies has nuclear arms. Nice "Princess Bride" quote, though.

Oh, and the Russian Killers for whom you are looking for are the Mongol Horde. They were one-hit wonders, it is true, but hell, what a bloody reign they had in their heyday.

[edit on 28-4-2007 by uberarcanist]

Originally posted by Rockpuck

Rocky, you're missing the point. Why did America never conventionally invade China, Russia, or North Korea. The answer is easy-NUKES! War is obsolete, the toughest enemies cannot be beaten even by the toughest enemies through mutually assured destruction as you yourself said and the weakest enemies never die through the magic of insurgency. Now only if everyone realized that...

Easy really.

Never fight a land war in Asia.

Please, name me an empire, kingdom or nation state that has successfully invaded and destroyed Russia.

America could never, and most likely still cannot invade Russia, especially back then when their military was more on par with ours.

Also, I completely agree with what Maloy has said.

Sucessfully invaded and occupied, hmm the Mongols are one. They even razed the capital which I think was Kiev at the time.