GeneralThis forum is for non-technical general discussion which can include both Linux and non-Linux topics. Have fun!
Notices
Welcome to LinuxQuestions.org, a friendly and active Linux Community.
You are currently viewing LQ as a guest. By joining our community you will have the ability to post topics, receive our newsletter, use the advanced search, subscribe to threads and access many other special features. Registration is quick, simple and absolutely free. Join our community today!
Note that registered members see fewer ads, and ContentLink is completely disabled once you log in.
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us. If you need to reset your password, click here.
Having a problem logging in? Please visit this page to clear all LQ-related cookies.
Get a virtual cloud desktop with the Linux distro that you want in less than five minutes with Shells! With over 10 pre-installed distros to choose from, the worry-free installation life is here! Whether you are a digital nomad or just looking for flexibility, Shells can put your Linux machine on the device that you want to use.
Exclusive for LQ members, get up to 45% off per month. Click here for more info.
So, who's fault is it anyways, since I come from a country that practically neighbored Russia (no guesses yet?), who poked at the bear and woke it up in the first place? Seriously, countries up to the Baltics should think carefully about their next move. So what if NATO has their back, does NATO and co really want to have a race of mobilization? Would all the other countries that border Russia (Baltics, Poland) would really want to risk it? Because I venture by the time help arrives, they are overrun.
As a general rule you don't piss off your neighbors. The Russians notified the Poles many times about the planned missile defense under Bush. The US backed off eventually, why? Did someone forget that those countries are still considered a buffer zone?
But again, hey the hell do I know, I'm just a fanboy. Tampitilor!
"The US military would have been within its rights to shoot down Russian aircraft that flew close to one of its warships in the Baltic Sea, Secretary of State John Kerry says."
"U.S., Baltic States: Military Exercises in Russia's Buffer Zone"
Hi all...
I would have to disagree with the term and premise of "Russia's Buffer Zone." Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Poland are independent and sovereign nations who have every right to decide how they handle their own defense matters. It is these states that are requesting additional NATO forces within their territories. Please see here and here. At different times in history, these nations (I'm thinking of Poland mostly,) were invaded and/or occupied by the USSR (Russia) unwillingly for decades and I can understand why they have concerns about Russia's intentions.
Regards...
Last edited by ardvark71; 04-14-2016 at 05:42 PM.
Reason: Added comment/Corrections.
This is not an unusual instance. I have some photos of Russian fighter and bomber cockpits that I took from a ship. We do it to them. It's just playing with the big boys.
I would have to disagree with the term and premise of "Russia's Buffer Zone." Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Poland are independent and sovereign nations who have every right to decide how they handle their own defense matters. It is these states that are requesting additional NATO forces within their territories. Please see here and here. At different times in history, these nations (I'm thinking of Poland mostly,) were invaded and/or occupied by the USSR (Russia) unwillingly for decades and I can understand why they have concerns about Russia's intentions.
Regards...
Their defense matters do not include NATO rocketry so close to Russia. Again, just because the USSR has collapsed, there is still a treaty but....
Fanboy or not I again am just pointing out the obvious, and Russia is well within her rights to act accordingly.
As I also stated before, the Baltic nations, and others should think carefully. Russia is closer than other western nations, and have they given to a single thought that they pretty much have to live next to those crazy bastards in the first place? Probably not, because NATO to the rescue....Sure, whatever, if that helps their delusions.
Inb4 'b-b-b-ut Russia and Ukraine and Crimea.'
Again, Ukraine was also a buffer, and as far as Crimea it was voted in a referrendum to RE-join Russia. Inb4 'b-b-b-ut, it was all a sham/staged vote'...
Really? Prove it, besides the WEST is just as guilty of veiled 'democratic' shenanigans too. Topple governments and install a loyal lackie under the guise of democracy. This time Russia pretty much is throwing down and saying no more to that, i.e. Syria - sorry that I again return to Syria. Damascus and Moscow have a signed treaty, technically as much as the WEST (mostly the US) would have LOVED to just get their paws into Syria as well, Russia dared to say nope. The US backed off, but still barking like a dumb dog thinking it will still get it's way. Assad is not going anywhere, neither are the Russians from Syria, permanent bases. So...What are you going to do, ask the Russians to just leave, or....What, seriously, what?
After Russia was not willing to support the US missile defense plans in Europe, Russian President Vladimir Putin called for "moratorium" on the treaty in his April 26, 2007 address. Then he raised most of his points for rewriting the treaty during the Extraordinary Conference of States Parties to the Treaty on Conventional Forces in Europe, held in Vienna on June 11–15 at Russia’s initiative.[16] As his requests were not met during this conference, Putin issued a decree intended to suspend the observance of its treaty obligations on July 14, 2007, effective 150 days later, stating that it was the result of "extraordinary circumstances (...) which affect the security of the Russian Federation and require immediate measures," and notified NATO and its members.[17][18] The suspension applies to the original CFE treaty, as well as to the follow-up agreements.[16]
Motives
An explanatory document from Russia's presidential administration mentioned several reasons for its original suspension of compliance in 2007.[16] First of all, Russia considered the linkage between the adapted treaty ratification and the withdrawal of troops from Georgia and Moldova as "illegitimate" and "invented". Russia also considered the troop-withdrawal issue a bilateral Russia–Georgia and Russia–Moldova issue, not a NATO–Russia issue. Secondly, the three Baltic states, which border Russia unlike the rest of NATO (excluding Poland and Norway), were not covered under the original CFE treaty as they were still part of the Soviet Union when the treaty was signed.[16] Also, the Baltic states like all NATO members did not ratify the adapted CFE treaty. Russia's wish for a speedy ratification and accession of the Baltic states to a ratified treaty, hoping to restrict emergency deployments of NATO forces there, was not fulfilled.[citation needed]
Thirdly, Russia emphasized that NATO's 1999 and 2004 enlargements increased the alliance's equipment above the treaty limits.[16] Consequently, Russia demanded a "compensatory lowering" of overall NATO numerical ceilings on such equipment. Fourthly, Russia mentioned that the then planned basing of U.S. military units in Romania and Bulgaria "negatively affects" those countries' compliance with the CFE Treaty’s force ceilings.[16] Fifthly, the document demanded a "removal" of the flank (i.e., North Caucasian) ceilings on Russian forces by a "political decision" between NATO and Russia, ostensibly to "compensate" Russia for the alliance's enlargement.[16] Sixthly, Russia wanted to re-negotiate and "modernize" the 1999-adapted CFE treaty as soon as it was brought into force.[16] Russia's position was that it would proceed unilaterally to suspend the treaty’s validity unless NATO countries brought the updated version into force by July 1, 2008, or at least complied with its terms on a temporary basis, pending a re-negotiation of the treaty.
Most likely, but not mentioned in Russia's explanatory document, the above-mentioned "extraordinary circumstances" referred to the US plans for a missile defense complex in Poland, with a radar component in the Czech Republic.[19][20] Another likely reason is that NATO members refused to ratify the Adapted CFE Treaty due to the continuing presence of several hundred Russian troops in Moldova—something they considered as a violation of the obligations Russia assumed during the 1999 Istanbul summit.[19] However, there was no legal connection between the Adapted CFE treaty and the Russian withdrawal from Georgia and Moldova. The linkage between these two security issues was a decision made by NATO member states to protest against the Second Chechen War and was used as a reason not to ratify the treaty.[21] Russia never accepted this decision—a decision also made six months after the Istanbul summit.[21] Russia also considered the original CFE treaty to be outdated and strategically flawed as it did not take into account the dissolutions of the Warsaw Treaty or the Soviet Union.[22][23]
In Russia, even Vladimir Ryzhkov, an opposition leader and an independent member of the Duma, agreed that Russia had been forced to respond. However, he also speculated that Putin's suspension by decree was "primarily an election-year message to the country: "Your leader won't budge, no matter who formally becomes next President"."[18]
Reactions
NATO immediately expressed regret over Russia's decision to suspend the treaty, describing it as "a step in the wrong direction", but hoped to engage Moscow in what was described as constructive talks on this issue.[24] The United States along with European states such as Germany, Poland and Romania also expressed their disappointment.[25] Collective Security Treaty Organisation (CSTO) General Secretary Nikolai Bordyuzha and former Soviet president Mikhail Gorbachev expressed support for Putin's decree.[26] On 25 November 2011 the UK stopped sharing military data with Russia.[27]
The Russian Foreign Ministry also said that the consequences of the suspension would be the halting of inspections and verifications of its military sites by NATO countries and that it would no longer have the obligation to limit the number of its conventional weapons.[18] In practice, Russia had already halted such verification visits in June 2007 after an extraordinary CFE treaty conference held in Vienna turned a deaf ear to Russia's complaints.[28] Consequently, military delegations from Bulgaria and Hungary had been denied entry to Russian military units.
Yuri Zarakhovich speculated in Time that the above-mentioned "immediate measures" would be a build-up of its forces in areas bordering NATO eastern members, in particular Poland and the Baltic states.[18] Time further speculated at the time that other measures could include troop buildups along southern borders in the Caucasus, new pressures on Ukraine to maintain the Russian Black Sea Fleet in the Crimea beyond the (then planned) 2017 withdrawal deadline, and a refusal to leave Moldova.
In March 2015, the Russian Federation announced that it had taken the decision to completely halt its participation in the Treaty.[29]
LinuxQuestions.org is looking for people interested in writing
Editorials, Articles, Reviews, and more. If you'd like to contribute
content, let us know.