Russia Withdraws from Major Arms Treaty
The Washington Post reports that Russian “President Vladimir Putin signed a law Friday suspending Russia’s participation in a major conventional arms treaty that had limited NATO and Russian military deployments in Europe.”
As the WaPo points out, Moscow “had been threatening all year to scrap the Conventional Armed Forces in Europe (CFE) treaty.” Now Putin has carried out the threat. “The suspension takes effect Dec. 12.”
The accord in question “limited the number of tanks, combat aircraft and attack helicopters, as well as artillery pieces and other heavy weapons, that NATO and the Soviet Union could deploy in Western Europe and the western part of Russia.” Western Europe considers the treaty “a cornerstone agreement for maintaining security on the continent,” which once again shows that Western Europe truly doesn’t understand that the Kantian paradise stops where the EU stops. The outside world is Hobbesian. The law doesn’t rule there, power [might] does.
NATO also expressed regret: “We hope that the Russian Federation will not take any unilateral actions that undermine the integrity of the Treaty. Allies are looking forward to discussing the issue at the upcoming NATO-Russia Council meeting,” NATO spokesman James Appathurai said.
It seems likely to me that Russia will reconsider its decision if Western Europe – and the US – does something it shouldn’t do. We should not weaken ourselves. We’ve done that for too long already.
Hopefully, Putin’s decision will result in European conservatives calling for (and succeeding in) more defense spending. Europe should invest more anyway. It’s too ridiculous for words that it’s still necessary to have American troops stationed in our countries. We should be able to take care of ourselves. We’re rich enough to create strong armies. It’s all about priorities. Perhaps Putin’s move will force my fellow Europeans to get their priorities straight.
This website uses IntenseDebate comments, but they are not currently loaded because either your browser doesn't support JavaScript, or they didn't load fast enough.
Comments are closed.
PoliGazette Comments Policy
PoliGazette encourages comments from all viewpoints, especially those that disagree.
Comments submitted must, however, adhere to the following standards. Comments that violate
these standards may be edited or deleted without notice at the sole discretion of the editors.
Commenters who repeatedly or egregiously violate these standards or who attempt to argue
publicly with editors regarding the comments policy may be banned from commenting further.
(1) Comments should address the substantive content of the post. Comments that repeatedly
or blatantly misrepresent the content of the post or of others' comments are not welcome. Comments that
respond to something other than which the contributor or commenter may have said are irrelevant and should
not be posted.
(2) Comments should avoid vulgarity as well as racial, ethnic, religious, or sexual bigotry.
(3) Comments should not personally attack the character, personal integrity, or professional
reputation of any PoliGazette contributor or of other commenters.
(4) Comments should reflect the contributions of the commenters themselves and should not
include extensive cut-and-paste reproductions of others' words except insofar as necessary to supplement
the commenter's own arguments. Link spam, trackback spam, and propaganda spam will be instantly deleted.
(5) Public figures are considered open to all substantive criticism of their policies and statements.
Comments that present objectively false factual information about public figures (i.e. "Obama is a Muslim") or
that attack public figures by attacking their families are not welcome. Comments that merely repeat
slogans for or against a candidate without engaging in substantive comment are not welcome.
Questions or challenges to these policies or their application should be directed to the editors
by email only.
