Will the Contract of Belarus on everyday Armed Forces in Europe?

Discussions are political analyst Andrei Fedorov and last salting Belarus in Germany Peter Sadowski.
Russian State Duma voted for the law on the moratorium on Russia’s role in the "Treaty on ordinary armed forces in Europe." This lucrative contract in Belarus? Support the official Minsk Russia’s position?
What argue Our homeland and the West?
Valery Karbalevich "contradictions between Russia and the West, hitherto focused largely values and ideological issues in the near future receive geopolitical, military-political nature.
This is evidenced by the conflict over the U.S. decision to place in Poland and the Czech Republic parts missile defense rapprochement between Russia and China. In this context, it should consider a moratorium on the RF performance of the "Contract of the ordinary armed forces in Europe." What is the essence of the conflict?
Andrei Fedorov: "It is necessary to divide the formal prerequisites that in public it is our homeland, and real preconditions." Contract of everyday Armed Forces in Europe "signed in Paris in 1990. She divined in achieving equality of heavy weapons in the 5 categories between the Warsaw Treaty Organization and NATO.
In 1999 this yeart contract was changed under pressure of. After the collapse of the Warsaw Pact, the Soviet Union geopolitical situation has changed dramatically is not in favor of.
West went against Moscow, but set conditions Our homeland that withdraw its troops from Georgia and Transnistria. But Moscow this condition is not completely fulfilled. In response, NATO countries have not ratified the contract. And our homeland, together with Belarus, Kazakhstan and Ukraine ratified.
And now Our homeland makes such a demarche, suspending its role in this agreement — formally in response to the actions of NATO. A prerequisite for such a real step was the decision by the U.S. to place in Poland and Czech parts of missile defense. "
Peter Sadowski: "It is necessary to distinguish the differences of the Russian Federation and the European Union and the United States. They are not the same. I remember the Supreme Council of the 12th convocation ratified the contract.
I was then chairman of the committee on international affairs, remember those big-page sheets with numbers of weapons that needed reduced. Presently considered, but who declined not have a huge sense. The question is purely geopolitical. "
This lucrative contract in Belarus?
Karbalevich: "Belarus has officially joined the" Treaty on ordinary armed forces in Europe "in 1992. Given the fact that we had to cut a significant number of armed forces and armaments, or Belarus was profitable contract then? Whether it is profitable at the moment? "
Fedorov: "Here again there is two sides of the difficulties. From the global spectacle of the contract was certainly profitable. Indeed, all countries around us significantly reduced their languid arms.
But based on the beliefs of short-term contract to do this was hard. After Belarus was the most militarized state in Europe. We had a military 42 civilians. Eliminate languid arms, we had more than other countries. It sought significant costs.
However, we have helped Germany, the U.S., the armor of tanks sold. It would be better to implement excessive armament, but the contract is prohibited.
Now we do not see any concentration of troops and languid arms in adjacent countries, including those that belong to NATO. Because at the moment and "Contract on everyday Armed Forces in Europe" profitable Belarus. "
Karbalevich: "Lukashenko more than once boasted he became president, the elimination of tanks stopped. Certainly, in order to implement them?"
Fedorov: "Violations of the Belarus still was not. But it was the so-called kaskadavanne. We sold seems to own Hungary 100 new tanks, but they killed 100 of its own for the sake of old quota."
Sadowski: "I firmly declare that in the sense of geopolitical, economic and the contract was profitable Belarus.
We always had read about their own friendly policies, directed attention to the fact that the reduced and strategic nuclear weapons, and tactical missiles, and others — without any criterion and compensation. For it now Shushkevich nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize.
About the implementation of unnecessary weapons. There are a lot of unknown. In particular, taking into account the closeness of our society. But if Lukashenko about this constantly reminds, then surely something to sell. In any case, the newspaper wrote about it.
Support the official Minsk Russia’s position?
Karbalevich: "In connection with the decision of the Russian Federation on a moratorium on the execution of this contract, what steps can we expect from Belarus? Lukashenko more than once declared that Belarus is ready to give Russia a cooperative response to the actions of the United States to deploy in Poland and the Czech Republic parts of missile defense.
It seems, that there is reason to confirm the statement in words. There is an opportunity for trade with Russia and the West. Take advantage of this official Minsk? "
Fedorov: "Putin has signed a decree on the output of the" Contract of the ordinary forces in Europe "in July. And just at the moment the State Duma adopted a corresponding solution. After completing all procedures, this decision will come into effect here and there on December 12.
Now about the position of Belarus. Projects Agency Arms Control said that while our country is not going to get out of this contract, but will negotiate with Russia on this issue.
Here it is necessary to imply such a factor. Our homeland even if decides to give a military response to the deployment in Poland and the Czech Republic part of U.S. missile defense, it will not be do it using ordinary weapons.
This will be the smallest range missile type "Iskander". Do not rule out the possibility of placement in Belarus. But it is not for the "Contract of the ordinary armed forces in Europe."
Why RF output Belarus from this contract? I do not know. But maybe a certain item for trade with Russia in Minsk is. Maybe Belarusian management and try to use it to return to Russian economic preferences.
I do not think will be traded in this matter and the West. After all, there are well aware that our homeland is able to do in response, and that — no. "
Sadowski: "If there had been the president of Belarus, then tried to use it for the country. But we need to look at things realistically. We are a small country and do not decide anything in this matter. We can only join some process upavztsi the cabin to get something.
But here’s the president of Russian Academy of Geopolitical Sciences Ivashov believes that Belarus puts 16 billion dollars in defense of. I believe that if P we wish to use, then we can not renounce, will not — and should not it mattersbe ‘.
Fedorov: "Despite the fact that NATO countries have not ratified the adapted this contract, they do not get their own quota of heavy weapons. Their total quota of 26 thousand tanks, and they have only 16 thousand. Our homeland and also does not choose its quota, it has only five thousand tanks from 6 thousand permitted.
This contract has already fulfilled its role — and in a sense is already outdated. And nothing terrible, in the sense of increasing tensions in Europe will not. The only minus is trivial — not inspections.
Ordinary and necessary weapons for defense, and to capture the opponent’s area. But no one seems to do this is not going to — neither from the East nor the West. "

Like this post? Please share to your friends: