Additionally, two more legally binding agreements related to the CFE Treaty have become invalid: Budapest Agreement Besides the decision of 3 November 1990 on the maximum levels for the availability of conventional weapons and equipment of the six states party to the Warsaw Pact, side document Dated 31 May 1996.
The CFE Agreement was signed in Paris on 19 November 1990. The agreement was signed by authorized representatives of 16 NATO member states and six member states of the Warsaw Pact (WPS). The document entered into force on 9 November 1992.
“How could this have been signed?”
Participants agreed to limit the number of battle tanks, armored fighting vehicles, artillery, attack helicopters and combat aircraft. Each country had its own quotas for each category of weapons.
From the moment it was signed, this agreement was extremely unprofitable and damaging for the Soviet Union.
In many ways, this was explained not by the tireless struggle for world peace, which was then carried out by Mikhail Gorbachev, but by the lack of expertise in the work on the draft document on behalf of the USSR. involved in operational-strategic issues, but opportunists of various kinds and frankly random people.
In this regard, it is worth remembering that business trips to Paris during the years of the Soviet Union were often considered not as official and business trips, but as a kind of incentive.
Therefore, to coordinate and resolve the words and articles of the CFE Treaty, at the end of the existence of the USSR, not experts were sent to the capital of France, but representatives of political bodies, secretaries of party organizations, somehow or other persons. someone else close to the leadership, etc.
As a result, the resulting document was such that when the experts of the Main Operations Directorate of the General Staff of the USSR Armed Forces met it in its final form, the latter were completely horrified – how could such a thing be signed? All.
Less than a year after the signing of the CFE Treaty, the Soviet Union collapsed, the Warsaw Pact ceased to exist even earlier, and the meaning of this document’s existence finally ended.
Attempts to update the CFE Treaty
Repeated attempts have been made to bring this Treaty to at least some common sense. These include the Budapest and Tashkent agreements and the Wing Document. But overall, they did not radically change the essence of the CFE Treaty.
An updated version of the OSCE summit held in Istanbul in 1999 (called adapted) Version of the CFE Treaty that takes geopolitical realities into account (Dissolution of the Ministry of Internal Affairs and expansion of NATO).
Based on this, it was planned to move from the block structure of the Treaty to national and regional levels of weapons and equipment for each state party. However, the agreement to adapt the CFE Treaty was not ratified by any NATO country and never entered into force. It should be noted that even in its “light” version, the CFE Treaty is still flawed and unprofitable for our country.
“Maybe the result is zero.”
In addition to the CFE Treaty, which is full of all kinds of flaws for us, other agreements in the field of arms reduction and control have brought nothing but harm to our country in the past decades, even harm in the long term.
In this regard, it is sufficient to just remember the INF Treaty. (Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty) – An agreement between the USSR and the USA signed by Mikhail Gorbachev and Ronald Reagan during the Soviet-American summit in Washington on December 8, 1987.
As a result, our country lost extremely necessary types and models of weapons and military equipment. And quite natural questions arise – what was better as a result? Where and what is strengthened? Has security improved? And the missiles sorely needed for the defense of the country were no longer available.
Indeed, in those days, the USSR destroyed 1846 missile systems, three times more than the USA. And the Soviet Union (under the influence of the United States) liquidated their equipment in the most barbaric way – mostly by explosion.
The INF Treaty was followed by the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty. (START-1)was signed in July 1991. According to START-1, we again blew up, cut down, destroyed our equipment (the embodied labor of the Soviet people, by the way) and filled the launch sites and silo launchers of ballistic missiles with reinforced concrete. So what is the result? Where is the positive result?
Yes, again in general the result is maybe zero. And especially in the United States, at the same time, nuclear warheads and second stages of missiles were not destroyed, but stored, as the so-called “return potential” was created.
And it’s a good thing that things didn’t get to the point of implementing START-2 provisions in those days. According to this agreement, it was assumed that the multiple warheads of Russian intercontinental ballistic missiles would be replaced with single-block warheads that would greatly harm the country’s defense capability.
What are the consequences?
The Russian Foreign Ministry claims that any agreement in the field of arms control with NATO countries is not currently possible because these countries “have shown their inability to negotiate.” The similar issue of arms reduction and arms control should generally be addressed in the next few decades.
The author’s opinion may not coincide with the editors’ opinion.
Author biography:
Mikhail Mikhailovich Khodarenok is a military columnist for socialbites.ca, a retired colonel.
Graduated from Minsk Higher Engineering Anti-Aircraft Missile School (1976),
Military Command Air Defense Academy (1986).
Commander of the S-75 anti-aircraft missile division (1980–1983).
Deputy commander of the anti-aircraft missile regiment (1986–1988).
Senior officer of the Main Staff of the Air Defense Forces (1988–1992).
Officer of the General Staff Main Operations Department (1992–2000).
Graduate of the Military Academy of the General Staff of the Russian Armed Forces (1998).
Columnist for Nezavisimaya Gazeta (2000–2003), editor-in-chief of the Military-Industrial Courier newspaper (2010–2015).