Talk:Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe

message: How is that one third? The actual limits per country to me look either incorrect or a clarification is needed regarding to what one third actually applies to. From the text it looks like it's two thirds, not one third. The reference link doesn't work for me either.85.232.201.77 (talk) 21:12, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Sufficiency Rule

message: Right now the page mentions the Adapted Treaty not being ratified by NATO states but does not mention why.  Regardless of what one thinks about the Western argument on this point, this seems like a serious omission.  Russia is, after all, occupying part of Moldova and parts of Georgia. Fasrad 05:52, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Adapted Treaty

message: Article seems to be all about how evil big red-colored Russia is unilateraly withdrawing from treaty of arms limitations signed by many countries for the sake of peace and stability. The fact that Russia along with Kazakhstan and Ukraine were the only countries actually ratified and complying with it all the time, accepting inspections from NATO countries who weren't doing the same gets barely a mention. I suggest the following to improve the article: 1) add information on how treaty was actually working all these years it was signed (after all, that's what treaties are about, working); 2) elaborate on diplomatic practice of demanding extra concessions for ratification of signed treaty; 3) since presidental election of 2008 is mentioned, elaborate on its connection with suspension of treaty. If none found, delete this sentence.--85.30.201.226 08:33, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You seem to confuse the (normal) CFE Treaty with the adapted CFE Treaty. In general, both NATO and Russia complied with the (normal) CFE Treaty. NATO refused to ratify the adapted CFE treaty because they considered that the withdrawal of Russian troops was a condition for ratification, as both the obligation to withdraw as the adapted CFE treaty were obligations assumed during the 1999 Istanbul summit. Put differently, NATO members considered it a negotiated package deal, i.e. they were willing to have the adapted treaty, but in return Russia had to withdraw its troops. Sijo Ripa 08:42, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I may confuse them, sorry. However, article still needs to be cleaned up a bit. All info related to suspension should be in its own section, rather than that plus introduction, setting tone and focus of article. More through information on how actually the treaty worked should be included. Also, point 3 still stands. --85.30.201.226 08:55, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Ok, done.Sijo Ripa 09:05, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Russia's withdrawal

message: The first sentence currently says:
:The Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe (CFE) from 1989 to 1992 established comprehensive limits on key categories of conventional military equipment in Europe
Those dates don't make much sense to me in light of the rest of the article... if the treaty stopped being in effect in 1992 then what was Russia suspending compliance with in 2007? --Delirium 09:09, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, fixed it. Negotiations in 1989 (and earlier?), signed in 1990 and entered into force in 1992. Sijo Ripa 14:55, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: 1992 end date?

message: Is Russia actually at or near any of these limits?  It would seem surprising for them to still be up to those limits after their economic problems and when so many former Warsaw Bloc countries are now in or near to the EU politically. 204.186.19.57 18:43, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The following article could partially answer your question: List of equipment of the Russian Ground Forces. As this article is not conclusive, not sourced and not directly related to the CFE treaty (e.g. Russia is allowed to have more troops behind the Urals), it's better not to put the results in this article. Sijo Ripa 19:03, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Russia has been recently (within the last five-ten years) in violation of the original CFE treaty limits because they had more equipment in the 'Flanks' region (the North Caucasus Military District) than they were allowed. I can't speak for now though. In total, the numbers of Russian military equipment (crucially, as Sijo Ripa say, west of the Urals) are I believe, now nowhere near the limits- far below them. Buckshot06 19:29, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Buckshot06, do you have a source about Russia's violation in that region? I think it's more than interesting and relevant enough to be included in this article. I would also wish to read more about that myself. Sijo Ripa 19:58, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's covered under the article on the adapted treaty, signed in '99. I am not aware whether the current numbers of equipment in the Leningrad Military District and the NCMD still breach the original 1990 limits. Buckshot06 20:39, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Damn, I wrote that part in the article of the adapted treaty. I was wondering all the time where that "flank" region was (and when the non-compliance began). Kind of silly. Sijo Ripa 20:48, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

text:  I only see a posibble build up taking place, or at least the Russian Federation its preparing for a formal Military Expansion.Mr.User200 (talk) 18:04, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Real-world effect?

message: Reasons:
(1) Please keep the content related to the title. The problems associated with the adapted CFE treaty belong to the article with that name. Some content is relevant for this article, but keep it short and put it in the right section (under the adapted treaty section, not in the compliance of the original CFE treaty section).
(2) Please do not repeat the same content unneccesarely. Most of the stuff related to the linkage between withdrawal and ratification was already mentioned in the suspension section.
(3) Please be careful about POV and OR and verifiability (no sourced are used). (Unsourced) Sentences such as "important to note" and "however", "close to be completely withdrawn" (while Russia did indeed withdraw troops and equipment, no additional withdrawals have been made since 2004 and it's debatable what "close to be completely withdrawn" is); "neglible" (debatable), "if weapons are left unprotected they will likely be used for illegal or terrorist activities" (there are already claims and some evidence that many of these weapons have been traded on the black market or used in other illicit activities); "No other force can currently provide this level of protection" (this sentence is an obvious POV: first of all, it seems to claim what Russia's sole purpose would be and seems to be used to defend Russia's stance; secondly, NATO proposed an international replacement force; thirdly, this is OR); "Trans-Dniest republic that physically control this territory does not have the capacity to protect weapons and republic of Moldova does not have a physical control of the territory itself" (debatable; OR); "However, now that Russia has withdrawn from the treaty, this is a moot point" (POv and OR).Sijo Ripa 00:12, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I already emphasized that Russia did partially withdraw and that there is no legal connection. All the rest is unneccessary for this article and POV. I just added it for a third time (now in the compliance section), what I find unnecessary. If you think that certain additions should be made, could we discuss them first and find the right section and sources together? Sijo Ripa 11:53, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I have read your source and added some content. The source however only (clearly at least) says that the "permanent" nature is a breach of the treaty, and not the (amount of) troops. Perhaps, the (amount of) troops is a breach, but the source does not say so, so I only added the stuff about the permanent nature. Sijo Ripa 23:53, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Major edit

message: I removed the following text - at least temporarely.
:
:According to Russia, the Iskander-M deployment could mitigate some security risks potentially arising from the planned US ABM bases. Putin also indicated that Russia is hopeful that US strategic forces will not be deployed near the Russian border and that no countermeasures will be required.http://en.rian.ru/russia/20070604/66620997.html Putin further said that "We do not want confrontation, we want cooperation; we do not need bases near any country". But Putin warned that "[i]f part of the U.S.' strategic nuclear arsenal is located in Europe and our military experts find that it poses a threat to Russia, we will have to take appropriate retaliatory steps," he said "We will have new targets in Europe."
I fear that we started synthesizing stuff by putting several things together, thereby violating WP:NOR. The Time magazine article shortly mentioned the Iskander-M in the context of (Russia's suspension of) the CFE treaty. The further additions however do not deal with the CFE treaty, but about the problems Russia perceives with the planned US ABM sites. Put differently, "we" are putting those two topics together because "we" think they belong together. That is OR. Sijo Ripa 23:34, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: OR

message: The English text of the treaty, like all treaties to which both the United States and the United Kingdom are parties, is in British English.  This article should therefore also be in British English.  Robert McClenon (talk) 00:59, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  British English 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 11 external links on Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070712003737/http://www.state.gov/t/ac/rls/fs/11243.htm to http://www.state.gov/t/ac/rls/fs/11243.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070803093723/http://www.ntip.navy.mil/conventional_forces_europe.shtml to http://www.ntip.navy.mil/conventional_forces_europe.shtml
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927192504/http://www.tiraspoltimes.com/news/for_washington_5_500_u_s_troops_are_hardly_any_but_1_200_russian_troops_must_go.html to http://www.tiraspoltimes.com/news/for_washington_5_500_u_s_troops_are_hardly_any_but_1_200_russian_troops_must_go.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070930184404/http://jamestown.org/edm/article.php?article_id=2372234 to http://jamestown.org/edm/article.php?article_id=2372234
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070930192432/http://jamestown.org/edm/article.php?article_id=2372298 to http://jamestown.org/edm/article.php?article_id=2372298
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927235302/http://www.kuwaittimes.net/read_news.php?newsid=MTA5NzUzMzQxMA%3D%3D to http://www.kuwaittimes.net/read_news.php?newsid=MTA5NzUzMzQxMA%3D%3D
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071001050635/http://news.independent.co.uk/europe/article2773165.ece to http://news.independent.co.uk/europe/article2773165.ece
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070930181055/http://news.oneindia.in/2007/07/15/gorbachev-backs-putins-move-to-suspend--cfe-treaty-1184499383.html to http://news.oneindia.in/2007/07/15/gorbachev-backs-putins-move-to-suspend--cfe-treaty-1184499383.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070429184629/http://www.unregisterednews.com/content/view/130/53/ to http://www.unregisterednews.com/content/view/130/53/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070717022752/http://observer.guardian.co.uk/world/story/0%2C%2C2126843%2C00.html to http://observer.guardian.co.uk/world/story/0%2C%2C2126843%2C00.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080409080605/http://osce.usmission.gov/archive/2008/01/CFEtreaty_FactSheet_01_28_08.pdf to http://osce.usmission.gov/archive/2008/01/CFEtreaty_FactSheet_01_28_08.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:55, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
* Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe.PNG
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:06, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion