The original Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe (CFE) was negotiated and concluded during the last years of the Cold War and established comprehensive limits on key categories of conventional military equipment in Europe (from the Atlantic to the Urals) and mandated the destruction of excess weaponry. The treaty proposed equal limits for the two "groups of states-parties", the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and the Warsaw Pact. In 1999, the Adapted CFE was signed to take in consideration the changed geopolitical realities and the disbanding of the Warsaw Pact, but NATO refused to ratify it, citing Russian failure to comply to the Istanbul Commitments. In 2007, Russia "suspended" its participation in the treaty, citing the US presence in Eastern Europe and NATO's refusal to ratify the Adapted CFE treaty. On 10 March 2015, citing NATO's alleged de facto breach of the Treaty, Russia formally announced it was "completely" halting its participation as of the next day. Almost all other parties have since suspended their participation.

History

Background

In 1972, US president Richard Nixon and Soviet General Secretary Leonid Brezhnev reached a compromise agreement to hold separate political and military negotiations. The Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe (CSCE) would deal with political issues, and Mutual and Balanced Force Reductions (MBFR) with military issues. The CSCE resulted in 1975 in 35 nations signing the concluding document: the Helsinki Final Act. Negotiations for MBFR were stalled by the USSR in 1979 because of NATO's decision to deploy new intermediate-range nuclear weapons in Europe. In 1986, Soviet General Secretary Mikhail Gorbachev proposed in the context of MBFR negotiations to reduce ground and air forces, and to include conventional and nuclear weapons from the Atlantic to the Urals. This proposal was formalized later that year during a Warsaw Treaty meeting. NATO's North Atlantic Council of foreign ministers issued the Brussels Declaration on Conventional Arms Control, which called for two distinct sets of negotiations: one to build on the Confidence and Security-Building Measures (CSBM) results of the Stockholm Conference and the other to establish conventional stability in Europe through negotiations on conventional arms control from the Atlantic to the Urals (ATTU). In 1987, the Stockholm Document entered into force and for the first time provided a negotiated right to conduct on-site inspections of military forces in the field.

Informal talks between the 16 NATO and the 7 Warsaw Treaty nations began in Vienna on 17 February 1987 on a mandate for conventional negotiations in Europe, which would set out the treaty negotiating guidelines.

The text of the treaty was approved by the 22 negotiating states on 15 November 1990 in Vienna.

The Vienna Document on confidence- and security-building measures, also first adopted in 1990, and the CFE Treaty, were seen as parallel peace process components by the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE). These were divided into two groups:

  • the then-16 NATO members: the United States, Canada, Denmark, France, Germany, Greece, Iceland, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Spain, Turkey, the United Kingdom, and Belgium.
  • the then-six Warsaw Treaty states: Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Poland, Romania, and the Soviet Union

Ratification

upright=1.8|right|thumb|The CFE treaty members of 1992 differ from the signatories in 1990 due to the collapse of the Soviet Union and the split of Czechoslovakia.

The treaty entered into force on 9 November 1992.

In contrast, most former non-USSR Warsaw Treaty members subsequently joined NATO, followed later by the Baltic states and the states of the former Yugoslavia (except Serbia, Kosovo and Bosnia and Herzegovina) which however did not join the treaty. Furthermore, the former Soviet Union republics of Georgia, Moldova, and Ukraine, also aspire to join.

Azerbaijan in turn balances between the blocs without joining any.

1996 amendment

On 31 May 1996, the treaty was amended by the so-called flank agreement, which relaxed the restrictions for Russia and Ukraine in the flank region defined in Article V, subparagraph 1(A) of the treaty.

2007–2015 partial suspension of Russian participation

On 14 July 2007, Vladimir Putin announced that Russia would suspend implementation of its Treaty obligations, effective after 150 days. Moscow continued to participate in the JCG, because it hoped that dialogue could lead to the creation of an effective, new conventional arms control regime in Europe.

2023 Russia denounces TCAFE

On 7 November 2023 Russia denounced the TCAFE. On the same day in response NATO announced its members would suspend participation.

2024 suspension of Greek participation

On 9 February 2024, Greece suspended its particiation in the TCAFE.

2024 suspension of Polish participation

On 29 March 2024, President Duda of Poland suspended his country's participation in the TCAFE. This had been foreseen by the NATO statement, and the vote in the Sejm.

2024 suspension of Turkish participation

On 5 April 2024, Turkish president Recep Tayyip Erdoğan issued a presidential decree that suspended the Turkish participation in the treaty.

Content

Arms ceilings

The CFE Treaty set equal ceilings for each bloc (NATO and the Warsaw Treaty Organization), from the Atlantic to the Urals, on key armaments essential for conducting surprise attacks and initiating large-scale offensive operations. Collectively, the treaty participants agreed that neither side could have more than:

Destruction

To meet required troop ceilings, equipment had to be destroyed or, if possible, converted to non-military purposes.

Joint Consultative Group

Finally, the Treaty established in Vienna a body composed of all Treaty members, which was called the Joint Consultative Group (JCG), and which dealt with questions relating to compliance with the provisions of the Treaty. The group aimed to:

  • Resolve ambiguities and differences in interpretation
  • Consider measures that enhance the Treaty's viability and effectiveness
  • Resolve technical questions
  • Look into disputes that may arise from the Treaty's implementation

Implementation

After the treaty entered into force, a 4-month baseline inspection period began. Twenty-five percent of the destruction had to be completed by the end of 1 year, 60% by the end of 2 years, and all destruction required by the treaty completed by the end of 3 years.

The principal accomplishment was the large-scale reduction or destruction of conventional military equipment in the Atlantic Ocean to the Ural Mountains (ATTU) region during the first 5 years the Treaty was in effect. NATO officials disputed this and stated that the US bases were not intended as permanent and thus could not be seen as a breach. However, it was then reported that the agreements signed with both Romania and Bulgaria in 2006 specifically allowed for permanent bases under direct US control and The Washington Times also had obtained the confirmation of a senior United States official that the facilities were intended to be permanent.

Former Soviet republics

A June 1998 Clinton administration report stated that Russia, Ukraine, Belarus, Armenia and Azerbaijan were not in compliance with the CFE treaty. Violations ranged from holdings of treaty-limited equipment (TLE) in excess of CFE ceilings to denial of full access during treaty inspections. The report concluded that the compliance issues were not "militarily significant" and Russia and Ukraine, the former USSR republics with the largest holdings among the Eastern bloc, remained within their treaty limits.

In the run-up to the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe's (OSCE) November 1999 Istanbul summit, NATO members perceived three treaty compliance problems. First of all, the continuing existence of Russian equipment holdings in the "flank" region (i.e. Russia's North Caucasus Military District) were in excess of agreed treaty limits. Secondly, the Russian military presence in Georgia was beyond the level authorised by the Georgian authorities. Thirdly, the Russian military presence in Moldova lacked the explicit consent of the Moldovan authorities. During the summit, 30 OSCE members signed the adapted CFE treaty and Russia assumed an obligation to withdraw from the Republic of Moldova, reduce her equipment levels in Georgia and agree with the Georgian authorities on the modalities and duration of the Russian forces stationed on the territory of Georgia, and reduce their forces in the flanks to the agreed levels of the Adapted CFE Treaty. and with peacekeeping forces in South Ossetia and the Abkhaz/Georgian boundary line. While Russia partially withdrew troops and equipment from Georgia and Moldova, it did not do so completely as requested by NATO.

South Caucasus

According to a 2019 report, Azerbaijan continues to significantly violate the treaty. In its data as of 1 January 2018, Azerbaijan declared equipment totals that exceeded its overall limits by over 900 pieces of Treaty-Limited Equipment:

  • over 300 battle tanks in excess of Azerbaijan's limit of 220 battle tanks, surpassing 136% of the limit,
  • over 160 armored combat vehicles (ACV) in excess of Azerbaijan's limit of 220 ACVs, surpassing 72% of the limit,
  • over 670 artillery pieces in excess of Azerbaijan's limit of 285 artillery pieces surpassing 235% of the limit,
  • over 5 attack helicopters in excess of Azerbaijan's limit of 50 attack helicopters surpassing 10% of the limit.

Follow-up agreements

Concluding Act of the Negotiation on Personnel Strength of Conventional Armed Forces in Europe (CFE-1A)

CFE-1A negotiations began shortly after the original CFE Treaty was signed in 1990. CFE-1A was unlike the original CFE treaty not a legally binding treaty, but a political commitment that simultaneously came into force with the CFE treaty and served as a follow-up agreement. The suspension applies to the original CFE treaty, as well as to the follow-up agreements.

Motives

An explanatory document from Russia's presidential administration outlined several reasons for its original suspension of compliance in 2007. 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. 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. Russia never accepted this decision—a decision also made six months after the Istanbul summit.

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'." The United States along with European states such as Germany, Poland and Romania also expressed their disappointment. Collective Security Treaty Organisation (CSTO) General Secretary Nikolai Bordyuzha and former Soviet president Mikhail Gorbachev expressed support for Putin's decree. On 25 November 2011, the UK stopped sharing military data with Russia.

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. 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.

  • Richard Falkenrath, Shaping Europe’s Military Order: The Origins and Consequences of the CFE Treaty (Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT Press, 1995)
  • On-Site Inspections Under the CFE Treaty, A History of the On-Site Inspection Agency and CFE Treaty Implementation, 1990-1996 [https://nuke.fas.org/control/cfe/cfebook/tabcon.html]
  • The Conventional Armed Forces in Europe (CFE) Treaty at a Glance — Arms Control Association
  • Text of the treaty — United States Department of State
  • Official signatures and ratifications.
  • History of NATO – the Atlantic Alliance – UK Government site
  • 26 April 2007
  • Statement by Russia's Ministry of Foreign Affairs Regarding Suspension by RF of CFE Treaty
  • 'Kremlin tears up arms pact with NATO', the Observer
  • The Cornerstone Crumbles , the eXile
  • Key Facts About the CFE Treaty and Agreement on Adaptation – U.S. Mission to the OSCE