Conventional Arms Control provides an analysis of the political and operational problems of verification of conventional arms control in Europe. It examines aspects of the verification of the Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe (CFE) and includes assessments of the different negotiating positions and concepts involved. Based on this analysis it looks towards the future - exploring issues associated with continuing conventional arms control discussions and possibilities. The experience gained in the Persian Gulf War is discussed in terms of its relevance for monitoring conventional deployments. The analysis covers aspects of verification and transparency associated with `Open Skies' and CSBM regimes, and indicates trends and prospects for the future of related activities.

In this new Brookings Marshall Paper, Michael O'Hanlon argues that now is the time for Western nations to negotiate a new security architecture for neutral countries in eastern Europe to stabilize the region and reduce the risks of war with Russia. He believes NATO expansion has gone far enough. The core concept of this new security architecture would be one of permanent neutrality. The countries in question collectively make a broken-up arc, from Europe's far north to its south: Finland and Sweden; Ukraine, Moldova, and Belarus; Georgia, Armenia, and Azerbaijan; and finally Cyprus plus Serbia, as well as possibly several other Balkan states. Discussion on the new framework should begin within NATO, followed by deliberation with the neutral countries themselves, and then formal negotiations with Russia. The new security architecture would require that Russia, like NATO, commit to help uphold the security of Ukraine, Georgia, Moldova, and other states in the region. Russia would have to withdraw its troops from those countries in a verifiable manner; after that, corresponding sanctions on Russia would be lifted. The neutral countries would retain their rights to participate in multilateral security operations on a scale comparable to what has been the case in the past, including even those operations that might be led by NATO. They could think of and describe themselves as Western states (or anything else, for that matter). If the European Union and they so wished in the future, they could join the EU. They would have complete sovereignty and self-determination in every sense of the word. But NATO would decide not to invite them into the alliance as members. Ideally, these nations would endorse and promote this concept themselves as a more practical way to ensure their security than the current situation or any other plausible alternative.

This glossary provides clear and precise definitions of arms control terms and places them in a historical context. It introduces the reader to the primary themes and concepts in the field of arms control and explains relevant terminology. The publication looks at the major arms control and disarmament agreements related to conventional, biological, chemical and nuclear weapons. The information is presented in English and Spanish.

During the Cold War, the two global superpowers were able to come together to resolve many issues of transparency and common challenges, leading to a change in European and global security. The OSCE covered the area formerly occupied by NATO and the Warsaw Pact, championing the Helsinki Final Act, which became a key international instrument to encourage peace and security. Following the end of the Cold War, the OSCE became a key institution positioned between the European Union and NATO, focusing on furthering democracy, protecting human and minority rights, and encouraging military reform in a drastically dynamic region. David J. Galbreath sheds light on an institution that changed the face of global security during the Cold War and championed the rise of democratization in Central and Eastern Europe as well as the former Soviet republics following the collapse of the Soviet Union.

"This book examines the CFE Treaty both in terms of the Treaty commitments, and in terms of the debate over the Treaty and its ratification in order to deepen understanding of the different national attitudes to security at the end of the Cold War." "It is a piece of contemporary history as well as a book which sets out the legal obligations over the size of the armed forces of most of the countries of Europe in perpetuity. It includes an analysis not only of the Treaty of November 1990, but also the revised version of 1992 (which set out the limits for all the ex-Soviet states), and the CFE 1A agreement, in which states declared maximum levels for their military personnel."--BOOK JACKET.Title Summary field provided by Blackwell North America, Inc. All Rights Reserved

The optimistic vision of a “Europe whole and free” after the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989 has given way to disillusionment, bitterness, and renewed hostility between Russia and the West. In No Place for Russia, William H. Hill traces the development of the post–Cold War European security order to explain today’s tensions, showing how attempts to integrate Russia into a unified Euro-Atlantic security order were gradually overshadowed by the domination of NATO and the EU—at Russia’s expense. Hill argues that the redivision of Europe has been largely unintended and not the result of any single decision or action. Instead, the current situation is the cumulative result of many decisions—reasonably made at the time—that gradually produced the current security architecture and led to mutual mistrust. Hill analyzes the United States’ decision to remain in Europe after the Cold War, the emergence of Germany as a major power on the continent, and the transformation of Russia into a nation-state, placing major weight on NATO’s evolution from an alliance dedicated primarily to static collective territorial defense into a security organization with global ambitions and capabilities. Closing with Russia’s annexation of Crimea and war in eastern Ukraine, No Place for Russia argues that the post–Cold War security order in Europe has been irrevocably shattered, to be replaced by a new and as-yet-undefined order.

The multilateral Open Skies Treaty was signed in 1992 (although it did not enter into force until 2002) and covers all NATO and former Warsaw Treaty members, including the main successor states to the former Soviet Union. The treaty enables states to overfly and observe the territory of one another, as part of the process of verifying and monitoring arms control agreements. As the imagery taken during observation flights is accessible to all parties, the treaty places all members on an equal footing and requires crews of the inspecting and inspected states to work closely together. This publication, based on research carried out during 1995-2000, examines the concept of the Open Skies regime and prospects for its future adaptation, taking into account current international security needs and technological possibilities.