Are you really not aware of how Russia objected to our withdrawal from the ABM treaty? You think Dubya made a speech and that's all there was to it?

Sam Lowry said:

---

We don't really know who was involved in Yushchenko's poisoning. We do know the US was involved in the Orange Revolution, as well as Maidan.

---

Rinse recycle repeat.

Sam Lowry said:

---

Are you really not aware of how Russia objected to our withdrawal from the ABM treaty? You think Dubya made a speech and that's all there was to it?

---

They objectived so much we negotiated and signed SORT before the six months was up. You can rewrite narratives like Sachs and Putin had to do for his warped justification for Ukraine all you want, but it doesn't change the facts of the time.

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Are you really not aware of how Russia objected to our withdrawal from the ABM treaty? You think Dubya made a speech and that's all there was to it?

---

They objectived so much we negotiated and signed SORT before the six months was up. You can rewrite narratives like Sachs and Putin had to do for his warped justification for Ukraine all you want, but it doesn't change the facts of the time.

---

SORT was a toothless agreement with very little significance in the long term. It was replaced by New START, which is now hanging by a thread as a result of our Ukrainian proxy war. It certainly doesn't begin to outweigh the harm done by the demise of the INF and other important treaties.

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

We don't really know who was involved in Yushchenko's poisoning. We do know the US was involved in the Orange Revolution, as well as Maidan.

---

Rinse recycle repeat.

---

I'll also note that you've changed the subject in a subtle yet significant way. My point was about American actions and intentions toward Russia, not Ukraine. That's what this is really all about. Even if Russia had subverted Ukrainian democracy to the same extent we did, it wouldn't represent a comparable threat to us. It matters that this game is being played on their border and not ours.

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Are you really not aware of how Russia objected to our withdrawal from the ABM treaty? You think Dubya made a speech and that's all there was to it?

---

They objectived so much we negotiated and signed SORT before the six months was up. You can rewrite narratives like Sachs and Putin had to do for his warped justification for Ukraine all you want, but it doesn't change the facts of the time.

---

SORT was a toothless agreement with very little significance in the long term. It was replaced by New START, which is now hanging by a thread as a result of our Ukrainian proxy war. It certainly doesn't begin to outweigh the harm done by the demise of the INF and other important treaties.

---

You keep running into facts that are requiring you to deflect. And now you're moving to the INF as if that was just some whimsical decision by the noted globalist neocon Donald Trump.

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

We don't really know who was involved in Yushchenko's poisoning. We do know the US was involved in the Orange Revolution, as well as Maidan.

---

Rinse recycle repeat.

---

I'll also note that you've changed the subject in a subtle yet significant way. My point was about American actions and intentions toward Russia, not Ukraine. That's what this is really all about. Even if Russia had subverted Ukrainian democracy to the same extent we did, it wouldn't represent a comparable threat to us. It matters that this game is being played on their border and not ours.

---

To the same extent we did? We could only have wished Russia did as little as we did. Then like Poland, Hungary, The Czech Republic, et al. they could have peacefully moved on from the toxic sphere of Russia.

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

We don't really know who was involved in Yushchenko's poisoning. We do know the US was involved in the Orange Revolution, as well as Maidan.

---

Rinse recycle repeat.

---

I'll also note that you've changed the subject in a subtle yet significant way. My point was about American actions and intentions toward Russia, not Ukraine. That's what this is really all about. Even if Russia had subverted Ukrainian democracy to the same extent we did, it wouldn't represent a comparable threat to us. It matters that this game is being played on their border and not ours.

---

To the same extent we did? We could only have wished Russia did as little as we did. Then like Poland, Hungary, The Czech Republic, et al. they could have peacefully moved on from the toxic sphere of Russia.

---

Did we spend half a trillion dollars directly on Poland, Hungary, or Czech in less than a year to move them out of Russia's orbit while we were at an all time debt-to-GDP ratio?

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Nuland has personal knowledge of the people and events, too....

---

Good. Let's consider all the evidence instead of wasting time with ad hominems and fear-mongering about unrelated issues. I'd love to see how many of his fact assertions she can successfully dispute.

---

This is not at all a question of who has right facts and wrong facts. It's a question of who has looked at the same set of facts and made the proper conclusions. It's quite rare for anyone to get it 100% right, but Sacks (like you and others) are way out in left field. You are lionizing our own power and infantilizing Russia as a hapless dupe who got maneuvered into spending a half-million troops and tens of thousands of armored vehicles on a piece of real estate that was not a Nato member, had not asked for Nato membership, did not qualify for Nato membership, had never hosted any Nato combat units, etc......a country which posed no threat to Russia whatsoever, which had committed no hostile acts against Russia whatsoever, etc....

You and Sacks are not dumb, just plain goofy when it comes to Ukraine.

---

I'm only observing what was predicted by foreign affairs experts across the political spectrum -- NATO expansion has led to conflict. Now that we see it happening, you're trying to rewrite history and make your critics look like Russian dupes. Otherwise you'd have to admit they were right all along.

You know as well as I do that both NATO and Putin were looking at a timeline of a decade or two. Meanwhile Ukraine's military was growing year by year. Russia had to make a decision before Ukraine became a member. Anything else would have risked a costly, if not fatal, confrontation with the West.

---

what led to conflict was Russian invasion of a country which is not a Nato member.

Nato expansion has prevented Russia from starting that conflict in the Baltics instead of Ukraine.

Over and over and over we see you making an argument that Russia is a perpetually peaceful country with no demonstrated track record of imperial expansion, that they never would have done anything to reincorporate the former Republics and former WP members back into their orbit against their will, that it is the West which forced Russia to engage in military adventurism. Such is patent Russian propaganda. Whether you arrived at it organically without inspiration or not is immaterial. It is still patent Russian propaganda.

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Are you really not aware of how Russia objected to our withdrawal from the ABM treaty? You think Dubya made a speech and that's all there was to it?

---

They objectived so much we negotiated and signed SORT before the six months was up. You can rewrite narratives like Sachs and Putin had to do for his warped justification for Ukraine all you want, but it doesn't change the facts of the time.

---

SORT was a toothless agreement with very little significance in the long term. It was replaced by New START, which is now hanging by a thread as a result of our Ukrainian proxy war. It certainly doesn't begin to outweigh the harm done by the demise of the INF and other important treaties.

---

You keep running into facts that are requiring you to deflect. And now you're moving to the INF as if that was just some whimsical decision by the noted globalist neocon Donald Trump.

---

I've been talking about the INF all along. SORT was a deflection, and a weak one at that.

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Nuland has personal knowledge of the people and events, too....

---

Good. Let's consider all the evidence instead of wasting time with ad hominems and fear-mongering about unrelated issues. I'd love to see how many of his fact assertions she can successfully dispute.

---

This is not at all a question of who has right facts and wrong facts. It's a question of who has looked at the same set of facts and made the proper conclusions. It's quite rare for anyone to get it 100% right, but Sacks (like you and others) are way out in left field. You are lionizing our own power and infantilizing Russia as a hapless dupe who got maneuvered into spending a half-million troops and tens of thousands of armored vehicles on a piece of real estate that was not a Nato member, had not asked for Nato membership, did not qualify for Nato membership, had never hosted any Nato combat units, etc......a country which posed no threat to Russia whatsoever, which had committed no hostile acts against Russia whatsoever, etc....

You and Sacks are not dumb, just plain goofy when it comes to Ukraine.

---

I'm only observing what was predicted by foreign affairs experts across the political spectrum -- NATO expansion has led to conflict. Now that we see it happening, you're trying to rewrite history and make your critics look like Russian dupes. Otherwise you'd have to admit they were right all along.

You know as well as I do that both NATO and Putin were looking at a timeline of a decade or two. Meanwhile Ukraine's military was growing year by year. Russia had to make a decision before Ukraine became a member. Anything else would have risked a costly, if not fatal, confrontation with the West.

---

what led to conflict was Russian invasion of a country which is not a Nato member.

Nato expansion has prevented Russia from starting that conflict in the Baltics instead of Ukraine.

Over and over and over we see you making an argument that Russia is a perpetually peaceful country with no demonstrated track record of imperial expansion, that they never would have done anything to reincorporate the former Republics and former WP members back into their orbit against their will, that it is the West which forced Russia to engage in military adventurism. Such is patent Russian propaganda. Whether you arrived at it organically without inspiration or not is immaterial. It is still patent Russian propaganda.

---

You've produced no evidence of any such intention on Russia's part. Zero. Your "historical" argument is on par with some crazy old coot ranting about them furriners.

"Expanding NATO would be the most fateful error of American policy in the entire post-Cold War era." (George Kennan)

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Nuland has personal knowledge of the people and events, too....

---

Good. Let's consider all the evidence instead of wasting time with ad hominems and fear-mongering about unrelated issues. I'd love to see how many of his fact assertions she can successfully dispute.

---

This is not at all a question of who has right facts and wrong facts. It's a question of who has looked at the same set of facts and made the proper conclusions. It's quite rare for anyone to get it 100% right, but Sacks (like you and others) are way out in left field. You are lionizing our own power and infantilizing Russia as a hapless dupe who got maneuvered into spending a half-million troops and tens of thousands of armored vehicles on a piece of real estate that was not a Nato member, had not asked for Nato membership, did not qualify for Nato membership, had never hosted any Nato combat units, etc......a country which posed no threat to Russia whatsoever, which had committed no hostile acts against Russia whatsoever, etc....

You and Sacks are not dumb, just plain goofy when it comes to Ukraine.

---

I'm only observing what was predicted by foreign affairs experts across the political spectrum -- NATO expansion has led to conflict. Now that we see it happening, you're trying to rewrite history and make your critics look like Russian dupes. Otherwise you'd have to admit they were right all along.

You know as well as I do that both NATO and Putin were looking at a timeline of a decade or two. Meanwhile Ukraine's military was growing year by year. Russia had to make a decision before Ukraine became a member. Anything else would have risked a costly, if not fatal, confrontation with the West.

---

what led to conflict was Russian invasion of a country which is not a Nato member.

---

Good that you point that out.

Why are we spending billions on defending Ukraine (A NON-Nato country)

Its almost like DC will get us into wars even if they don't involve a real treaty ally of the United States.

Kyiv got itself into a war with Moscow over some ethnic russian provinces in the east of the country.....why are we getting involved in a conflict that does not concern us?

The_barBEARian said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

We don't really know who was involved in Yushchenko's poisoning. We do know the US was involved in the Orange Revolution, as well as Maidan.

---

Rinse recycle repeat.

---

I'll also note that you've changed the subject in a subtle yet significant way. My point was about American actions and intentions toward Russia, not Ukraine. That's what this is really all about. Even if Russia had subverted Ukrainian democracy to the same extent we did, it wouldn't represent a comparable threat to us. It matters that this game is being played on their border and not ours.

---

To the same extent we did? We could only have wished Russia did as little as we did. Then like Poland, Hungary, The Czech Republic, et al. they could have peacefully moved on from the toxic sphere of Russia.

---

Did we spend half a trillion dollars directly on Poland, Hungary, or Czech in less than a year to move them out of Russia's orbit while we were at an all time debt-to-GDP ratio?

---

Thank you for proving my point, unintentionally I'm sure.

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Are you really not aware of how Russia objected to our withdrawal from the ABM treaty? You think Dubya made a speech and that's all there was to it?

---

They objectived so much we negotiated and signed SORT before the six months was up. You can rewrite narratives like Sachs and Putin had to do for his warped justification for Ukraine all you want, but it doesn't change the facts of the time.

---

SORT was a toothless agreement with very little significance in the long term. It was replaced by New START, which is now hanging by a thread as a result of our Ukrainian proxy war. It certainly doesn't begin to outweigh the harm done by the demise of the INF and other important treaties.

---

You keep running into facts that are requiring you to deflect. And now you're moving to the INF as if that was just some whimsical decision by the noted globalist neocon Donald Trump.

---

I've been talking about the INF all along. SORT was a deflection, and a weak one at that.

---

No it was the ABM, then the INF, then all over the place.

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Are you really not aware of how Russia objected to our withdrawal from the ABM treaty? You think Dubya made a speech and that's all there was to it?

---

They objectived so much we negotiated and signed SORT before the six months was up. You can rewrite narratives like Sachs and Putin had to do for his warped justification for Ukraine all you want, but it doesn't change the facts of the time.

---

SORT was a toothless agreement with very little significance in the long term. It was replaced by New START, which is now hanging by a thread as a result of our Ukrainian proxy war. It certainly doesn't begin to outweigh the harm done by the demise of the INF and other important treaties.

---

You keep running into facts that are requiring you to deflect. And now you're moving to the INF as if that was just some whimsical decision by the noted globalist neocon Donald Trump.

---

I've been talking about the INF all along. SORT was a deflection, and a weak one at that.

---

No it was the ABM, then the INF, then all over the place.

---

Well, you can add them both to the list of things that Sachs understands better than you. Withdrawal from the ABM was indeed a seminal event in the long growth of mistrust between the countries.