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.

Sam Lowry said:

---

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.

---

BS. Not even Putin thought that.

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

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.

---

BS. Not even Putin thought that.

---

Read something besides Dubya's press releases.

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

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.

---

BS. Not even Putin thought that.

---

Read something besides Dubya's press releases.

---

Ok, I'll take Putin's.

May 24, 2002

PRESIDENT PUTIN: Distinguished American colleagues, and distinguished Mr. President, ladies and gentlemen. We've just accomplished the official part of our talks with U.S. President George Bush, for our distinguished colleagues of the visit in Moscow and St. Petersburg, but now we can name the major result of our talks -- first of all, the logical development and practical implementation as seen by our agreements reached in Crawford last year. I mean the signature of the treaty between Russia on strategic defensive reductions and, first of all, this document.

It's the statement of our countries to reduce our nuclear arsenals and the joint work for nonproliferation of weapons of mass destruction. It's the decision of two states which are particularly responsible for international security and strategic stability. We're on the level of adopting the declaration on new strategic relationship which determines the basic directions in the security and international policy.

It will have a positive impact for economic cooperation and development of our relations between the institutions of general public, and together with Mr. President, we discussed especially this aspect, the civil society between the people of our countries. The declaration formulates the principles of our dialogue, anti-missile dialogue. That is the transparency and openness and exclusion of potential threats. We confirmed the Genoa agreement on offensive and defensive systems in all their aspects.

A separate issue, the mechanism of NATO-Russia cooperation within the framework of 20, it presumes a new level of joint responsibility and confidence between all its participants.

I would like to stress especially that is the international novelty. And it happened because of the strengthening of Russian-American relations, including in joint confrontation to international terrorists struggling with international terrorism. Russians work together with American people in September the 8th and we're grateful for sincere feelings of compassion headed by President Bush on behalf of American people because of the recent events in Kaspiysk. The memory of terrorism victims and the responsibility for the security of our people means joint struggle against this evil, as well as the struggle against Nazism. The spirit of our cooperation will mean fruitful results even today.

That's why the agenda has very concrete issues of interaction against terrorism on the basis of unique standards against any manifestation of terrorism and extremism. We need close contacts through all agencies and services, including special services. Here we have very positive experience we've accrued over the past years. And we see today -- we feel it today during the negotiations.

The bilateral working group on Afghanistan has demonstrated its efficiency. And we, Mr. President, would like to transform it on a group to combat terrorism, especially chemical, biological, nuclear terrorism.

Russia and the United States are oriented to build new relations in economic activity. Our businessman mentality is much alike, that their qualities and their joint work is based on free trade and supporting the initiatives. That's why our task is to open new opportunities for business community.

We need to avoid obstacles of the past. Here we mean not only the market status of the Russian economy -- and I'm grateful to Mr. President that he has given a very positive signal during our talks. And it does also mean such things as Jackson-Vanik amendment, we have to remove administrative obstacles, which encurls both countries to cooperate, especially in the high-tech sphere, which determined the economy of the 21st century -- that is the aeronautics, telecommunications, science and technologies, new sources of energy. I would like to focus on energy, especially nuclear energy. We paid much attention to it today. And the large format of our cooperation will be a great element for the global economy on the whole.

I would like to stress, in conclusion, that, of course, not all ideas, not all initiatives, are on paper and in the form of official documents. But a serious move forward in all these issues is quite evident for us. Today we together counteract global threats and challenges and we're going to form a stable world order that is within the interests of our peoples and our countries. And I think it's in the interest of all the civilized human society.

Thank you.

Back to the SORT deflection again. Those comments had nothing to do with the ABM. Here's what Putin said about that:

Quote:

---

December 13, 2001

The US Administration today announced that it will withdraw from the 1972 ABM Treaty in six months' time.

The Treaty does indeed allow each of the parties to withdraw from it under exceptional circumstances. The leadership of the United States has spoken about it repeatedly and this step has not come as a surprise to us. But we believe this decision to be mistaken.

As is known, Russia, like the United States and unlike other nuclear powers, has long possessed an effective system to overcome anti-missile defense. So, I can say with full confidence that the decision made by the President of the United States does not pose a threat to the national security of the Russian Federation.

At the same time our country elected not to accept the insistent proposals on the part of the US to jointly withdraw from the ABM Treaty and did everything it could to preserve the Treaty. I still think that this is a correct and valid position. Russia was guided above all by the aim of preserving and strengthening the international legal foundation in the field of disarmament and non-proliferation of mass destruction weapons.

The ABM Treaty is one of the supporting elements of the legal system in this field. That system was created through joint efforts during the past decades.

It is our conviction that the development of the situation in the present world dictates a certain logic of actions.

Now that the world has been confronted with new threats one cannot allow a legal vacuum to be formed in the sphere of strategic stability. One should not undermine the regimes of non-proliferation of mass destruction weapons.

I believe that the present level of bilateral relations between the Russian Federation and the US should not only be preserved but should be used for working out a new framework of strategic relations as soon as possible.

Along with the problem of anti-missile defense a particularly important task under these conditions is putting a legal seal on the achieved agreements on further radical, irreversible and verifiable cuts of strategic offensive weapons, in our opinion to the level of 1,500-2,200 nuclear warheads for each side.

In conclusion I would like to note that Russia will continue to adhere firmly to its course in world affairs aimed at strengthening strategic stability and international security.

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Back to the SORT deflection again. Those comments had nothing to do with the ABM. Here's what Putin said about that:

Quote:

---

December 13, 2001

The US Administration today announced that it will withdraw from the 1972 ABM Treaty in six months' time.

The Treaty does indeed allow each of the parties to withdraw from it under exceptional circumstances. The leadership of the United States has spoken about it repeatedly and this step has not come as a surprise to us. But we believe this decision to be mistaken.

As is known, Russia, like the United States and unlike other nuclear powers, has long possessed an effective system to overcome anti-missile defense. So, I can say with full confidence that the decision made by the President of the United States does not pose a threat to the national security of the Russian Federation.

At the same time our country elected not to accept the insistent proposals on the part of the US to jointly withdraw from the ABM Treaty and did everything it could to preserve the Treaty. I still think that this is a correct and valid position. Russia was guided above all by the aim of preserving and strengthening the international legal foundation in the field of disarmament and non-proliferation of mass destruction weapons.

The ABM Treaty is one of the supporting elements of the legal system in this field. That system was created through joint efforts during the past decades.

It is our conviction that the development of the situation in the present world dictates a certain logic of actions.

Now that the world has been confronted with new threats one cannot allow a legal vacuum to be formed in the sphere of strategic stability. One should not undermine the regimes of non-proliferation of mass destruction weapons.

I believe that the present level of bilateral relations between the Russian Federation and the US should not only be preserved but should be used for working out a new framework of strategic relations as soon as possible.

Along with the problem of anti-missile defense a particularly important task under these conditions is putting a legal seal on the achieved agreements on further radical, irreversible and verifiable cuts of strategic offensive weapons, in our opinion to the level of 1,500-2,200 nuclear warheads for each side.

In conclusion I would like to note that Russia will continue to adhere firmly to its course in world affairs aimed at strengthening strategic stability and international security.

---

---

Yes, all these statements are just oozing that distrust. We pulled out of ABM for a specific reason having nothing to do with Russia, and put together another agreement to further reduce nuclear arms. It's called realpolitik. You and Sachs are playing revisionist fantasies for the bad American narrative.

I don't even think you understand why ABM was even signed and its deterrent purpose. It's a negative action deterrent, with the outdated concept that if you put up missile defense systems, the other side would be motivated to increase arms to overwhelm it. That becomes unnecessary when you focus on reducing overall arms count, which we weren't keen on in 1972, but late in USSR decline became part of the structure.

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Back to the SORT deflection again. Those comments had nothing to do with the ABM. Here's what Putin said about that:

Quote:

---

December 13, 2001

The US Administration today announced that it will withdraw from the 1972 ABM Treaty in six months' time.

The Treaty does indeed allow each of the parties to withdraw from it under exceptional circumstances. The leadership of the United States has spoken about it repeatedly and this step has not come as a surprise to us. But we believe this decision to be mistaken.

As is known, Russia, like the United States and unlike other nuclear powers, has long possessed an effective system to overcome anti-missile defense. So, I can say with full confidence that the decision made by the President of the United States does not pose a threat to the national security of the Russian Federation.

At the same time our country elected not to accept the insistent proposals on the part of the US to jointly withdraw from the ABM Treaty and did everything it could to preserve the Treaty. I still think that this is a correct and valid position. Russia was guided above all by the aim of preserving and strengthening the international legal foundation in the field of disarmament and non-proliferation of mass destruction weapons.

The ABM Treaty is one of the supporting elements of the legal system in this field. That system was created through joint efforts during the past decades.

It is our conviction that the development of the situation in the present world dictates a certain logic of actions.

Now that the world has been confronted with new threats one cannot allow a legal vacuum to be formed in the sphere of strategic stability. One should not undermine the regimes of non-proliferation of mass destruction weapons.

I believe that the present level of bilateral relations between the Russian Federation and the US should not only be preserved but should be used for working out a new framework of strategic relations as soon as possible.

Along with the problem of anti-missile defense a particularly important task under these conditions is putting a legal seal on the achieved agreements on further radical, irreversible and verifiable cuts of strategic offensive weapons, in our opinion to the level of 1,500-2,200 nuclear warheads for each side.

In conclusion I would like to note that Russia will continue to adhere firmly to its course in world affairs aimed at strengthening strategic stability and international security.

---

---

Yes, all these statements are just oozing that distrust. We pulled out of ABM for a specific reason having nothing to do with Russia,

---

I would like to know the reason we pulled out.

What was wrong with ABM?


[On 13 December 2001, George W. Bush gave Russia notice of the United States' unilateral withdrawal from the treaty, in accordance with the clause that required six months' notice before terminating the pact- the first time in recent history that the United States has withdrawn from a major international arms treaty]

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Back to the SORT deflection again. Those comments had nothing to do with the ABM. Here's what Putin said about that:

Quote:

---

December 13, 2001

The US Administration today announced that it will withdraw from the 1972 ABM Treaty in six months' time.

The Treaty does indeed allow each of the parties to withdraw from it under exceptional circumstances. The leadership of the United States has spoken about it repeatedly and this step has not come as a surprise to us. But we believe this decision to be mistaken.

As is known, Russia, like the United States and unlike other nuclear powers, has long possessed an effective system to overcome anti-missile defense. So, I can say with full confidence that the decision made by the President of the United States does not pose a threat to the national security of the Russian Federation.

At the same time our country elected not to accept the insistent proposals on the part of the US to jointly withdraw from the ABM Treaty and did everything it could to preserve the Treaty. I still think that this is a correct and valid position. Russia was guided above all by the aim of preserving and strengthening the international legal foundation in the field of disarmament and non-proliferation of mass destruction weapons.

The ABM Treaty is one of the supporting elements of the legal system in this field. That system was created through joint efforts during the past decades.

It is our conviction that the development of the situation in the present world dictates a certain logic of actions.

Now that the world has been confronted with new threats one cannot allow a legal vacuum to be formed in the sphere of strategic stability. One should not undermine the regimes of non-proliferation of mass destruction weapons.

I believe that the present level of bilateral relations between the Russian Federation and the US should not only be preserved but should be used for working out a new framework of strategic relations as soon as possible.

Along with the problem of anti-missile defense a particularly important task under these conditions is putting a legal seal on the achieved agreements on further radical, irreversible and verifiable cuts of strategic offensive weapons, in our opinion to the level of 1,500-2,200 nuclear warheads for each side.

In conclusion I would like to note that Russia will continue to adhere firmly to its course in world affairs aimed at strengthening strategic stability and international security.

---

---

Yes, all these statements are just oozing that distrust. We pulled out of ABM for a specific reason having nothing to do with Russia,

---

I would like to know the reason we pulled out.

What was wrong with ABM?


[On 13 December 2001, George W. Bush gave Russia notice of the United States' unilateral withdrawal from the treaty, in accordance with the clause that required six months' notice before terminating the pact- the first time in recent history that the United States has withdrawn from a major international arms treaty]

---

I listed it above. It was post 9/11 and the ABM was very restrictive as to where you could deploy missile defense systems. You could only deploy them at an ICBM silo and your nation's capitol. Which makes Sachs statements even more dumb because he inferred we would/could hide something like Trident missiles in them. Even if that was possible, which it isn't, and we wanted to do that we could have just as soon done that with the systems at missile silos.

As an add on, we are currently working on an expanded missile defense array in the Pacific islands as a counter to China and North Korea launches and hypersonic missiles. In fact I think you posted a video about the repurposing of an old WW2 airbase. ABM would have restricted this.

Initial exit polls show Harris earning 79% of nationwide Jewish vote

And you guy still want to send money to Israel?

They dont support us so why are we supporting them?

The_barBEARian said:

---

Initial exit polls show Harris earning 79% of nationwide Jewish vote

And you guy still want to send money to Israel?

They dont support us so why are we supporting them?

---

Sometimes you just do the right thing in spite of the results.
Another great example... Puerto Rico has never thanked America for saving them from being a Spanish colonial ****hole.

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Back to the SORT deflection again. Those comments had nothing to do with the ABM. Here's what Putin said about that:

Quote:

---

December 13, 2001

The US Administration today announced that it will withdraw from the 1972 ABM Treaty in six months' time.

The Treaty does indeed allow each of the parties to withdraw from it under exceptional circumstances. The leadership of the United States has spoken about it repeatedly and this step has not come as a surprise to us. But we believe this decision to be mistaken.

As is known, Russia, like the United States and unlike other nuclear powers, has long possessed an effective system to overcome anti-missile defense. So, I can say with full confidence that the decision made by the President of the United States does not pose a threat to the national security of the Russian Federation.

At the same time our country elected not to accept the insistent proposals on the part of the US to jointly withdraw from the ABM Treaty and did everything it could to preserve the Treaty. I still think that this is a correct and valid position. Russia was guided above all by the aim of preserving and strengthening the international legal foundation in the field of disarmament and non-proliferation of mass destruction weapons.

The ABM Treaty is one of the supporting elements of the legal system in this field. That system was created through joint efforts during the past decades.

It is our conviction that the development of the situation in the present world dictates a certain logic of actions.

Now that the world has been confronted with new threats one cannot allow a legal vacuum to be formed in the sphere of strategic stability. One should not undermine the regimes of non-proliferation of mass destruction weapons.

I believe that the present level of bilateral relations between the Russian Federation and the US should not only be preserved but should be used for working out a new framework of strategic relations as soon as possible.

Along with the problem of anti-missile defense a particularly important task under these conditions is putting a legal seal on the achieved agreements on further radical, irreversible and verifiable cuts of strategic offensive weapons, in our opinion to the level of 1,500-2,200 nuclear warheads for each side.

In conclusion I would like to note that Russia will continue to adhere firmly to its course in world affairs aimed at strengthening strategic stability and international security.

---

---

Yes, all these statements are just oozing that distrust. We pulled out of ABM for a specific reason having nothing to do with Russia, and put together another agreement to further reduce nuclear arms. It's called realpolitik. You and Sachs are playing revisionist fantasies for the bad American narrative.

I don't even think you understand why ABM was even signed and its deterrent purpose. It's a negative action deterrent, with the outdated concept that if you put up missile defense systems, the other side would be motivated to increase arms to overwhelm it. That becomes unnecessary when you focus on reducing overall arms count, which we weren't keen on in 1972, but late in USSR decline became part of the structure.

---

I understand why we pulled out of the ABM. Bush intended to develop a better national missile defense system. He intended to negotiate a better arms control agreement with Russia. He intended that effective arms reductions would render the ABM obsolete.

The problem is that none of that happened. Instead we triggered a new arms race, and our missile defense is just as ineffective as it was before.

Sachs is also correct that our systems in Eastern Europe are a threat to Russia. They were originally designed to fire Tomahawk missiles. They can be modified for offensive purposes relatively easily, and they are one of our most commonly used systems in that capacity. If they are ever used offensively, Russia will have next to no notice and no way of knowing for certain whether they contain nuclear warheads. Our response to their concerns is "trust us." Meanwhile we're expanding NATO, bombing Yugoslavia, funding color revolutions, etc.

Maybe you think all of this is a good idea. That isn't the point. The point is that it has affected US/Russia relations in the most serious of ways. That is beyond dispute.

The_barBEARian said:

---

Initial exit polls show Harris earning 79% of nationwide Jewish vote

And you guy still want to send money to Israel?

They dont support us so why are we supporting them?

---

This is one of the more interesting trends of last night.

The Jewish vote went hard left, as it often does.

Meanwhile, the Muslims in Michigan helped deliver the state to the GOP. Harris only carried something like 20% of the vote in Dearborn with the rest splitting between Trump and the Green Party lady.

I don't want to send money to anyone. The Houthis stood down today. Negotiating Ukraine's surrender is next. Then comes a serious set of discussions with Israel on going back to the Abraham accords.

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Back to the SORT deflection again. Those comments had nothing to do with the ABM. Here's what Putin said about that:

Quote:

---

December 13, 2001

The US Administration today announced that it will withdraw from the 1972 ABM Treaty in six months' time.

The Treaty does indeed allow each of the parties to withdraw from it under exceptional circumstances. The leadership of the United States has spoken about it repeatedly and this step has not come as a surprise to us. But we believe this decision to be mistaken.

As is known, Russia, like the United States and unlike other nuclear powers, has long possessed an effective system to overcome anti-missile defense. So, I can say with full confidence that the decision made by the President of the United States does not pose a threat to the national security of the Russian Federation.

At the same time our country elected not to accept the insistent proposals on the part of the US to jointly withdraw from the ABM Treaty and did everything it could to preserve the Treaty. I still think that this is a correct and valid position. Russia was guided above all by the aim of preserving and strengthening the international legal foundation in the field of disarmament and non-proliferation of mass destruction weapons.

The ABM Treaty is one of the supporting elements of the legal system in this field. That system was created through joint efforts during the past decades.

It is our conviction that the development of the situation in the present world dictates a certain logic of actions.

Now that the world has been confronted with new threats one cannot allow a legal vacuum to be formed in the sphere of strategic stability. One should not undermine the regimes of non-proliferation of mass destruction weapons.

I believe that the present level of bilateral relations between the Russian Federation and the US should not only be preserved but should be used for working out a new framework of strategic relations as soon as possible.

Along with the problem of anti-missile defense a particularly important task under these conditions is putting a legal seal on the achieved agreements on further radical, irreversible and verifiable cuts of strategic offensive weapons, in our opinion to the level of 1,500-2,200 nuclear warheads for each side.

In conclusion I would like to note that Russia will continue to adhere firmly to its course in world affairs aimed at strengthening strategic stability and international security.

---

---

Yes, all these statements are just oozing that distrust. We pulled out of ABM for a specific reason having nothing to do with Russia, and put together another agreement to further reduce nuclear arms. It's called realpolitik. You and Sachs are playing revisionist fantasies for the bad American narrative.

I don't even think you understand why ABM was even signed and its deterrent purpose. It's a negative action deterrent, with the outdated concept that if you put up missile defense systems, the other side would be motivated to increase arms to overwhelm it. That becomes unnecessary when you focus on reducing overall arms count, which we weren't keen on in 1972, but late in USSR decline became part of the structure.

---

I understand why we pulled out of the ABM. Bush intended to develop a better national missile defense system. He intended to negotiate a better arms control agreement with Russia. He intended that effective arms reductions would render the ABM obsolete.

The problem is that none of that happened. Instead we triggered a new arms race, and our missile defense is just as ineffective as it was before.

Sachs is also correct that our systems in Eastern Europe are a threat to Russia. They were originally designed to fire Tomahawk missiles. They can be modified for offensive purposes relatively easily, and they are one of our most commonly used systems in that capacity. If they are ever used offensively, Russia will have next to no notice and no way of knowing for certain whether they contain nuclear warheads. Our response to their concerns is "trust us." Meanwhile we're expanding NATO, bombing Yugoslavia, funding color revolutions, etc.

Maybe you think all of this is a good idea. That isn't the point. The point is that it has affected US/Russia relations in the most serious of ways. That is beyond dispute.

---

I'd disagree on the facts, especially since we signed two subsequent more impactful arms control agreements, and your assessment of missile defense tech, not to mention the timing. But even if you obsess over Russia, and say they weren't enough, the geopolitical reality is we went from a bipolar world of a primary threat during the Cold War, to a multipolar one that required us to adjust. Old agreements became antiquated, and we had to reposition. We can certainly argue how effective we have or haven't been in doing so, but it doesn't change the reality of the global change. Reality is we didn't view Russia as an enemy when we pulled out.

And Russia doesn't need to trust us. Our actions are a clear indicator of our intentions. The problem is Putin, and maybe you and Sachs, does not want more Western aligned countries that can function freer and more beneficially economically. He sees the threat to Russia's influence and spins it as a military one to escalate its perceived danger. But it isn't. It's the only way Russia can leverage its one primary strength to coerce these countries and the world into not proceeding. Putin longs for the days of perceived equal import on the global stage that the Soviet Union used to portray. But they've been lapped by the U.S. as well as China, and outside of nuclear arsenal a number of European nations also.

You and Sachs are pushing a pro-Putin agenda, I won't even call it pro Russia because even Medvedev tried something different and was thwarted by him. The one factor that is always absent from these conversations is what the actual threat to Russia is, when in reality it is only what nefarious act it might prevent Russia from doing, or the grip they have over a country. You can say that these actions impacted US/Russia relations, which I agree, but the question based upon global realities is, why shouldn't they have been?

It would be nice for the Russian people to get a fresh perspective for their country after 25 years of a clinching fist over them instead of being forced to be stuck in the past. (No this isn't a veiled regime change threat, just an actual hope for the Russian people)

And the color revolution lie has become a tired trope, but I know the grind will continue.

Realitybites said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

Initial exit polls show Harris earning 79% of nationwide Jewish vote

And you guy still want to send money to Israel?

They dont support us so why are we supporting them?

---

The Jewish vote went hard left, as it often does.
.

---

Amazing how the GOP continues to pander to an ethnic group that refuses to support it…

Redbrickbear said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

Initial exit polls show Harris earning 79% of nationwide Jewish vote

And you guy still want to send money to Israel?

They dont support us so why are we supporting them?

---

The Jewish vote went hard left, as it often does.
.

---

Amazing how the GOP continues to pander to an ethnic group that refuses to support it…

---

I agree,

Republicans should stop dedicating an entire night of the GOP convention to Jewish issues and ban flying foreign Israeli flags during the convention.

Jews do not support the GOP and they are not a large or growing portion of the electorate.

I'd like to see the GOP show more support for Arab Christians, secular Arabs, Assyrians, and Armenians. These groups are extremely conservative and stand for their principles. We should not take them for granted.

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Back to the SORT deflection again. Those comments had nothing to do with the ABM. Here's what Putin said about that:

Quote:

---

December 13, 2001

The US Administration today announced that it will withdraw from the 1972 ABM Treaty in six months' time.

The Treaty does indeed allow each of the parties to withdraw from it under exceptional circumstances. The leadership of the United States has spoken about it repeatedly and this step has not come as a surprise to us. But we believe this decision to be mistaken.

As is known, Russia, like the United States and unlike other nuclear powers, has long possessed an effective system to overcome anti-missile defense. So, I can say with full confidence that the decision made by the President of the United States does not pose a threat to the national security of the Russian Federation.

At the same time our country elected not to accept the insistent proposals on the part of the US to jointly withdraw from the ABM Treaty and did everything it could to preserve the Treaty. I still think that this is a correct and valid position. Russia was guided above all by the aim of preserving and strengthening the international legal foundation in the field of disarmament and non-proliferation of mass destruction weapons.

The ABM Treaty is one of the supporting elements of the legal system in this field. That system was created through joint efforts during the past decades.

It is our conviction that the development of the situation in the present world dictates a certain logic of actions.

Now that the world has been confronted with new threats one cannot allow a legal vacuum to be formed in the sphere of strategic stability. One should not undermine the regimes of non-proliferation of mass destruction weapons.

I believe that the present level of bilateral relations between the Russian Federation and the US should not only be preserved but should be used for working out a new framework of strategic relations as soon as possible.

Along with the problem of anti-missile defense a particularly important task under these conditions is putting a legal seal on the achieved agreements on further radical, irreversible and verifiable cuts of strategic offensive weapons, in our opinion to the level of 1,500-2,200 nuclear warheads for each side.

In conclusion I would like to note that Russia will continue to adhere firmly to its course in world affairs aimed at strengthening strategic stability and international security.

---

---

Yes, all these statements are just oozing that distrust. We pulled out of ABM for a specific reason having nothing to do with Russia, and put together another agreement to further reduce nuclear arms. It's called realpolitik. You and Sachs are playing revisionist fantasies for the bad American narrative.

I don't even think you understand why ABM was even signed and its deterrent purpose. It's a negative action deterrent, with the outdated concept that if you put up missile defense systems, the other side would be motivated to increase arms to overwhelm it. That becomes unnecessary when you focus on reducing overall arms count, which we weren't keen on in 1972, but late in USSR decline became part of the structure.

---

I understand why we pulled out of the ABM. Bush intended to develop a better national missile defense system. He intended to negotiate a better arms control agreement with Russia. He intended that effective arms reductions would render the ABM obsolete.

The problem is that none of that happened. Instead we triggered a new arms race, and our missile defense is just as ineffective as it was before.

Sachs is also correct that our systems in Eastern Europe are a threat to Russia. They were originally designed to fire Tomahawk missiles. They can be modified for offensive purposes relatively easily, and they are one of our most commonly used systems in that capacity. If they are ever used offensively, Russia will have next to no notice and no way of knowing for certain whether they contain nuclear warheads. Our response to their concerns is "trust us." Meanwhile we're expanding NATO, bombing Yugoslavia, funding color revolutions, etc.

Maybe you think all of this is a good idea. That isn't the point. The point is that it has affected US/Russia relations in the most serious of ways. That is beyond dispute.

---

I'd disagree on the facts, especially since we signed two subsequent more impactful arms control agreements, and your assessment of missile defense tech, not to mention the timing. But even if you obsess over Russia, and say they weren't enough, the geopolitical reality is we went from a bipolar world of a primary threat during the Cold War, to a multipolar one that required us to adjust. Old agreements became antiquated, and we had to reposition. We can certainly argue how effective we have or haven't been in doing so, but it doesn't change the reality of the global change. Reality is we didn't view Russia as an enemy when we pulled out.

And Russia doesn't need to trust us. Our actions are a clear indicator of our intentions. The problem is Putin, and maybe you and Sachs, does not want more Western aligned countries that can function freer and more beneficially economically. He sees the threat to Russia's influence and spins it as a military one to escalate its perceived danger. But it isn't. It's the only way Russia can leverage its one primary strength to coerce these countries and the world into not proceeding. Putin longs for the days of perceived equal import on the global stage that the Soviet Union used to portray. But they've been lapped by the U.S. as well as China, and outside of nuclear arsenal a number of European nations also.

You and Sachs are pushing a pro-Putin agenda, I won't even call it pro Russia because even Medvedev tried something different and was thwarted by him. The one factor that is always absent from these conversations is what the actual threat to Russia is, when in reality it is only what nefarious act it might prevent Russia from doing, or the grip they have over a country. You can say that these actions impacted US/Russia relations, which I agree, but the question based upon global realities is, why shouldn't they have been?

It would be nice for the Russian people to get a fresh perspective for their country after 25 years of a clinching fist over them instead of being forced to be stuck in the past. (No this isn't a veiled regime change threat, just an actual hope for the Russian people)

And the color revolution lie has become a tired trope, but I know the grind will continue.

---

Your first paragraph has some truth to it, but it doesn't change anything that Sachs is saying. It may be true that Bush didn't see Russia as an enemy, but he was surrounded by people who did. Most of them didn't even want the SORT agreement. They were the same ones pushing a unipolar world, war with Iraq, and all of that arrogant nonsense. Even if none of their ideas worked, they at least succeeded in dominating US foreign policy. Bush ultimately failed to enact the verification measures that the Russians wanted, and things went downhill from there.

To your question why our relations with Russia shouldn't have been damaged in this way, the answer is that a return to the Cold War, the arms race, and mutually assured destruction is good for no one. That doesn't mean we should stop at nothing to maintain friendship, but if you don't at least see why these things are to be avoided then I don't know what to tell you.

It was the US and Europe, not Russia, who were obsessed with "aligning" every country on one side or the other. We agreed to neutrality for Ukraine. Ukrainians wanted economic ties with both Russia and the West, to the benefit of all parties -- not just Western banks and oligarchs. It was we who spun an economic rivalry into a military crisis, solely for our own perceived benefit, not Ukraine's.

The nature of the threat to Russia has been explained ad nauseam. I explained the specific threat from our missile installations just now. The idea that Russia doesn't need to trust us is wildly out of touch with any sort of diplomatic reality. Anyone with potentially nuclear-capable missiles on their border is going to be very concerned about trust. We certainly would be. But you know this. You just can't acknowledge any fact that doesn't make America look like the knight in shining armor.

No way pic.twitter.com/7EvEUZyPEO

— Jack Poso 🇺🇸 (@JackPosobiec) November 7, 2024

Well, the Houthis stood down earlier today. Now Hamas.

Zelensky's surrender is next.

It seems as if the meaningless for profit wars that some around here were advocating are going away like Homer Simpson into the bushes.

Realitybites said:

---

No way pic.twitter.com/7EvEUZyPEO

— Jack Poso 🇺🇸 (@JackPosobiec) November 7, 2024

Well, the Houthis stood down earlier today. Now Hamas.

Zelensky's surrender is next.

It seems as if the meaningless for profit wars that some around here were advocating are going away like Homer Simpson into the bushes.

---

They didn't and Hamas telling Israel to stop is not really standing down.

You just worry about what rump Ukraine is going to look like after they surrender.

Sanity in foreign policy has returned.

The Straussians have been cast into the outer darkness.

Realitybites said:

---

You just worry about what rump Ukraine is going to look like.

---

You've been caught multiple times trying to share blatant disinformation, this is just another example.

And yet again: the Houthis never said that, and Hamas telling Israel to stop is still not them "standing down". About as laughable as you trying to pass off zerohedge as a legit news source.

lmao https://t.co/Kuczdh2Xx6 pic.twitter.com/0C2VvDDGOy

— sean (@DilettanteryPod) November 7, 2024