Even the smart ones get all or parts of it wrong from time to time. And, of course, the wannabes are off in lala-land, refusing to even familiarize themselves with the history and current developments. Russian leaders have talked openly for years about their intentions to their east.Sam Lowry said: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.whiterock said:what led to conflict was Russian invasion of a country which is not a Nato member.Sam Lowry said: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.whiterock said: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....Sam Lowry said: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.whiterock said:
Nuland has personal knowledge of the people and events, too....
You and Sacks are not dumb, just plain goofy when it comes to Ukraine.
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.
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.
"Expanding NATO would be the most fateful error of American policy in the entire post-Cold War era." (George Kennan)
Netanyahu said "we are at war,"
427,733 Views |
6532 Replies |
Last: 1 hr ago by The_barBEARian
Desperate arguments require lots of faulty assumptions, most significantly the one which holds that the USA has no interest in Nato. We are a member of Nato. What is a threat to Nato is a threat to us. And Russia invading to subsume Ukraine & move Russian military bases 600mi closer to Nato borders is the textbook definition of threat. A grave one at that. Your arguments consistently ignore that reality, and for that reason are just plain silly.Redbrickbear said:whiterock said:what led to conflict was Russian invasion of a country which is not a Nato member.Sam Lowry said: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.whiterock said: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....Sam Lowry said: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.whiterock said:
Nuland has personal knowledge of the people and events, too....
You and Sacks are not dumb, just plain goofy when it comes to Ukraine.
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.
Good that you point that out.
Why are we spending billions on defending Ukraine (A NON-Nato country)
Because Russian expansion of military forces into neutral ground (Ukraine) is every bit as threating to Nato as Nato expansion of military forces into Ukraine would be to Russia. (we are a part of Nato, remember).
Its almost like DC will get us into wars even if they don't involve a real treaty ally of the United States.
Ok, then....why would Russia want to get into a war that did not involve a treaty ally? A war with a nation who was not allied to anyone?
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?
LOL. Kyiv got itself into a war with Moscow because Moscow invaded Ukraine.
Ukraine did not commit an act of war against Russia. It had joined no alliances....it had not even applied for membership in Nato. It had invited no foreign power to send combat units. Russia invaded Ukraine because Russia does not believe Ukraine is a real thing....that Ukrainians are just Russians who talk funny. Russia invaded Ukraine because Russia thinks that Ukraine is properly part of Russia itself.
No rational power would form a mighty alliance to oppose a country, then stand idly by while that country invades with manifest intent to move its armies 600mi closer. Any/every country in such a situation would take some action to forestall an outcome which favored the attacker. That's why we've seen Nato move so quickly with such unanimity to support Ukraine. It is such a clear threat to Nato that even the smallest and weakest of Nato powers are donating aid to the point of pain.
res ipsa loquitur, buddy. The reason you are seeing what you're seeing in Ukraine is not a case of shadowy elites wagging the dog. The reason you are seeing what you are seeing in Ukraine is because Russia invaded and that is a threat to Nato, the most serious threat it has faced since the end of the Cold War.
safest place in the Middle East for Arab Christians, secular Arabs, Assyrians and Armenians is.....Israel.The_barBEARian said: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.
We do not support Israel because of Jewish Americans. We support Israel because it so manifestly in our geopolitical interest to do so. Only the anti-semites are blind to that.
I don't think you neocons fully grasp the profound shift that happened on Tuesday.
"According to RFK, President Trump drew a map of the Middle East with all the countries indicating the troop strength in each. Tucker Carlson questions this in disbelief.The interesting part, however, was where RFK describes President Trump consulting "his generals" about the dangers of those troops in the region. Upon hearing of the dangers, RFK says, Trump orders the generals to get the troops out.
The preponderance of evidence signals a sea change in foreign policy more dramatic than Trump's first term. Coming off a decisive election win there is a narrative of a, "mandate," for governance swirling about Trump media circles. Combining that with hints of peace deals, troop draw downs, border security, and former political rivals joining his administration, there's likely to be a new political golden age taking shape in America."
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2024/11/rfk-tucker-carlson-trump-told-his-generals-get/
The military is coming home...the State Department, CIA, FBI, etc better spend more time prepping for the extended colonoscopy they are going to receive at the hands of We The People starting in January.
"According to RFK, President Trump drew a map of the Middle East with all the countries indicating the troop strength in each. Tucker Carlson questions this in disbelief.The interesting part, however, was where RFK describes President Trump consulting "his generals" about the dangers of those troops in the region. Upon hearing of the dangers, RFK says, Trump orders the generals to get the troops out.
The preponderance of evidence signals a sea change in foreign policy more dramatic than Trump's first term. Coming off a decisive election win there is a narrative of a, "mandate," for governance swirling about Trump media circles. Combining that with hints of peace deals, troop draw downs, border security, and former political rivals joining his administration, there's likely to be a new political golden age taking shape in America."
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2024/11/rfk-tucker-carlson-trump-told-his-generals-get/
The military is coming home...the State Department, CIA, FBI, etc better spend more time prepping for the extended colonoscopy they are going to receive at the hands of We The People starting in January.
To their east where…Alaska?whiterock said:Even the smart ones get all or parts of it wrong from time to time. And, of course, the wannabes are off in lala-land, refusing to even familiarize themselves with the history and current developments. Russian leaders have talked openly for years about their intentions to their east.Sam Lowry said: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.whiterock said:what led to conflict was Russian invasion of a country which is not a Nato member.Sam Lowry said: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.whiterock said: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....Sam Lowry said: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.whiterock said:
Nuland has personal knowledge of the people and events, too....
You and Sacks are not dumb, just plain goofy when it comes to Ukraine.
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.
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.
"Expanding NATO would be the most fateful error of American policy in the entire post-Cold War era." (George Kennan)
did you even watch the videos? The second one in particular puts torpedo after torpedo into your arguments.Redbrickbear said:lmao https://t.co/Kuczdh2Xx6 pic.twitter.com/0C2VvDDGOy
— sean (@DilettanteryPod) November 7, 2024
Did you not hear one of the people interviewed end their comment with the word "inshallah" (not a Hebrew word, by the way....)
whiterock said:did you even watch the videos? The second one in particular puts torpedo after torpedo into your arguments.Redbrickbear said:lmao https://t.co/Kuczdh2Xx6 pic.twitter.com/0C2VvDDGOy
— sean (@DilettanteryPod) November 7, 2024
What arguments?
Its a funny video....I made no arguments that went along with it
whiterock said:safest place in the Middle East for Arab Christians, secular Arabs, Assyrians and Armenians is.....Israel.The_barBEARian said: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.
You forget about the Christian controlled parts of Lebanon?
[And all of Lebanon used to be a safe space for Christians until the wonders of diversity did their work.
....."France created Lebanon as a safe haven for Christians, particularly the Maronite population of Mount Lebanon"]
The trust is established by our actions and what we show as our intentions. We aren't and haven't surprised Russia with anything. We have had discussions with them repeatedly. We made great efforts to align them with the West. But they are not a transparent player, and never have been. They (really Putin) chose to reject greater cooperation. Reject democracy and freedom domestically It was a critical change Putin made when he benefited from our Mid East forays, particularly Iraq, and the price of energy escalated. He began consolidating assets and authority in Russia, and decided to be expansionist and resist the West. He threw the gauntlet down in 2007 and never looked back. The West completely miscalculated the direction he would go, and if there's blame to point West, it was Iraq that gave him the cover he needed to pursue it. Russia more than the West has been resistant to new Arms Control agreements,Sam Lowry said: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.ATL Bear said: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.Sam Lowry said: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.ATL Bear said: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.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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
The ABM, color revolutions, Kosovo, etc. have been spun into a tale to cover Russia's actions. The U.S. isn't and doesn't need to be a Knight in shining armor to see that Russia (Putin) is a bad actor.
This is such a thorough distortion of history that I won't try to address it all. It's really remarkable, though.ATL Bear said:The trust is established by our actions and what we show as our intentions. We aren't and haven't surprised Russia with anything. We have had discussions with them repeatedly. We made great efforts to align them with the West. But they are not a transparent player, and never have been. They (really Putin) chose to reject greater cooperation. Reject democracy and freedom domestically It was a critical change Putin made when he benefited from our Mid East forays, particularly Iraq, and the price of energy escalated. He began consolidating assets and authority in Russia, and decided to be expansionist and resist the West. He threw the gauntlet down in 2007 and never looked back. The West completely miscalculated the direction he would go, and if there's blame to point West, it was Iraq that gave him the cover he needed to pursue it. Russia more than the West has been resistant to new Arms Control agreements,Sam Lowry said: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.ATL Bear said: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.Sam Lowry said: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.ATL Bear said: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.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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
The ABM, color revolutions, Kosovo, etc. have been spun into a tale to cover Russia's actions. The U.S. isn't and doesn't need to be a Knight in shining armor to see that Russia (Putin) is a bad actor.
As to the topic of arms control, Russia absolutely was surprised and shocked by our sudden withdrawal from the treaties, especially the INF. That we gave bare minimum notice as required by the agreements doesn't change that; in fact it only emphasizes the point. Normally there would have been serious efforts to resolve any disputes before such a thing was even contemplated. In our case none of that happened.
Sam Lowry said:This is such a thorough distortion of history that I won't try to address it all. It's really remarkable, though.ATL Bear said:The trust is established by our actions and what we show as our intentions. We aren't and haven't surprised Russia with anything. We have had discussions with them repeatedly. We made great efforts to align them with the West. But they are not a transparent player, and never have been. They (really Putin) chose to reject greater cooperation. Reject democracy and freedom domestically It was a critical change Putin made when he benefited from our Mid East forays, particularly Iraq, and the price of energy escalated. He began consolidating assets and authority in Russia, and decided to be expansionist and resist the West. He threw the gauntlet down in 2007 and never looked back. The West completely miscalculated the direction he would go, and if there's blame to point West, it was Iraq that gave him the cover he needed to pursue it. Russia more than the West has been resistant to new Arms Control agreements,Sam Lowry said: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.ATL Bear said: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.Sam Lowry said: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.ATL Bear said: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.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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
The ABM, color revolutions, Kosovo, etc. have been spun into a tale to cover Russia's actions. The U.S. isn't and doesn't need to be a Knight in shining armor to see that Russia (Putin) is a bad actor.
As to the topic of arms control, Russia absolutely was surprised and shocked by our sudden withdrawal from the treaties, especially the INF. That we gave bare minimum notice as required by the agreements doesn't change that; in fact it only emphasizes the point. Normally there would have been serious efforts to resolve any disputes before such a thing was even contemplated. In our case none of that happened.
You seem to defend any act they do as a reaction to the US, not their fault, including invading a Nation.
Yet, you just argued that the US honoring the arms agreement and giving the agreed upon notice is horrible. Not contemplated or some nonsense.
ATL Bear is correct, the US had gone above and beyond to assist Russia align more west. After the fall of the USSR I doubt Putin would have been so even handed and fair toward the US. At least they have no history of it when in a position of strength. But that is the US fault too, right?
There's theory and then there's practice. Christians have had to fight for their lives for decades, with their own militias against other Lebanese factions which have own militias.Redbrickbear said:whiterock said:safest place in the Middle East for Arab Christians, secular Arabs, Assyrians and Armenians is.....Israel.The_barBEARian said: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.
You forget about the Christian controlled parts of Lebanon?
[And all of Lebanon used to be a safe space for Christians until the wonders of diversity did their work.
....."France created Lebanon as a safe haven for Christians, particularly the Maronite population of Mount Lebanon"]
Lebanon is a textbook definition of "failed state." That's why first the PLO and later Hizballah were able to elbow out substantial areas to control & use for attacking Israel.
Who said withdrawing from the agreement was horrible?FLBear5630 said:Sam Lowry said:This is such a thorough distortion of history that I won't try to address it all. It's really remarkable, though.ATL Bear said:The trust is established by our actions and what we show as our intentions. We aren't and haven't surprised Russia with anything. We have had discussions with them repeatedly. We made great efforts to align them with the West. But they are not a transparent player, and never have been. They (really Putin) chose to reject greater cooperation. Reject democracy and freedom domestically It was a critical change Putin made when he benefited from our Mid East forays, particularly Iraq, and the price of energy escalated. He began consolidating assets and authority in Russia, and decided to be expansionist and resist the West. He threw the gauntlet down in 2007 and never looked back. The West completely miscalculated the direction he would go, and if there's blame to point West, it was Iraq that gave him the cover he needed to pursue it. Russia more than the West has been resistant to new Arms Control agreements,Sam Lowry said: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.ATL Bear said: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.Sam Lowry said: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.ATL Bear said: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.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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
The ABM, color revolutions, Kosovo, etc. have been spun into a tale to cover Russia's actions. The U.S. isn't and doesn't need to be a Knight in shining armor to see that Russia (Putin) is a bad actor.
As to the topic of arms control, Russia absolutely was surprised and shocked by our sudden withdrawal from the treaties, especially the INF. That we gave bare minimum notice as required by the agreements doesn't change that; in fact it only emphasizes the point. Normally there would have been serious efforts to resolve any disputes before such a thing was even contemplated. In our case none of that happened.
You seem to defend any act they do as a reaction to the US, not their fault, including invading a Nation.
Yet, you just argued that the US honoring the arms agreement and giving the agreed upon notice is horrible. Not contemplated or some nonsense.
ATL Bear is correct, the US had gone above and beyond to assist Russia align more west. After the fall of the USSR I doubt Putin would have been so even handed and fair toward the US. At least they have no history of it when in a position of strength. But that is the US fault too, right?
You just went on about how withdrawing from the agreement within the agreed timeline was "bare minimum". You read that paragraph below and it is positive???Sam Lowry said:Who said withdrawing from the agreement was horrible?FLBear5630 said:Sam Lowry said:This is such a thorough distortion of history that I won't try to address it all. It's really remarkable, though.ATL Bear said:The trust is established by our actions and what we show as our intentions. We aren't and haven't surprised Russia with anything. We have had discussions with them repeatedly. We made great efforts to align them with the West. But they are not a transparent player, and never have been. They (really Putin) chose to reject greater cooperation. Reject democracy and freedom domestically It was a critical change Putin made when he benefited from our Mid East forays, particularly Iraq, and the price of energy escalated. He began consolidating assets and authority in Russia, and decided to be expansionist and resist the West. He threw the gauntlet down in 2007 and never looked back. The West completely miscalculated the direction he would go, and if there's blame to point West, it was Iraq that gave him the cover he needed to pursue it. Russia more than the West has been resistant to new Arms Control agreements,Sam Lowry said: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.ATL Bear said: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.Sam Lowry said: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.ATL Bear said: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.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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
The ABM, color revolutions, Kosovo, etc. have been spun into a tale to cover Russia's actions. The U.S. isn't and doesn't need to be a Knight in shining armor to see that Russia (Putin) is a bad actor.
A Normally there would have been serious efforts to resolve any disputes before such a thing was even contemplated. In our case none of that happened.
You seem to defend any act they do as a reaction to the US, not their fault, including invading a Nation.
Yet, you just argued that the US honoring the arms agreement and giving the agreed upon notice is horrible. Not contemplated or some nonsense.
ATL Bear is correct, the US had gone above and beyond to assist Russia align more west. After the fall of the USSR I doubt Putin would have been so even handed and fair toward the US. At least they have no history of it when in a position of strength. But that is the US fault too, right?
"to the topic of arms control, Russia absolutely was surprised and shocked by our sudden withdrawal from the treaties, especially the INF. That we gave bare minimum notice as required by the agreements doesn't change that; in fact it only emphasizes the point."
We haven't really argued the merits of the policy yet. In most of these conversations, we never do. I'm still trying to establish the basic historical facts. Then we can decide whether they're positive or negative.FLBear5630 said:You just went on about how withdrawing from the agreement within the agreed timeline was "bare minimum". You read that paragraph below and it is positive???Sam Lowry said:Who said withdrawing from the agreement was horrible?FLBear5630 said:Sam Lowry said:This is such a thorough distortion of history that I won't try to address it all. It's really remarkable, though.ATL Bear said:The trust is established by our actions and what we show as our intentions. We aren't and haven't surprised Russia with anything. We have had discussions with them repeatedly. We made great efforts to align them with the West. But they are not a transparent player, and never have been. They (really Putin) chose to reject greater cooperation. Reject democracy and freedom domestically It was a critical change Putin made when he benefited from our Mid East forays, particularly Iraq, and the price of energy escalated. He began consolidating assets and authority in Russia, and decided to be expansionist and resist the West. He threw the gauntlet down in 2007 and never looked back. The West completely miscalculated the direction he would go, and if there's blame to point West, it was Iraq that gave him the cover he needed to pursue it. Russia more than the West has been resistant to new Arms Control agreements,Sam Lowry said: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.ATL Bear said: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.Sam Lowry said: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.ATL Bear said: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.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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
The ABM, color revolutions, Kosovo, etc. have been spun into a tale to cover Russia's actions. The U.S. isn't and doesn't need to be a Knight in shining armor to see that Russia (Putin) is a bad actor.
A Normally there would have been serious efforts to resolve any disputes before such a thing was even contemplated. In our case none of that happened.
You seem to defend any act they do as a reaction to the US, not their fault, including invading a Nation.
Yet, you just argued that the US honoring the arms agreement and giving the agreed upon notice is horrible. Not contemplated or some nonsense.
ATL Bear is correct, the US had gone above and beyond to assist Russia align more west. After the fall of the USSR I doubt Putin would have been so even handed and fair toward the US. At least they have no history of it when in a position of strength. But that is the US fault too, right?
"to the topic of arms control, Russia absolutely was surprised and shocked by our sudden withdrawal from the treaties, especially the INF. That we gave bare minimum notice as required by the agreements doesn't change that; in fact it only emphasizes the point."
This is an example of how you, ATL, and others do it the other way around. First you decide what's positive for the US, then you choose which facts to accept. If I say "the US is bordered to the south by Mexico," your brains hear "the US is evil." You demand links, maps, expert testimony, etc., and after all that you remain firmly in denial.
The point is simply that Russia was surprised and reacted badly to our withdrawal from the treaties. This is an obvious fact, which no one who knows anything about it would deny. We could have mitigated the damage in any number of ways, for example, by not placing missiles in Romania and Poland. There was no real need for them, since even ATL admits our decision to withdraw wasn't a reaction to any Russian threat. But that's another discussion.
Why stay in an agreement we do not agree with after we, and our allies, discover that the other side is not honoring. 9M729, Russia was breaking the treaty the US was honoring. Not rocket science. Russia is who scuttled the INF.Sam Lowry said:We haven't really argued the merits of the policy yet. In most of these conversations, we never do. I'm still trying to establish the basic historical facts. Then we can decide whether they're positive or negative.FLBear5630 said:You just went on about how withdrawing from the agreement within the agreed timeline was "bare minimum". You read that paragraph below and it is positive???Sam Lowry said:Who said withdrawing from the agreement was horrible?FLBear5630 said:Sam Lowry said:This is such a thorough distortion of history that I won't try to address it all. It's really remarkable, though.ATL Bear said:The trust is established by our actions and what we show as our intentions. We aren't and haven't surprised Russia with anything. We have had discussions with them repeatedly. We made great efforts to align them with the West. But they are not a transparent player, and never have been. They (really Putin) chose to reject greater cooperation. Reject democracy and freedom domestically It was a critical change Putin made when he benefited from our Mid East forays, particularly Iraq, and the price of energy escalated. He began consolidating assets and authority in Russia, and decided to be expansionist and resist the West. He threw the gauntlet down in 2007 and never looked back. The West completely miscalculated the direction he would go, and if there's blame to point West, it was Iraq that gave him the cover he needed to pursue it. Russia more than the West has been resistant to new Arms Control agreements,Sam Lowry said: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.ATL Bear said: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.Sam Lowry said: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.ATL Bear said: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.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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
The ABM, color revolutions, Kosovo, etc. have been spun into a tale to cover Russia's actions. The U.S. isn't and doesn't need to be a Knight in shining armor to see that Russia (Putin) is a bad actor.
A Normally there would have been serious efforts to resolve any disputes before such a thing was even contemplated. In our case none of that happened.
You seem to defend any act they do as a reaction to the US, not their fault, including invading a Nation.
Yet, you just argued that the US honoring the arms agreement and giving the agreed upon notice is horrible. Not contemplated or some nonsense.
ATL Bear is correct, the US had gone above and beyond to assist Russia align more west. After the fall of the USSR I doubt Putin would have been so even handed and fair toward the US. At least they have no history of it when in a position of strength. But that is the US fault too, right?
"to the topic of arms control, Russia absolutely was surprised and shocked by our sudden withdrawal from the treaties, especially the INF. That we gave bare minimum notice as required by the agreements doesn't change that; in fact it only emphasizes the point."
This is an example of how you, ATL, and others do it the other way around. First you decide what's positive for the US, then you choose which facts to accept. If I say "the US is bordered to the south by Mexico," your brains hear "the US is evil." You demand links, maps, expert testimony, etc., and after all that you remain firmly in denial.
The point is simply that Russia was surprised and reacted badly to our withdrawal from the treaties. This is an obvious fact, which no one who knows anything about it would deny. We could have mitigated the damage in any number of ways, for example, by not placing missiles in Romania and Poland. There was no real need for them, since even ATL admits our decision to withdraw wasn't a reaction to any Russian threat. But that's another discussion.
Because it was an important agreement and there are ways of resolving those issues and verifying compliance. That's the normal approach if you want the agreement, and the overall arms control framework, to be effective.FLBear5630 said:Why stay in an agreement we do not agree with after we, and our allies, discover that the other side is not honoring. 9M729, Russia was breaking the treaty the US was honoring. Not rocket science. Russia is who scuttled the INF.Sam Lowry said:We haven't really argued the merits of the policy yet. In most of these conversations, we never do. I'm still trying to establish the basic historical facts. Then we can decide whether they're positive or negative.FLBear5630 said:You just went on about how withdrawing from the agreement within the agreed timeline was "bare minimum". You read that paragraph below and it is positive???Sam Lowry said:Who said withdrawing from the agreement was horrible?FLBear5630 said:Sam Lowry said:This is such a thorough distortion of history that I won't try to address it all. It's really remarkable, though.ATL Bear said:The trust is established by our actions and what we show as our intentions. We aren't and haven't surprised Russia with anything. We have had discussions with them repeatedly. We made great efforts to align them with the West. But they are not a transparent player, and never have been. They (really Putin) chose to reject greater cooperation. Reject democracy and freedom domestically It was a critical change Putin made when he benefited from our Mid East forays, particularly Iraq, and the price of energy escalated. He began consolidating assets and authority in Russia, and decided to be expansionist and resist the West. He threw the gauntlet down in 2007 and never looked back. The West completely miscalculated the direction he would go, and if there's blame to point West, it was Iraq that gave him the cover he needed to pursue it. Russia more than the West has been resistant to new Arms Control agreements,Sam Lowry said: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.ATL Bear said: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.Sam Lowry said: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.ATL Bear said: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.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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
The ABM, color revolutions, Kosovo, etc. have been spun into a tale to cover Russia's actions. The U.S. isn't and doesn't need to be a Knight in shining armor to see that Russia (Putin) is a bad actor.
A Normally there would have been serious efforts to resolve any disputes before such a thing was even contemplated. In our case none of that happened.
You seem to defend any act they do as a reaction to the US, not their fault, including invading a Nation.
Yet, you just argued that the US honoring the arms agreement and giving the agreed upon notice is horrible. Not contemplated or some nonsense.
ATL Bear is correct, the US had gone above and beyond to assist Russia align more west. After the fall of the USSR I doubt Putin would have been so even handed and fair toward the US. At least they have no history of it when in a position of strength. But that is the US fault too, right?
"to the topic of arms control, Russia absolutely was surprised and shocked by our sudden withdrawal from the treaties, especially the INF. That we gave bare minimum notice as required by the agreements doesn't change that; in fact it only emphasizes the point."
This is an example of how you, ATL, and others do it the other way around. First you decide what's positive for the US, then you choose which facts to accept. If I say "the US is bordered to the south by Mexico," your brains hear "the US is evil." You demand links, maps, expert testimony, etc., and after all that you remain firmly in denial.
The point is simply that Russia was surprised and reacted badly to our withdrawal from the treaties. This is an obvious fact, which no one who knows anything about it would deny. We could have mitigated the damage in any number of ways, for example, by not placing missiles in Romania and Poland. There was no real need for them, since even ATL admits our decision to withdraw wasn't a reaction to any Russian threat. But that's another discussion.
Come on, this was not a 6 month issue, it started under Obama in 2008 and Trump finally pulled out because all it did was put the US in a competitive disadvantage. That is years. There is no reason to stay in an agreement where only one side adheres.Sam Lowry said:Because it was an important agreement and there are ways of resolving those issues and verifying compliance. That's the normal approach if you want the agreement, and the overall arms control framework, to be effective.FLBear5630 said:Why stay in an agreement we do not agree with after we, and our allies, discover that the other side is not honoring. 9M729, Russia was breaking the treaty the US was honoring. Not rocket science. Russia is who scuttled the INF.Sam Lowry said:We haven't really argued the merits of the policy yet. In most of these conversations, we never do. I'm still trying to establish the basic historical facts. Then we can decide whether they're positive or negative.FLBear5630 said:You just went on about how withdrawing from the agreement within the agreed timeline was "bare minimum". You read that paragraph below and it is positive???Sam Lowry said:Who said withdrawing from the agreement was horrible?FLBear5630 said:Sam Lowry said:This is such a thorough distortion of history that I won't try to address it all. It's really remarkable, though.ATL Bear said:The trust is established by our actions and what we show as our intentions. We aren't and haven't surprised Russia with anything. We have had discussions with them repeatedly. We made great efforts to align them with the West. But they are not a transparent player, and never have been. They (really Putin) chose to reject greater cooperation. Reject democracy and freedom domestically It was a critical change Putin made when he benefited from our Mid East forays, particularly Iraq, and the price of energy escalated. He began consolidating assets and authority in Russia, and decided to be expansionist and resist the West. He threw the gauntlet down in 2007 and never looked back. The West completely miscalculated the direction he would go, and if there's blame to point West, it was Iraq that gave him the cover he needed to pursue it. Russia more than the West has been resistant to new Arms Control agreements,Sam Lowry said: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.ATL Bear said: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.Sam Lowry said: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.ATL Bear said: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.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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
The ABM, color revolutions, Kosovo, etc. have been spun into a tale to cover Russia's actions. The U.S. isn't and doesn't need to be a Knight in shining armor to see that Russia (Putin) is a bad actor.
A Normally there would have been serious efforts to resolve any disputes before such a thing was even contemplated. In our case none of that happened.
You seem to defend any act they do as a reaction to the US, not their fault, including invading a Nation.
Yet, you just argued that the US honoring the arms agreement and giving the agreed upon notice is horrible. Not contemplated or some nonsense.
ATL Bear is correct, the US had gone above and beyond to assist Russia align more west. After the fall of the USSR I doubt Putin would have been so even handed and fair toward the US. At least they have no history of it when in a position of strength. But that is the US fault too, right?
"to the topic of arms control, Russia absolutely was surprised and shocked by our sudden withdrawal from the treaties, especially the INF. That we gave bare minimum notice as required by the agreements doesn't change that; in fact it only emphasizes the point."
This is an example of how you, ATL, and others do it the other way around. First you decide what's positive for the US, then you choose which facts to accept. If I say "the US is bordered to the south by Mexico," your brains hear "the US is evil." You demand links, maps, expert testimony, etc., and after all that you remain firmly in denial.
The point is simply that Russia was surprised and reacted badly to our withdrawal from the treaties. This is an obvious fact, which no one who knows anything about it would deny. We could have mitigated the damage in any number of ways, for example, by not placing missiles in Romania and Poland. There was no real need for them, since even ATL admits our decision to withdraw wasn't a reaction to any Russian threat. But that's another discussion.
Years during which, I would argue, more could have been done to save the treaty. Part of the problem had to do with the Aegis installations in Eastern Europe, as mentioned above. Here's an article from a few years ago describing some of the issues and how they might have been resolved:FLBear5630 said:Come on, this was not a 6 month issue, it started under Obama in 2008 and Trump finally pulled out because all it did was put the US in a competitive disadvantage. That is years. There is no reason to stay in an agreement where only one side adheres.Sam Lowry said:Because it was an important agreement and there are ways of resolving those issues and verifying compliance. That's the normal approach if you want the agreement, and the overall arms control framework, to be effective.FLBear5630 said:Why stay in an agreement we do not agree with after we, and our allies, discover that the other side is not honoring. 9M729, Russia was breaking the treaty the US was honoring. Not rocket science. Russia is who scuttled the INF.Sam Lowry said:We haven't really argued the merits of the policy yet. In most of these conversations, we never do. I'm still trying to establish the basic historical facts. Then we can decide whether they're positive or negative.FLBear5630 said:You just went on about how withdrawing from the agreement within the agreed timeline was "bare minimum". You read that paragraph below and it is positive???Sam Lowry said:Who said withdrawing from the agreement was horrible?FLBear5630 said:Sam Lowry said:This is such a thorough distortion of history that I won't try to address it all. It's really remarkable, though.ATL Bear said:The trust is established by our actions and what we show as our intentions. We aren't and haven't surprised Russia with anything. We have had discussions with them repeatedly. We made great efforts to align them with the West. But they are not a transparent player, and never have been. They (really Putin) chose to reject greater cooperation. Reject democracy and freedom domestically It was a critical change Putin made when he benefited from our Mid East forays, particularly Iraq, and the price of energy escalated. He began consolidating assets and authority in Russia, and decided to be expansionist and resist the West. He threw the gauntlet down in 2007 and never looked back. The West completely miscalculated the direction he would go, and if there's blame to point West, it was Iraq that gave him the cover he needed to pursue it. Russia more than the West has been resistant to new Arms Control agreements,Sam Lowry said: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.ATL Bear said: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.Sam Lowry said: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.ATL Bear said: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.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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
The ABM, color revolutions, Kosovo, etc. have been spun into a tale to cover Russia's actions. The U.S. isn't and doesn't need to be a Knight in shining armor to see that Russia (Putin) is a bad actor.
A Normally there would have been serious efforts to resolve any disputes before such a thing was even contemplated. In our case none of that happened.
You seem to defend any act they do as a reaction to the US, not their fault, including invading a Nation.
Yet, you just argued that the US honoring the arms agreement and giving the agreed upon notice is horrible. Not contemplated or some nonsense.
ATL Bear is correct, the US had gone above and beyond to assist Russia align more west. After the fall of the USSR I doubt Putin would have been so even handed and fair toward the US. At least they have no history of it when in a position of strength. But that is the US fault too, right?
"to the topic of arms control, Russia absolutely was surprised and shocked by our sudden withdrawal from the treaties, especially the INF. That we gave bare minimum notice as required by the agreements doesn't change that; in fact it only emphasizes the point."
This is an example of how you, ATL, and others do it the other way around. First you decide what's positive for the US, then you choose which facts to accept. If I say "the US is bordered to the south by Mexico," your brains hear "the US is evil." You demand links, maps, expert testimony, etc., and after all that you remain firmly in denial.
The point is simply that Russia was surprised and reacted badly to our withdrawal from the treaties. This is an obvious fact, which no one who knows anything about it would deny. We could have mitigated the damage in any number of ways, for example, by not placing missiles in Romania and Poland. There was no real need for them, since even ATL admits our decision to withdraw wasn't a reaction to any Russian threat. But that's another discussion.
https://www.brookings.edu/articles/the-blame-game-begins-over-the-inf-treatys-demise-and-washington-is-losing/
That is the problem. The Russians actually built and deployed 9M729. They said "IF" the US put the same type of cruise missile it would be a violation. The US never deployed the offensive capable missiles. The Russian position was always based on hypotheticals, not what actually happened, as opposed to their indiscretions.Sam Lowry said:Years during which, I would argue, more could have been done to save the treaty. Part of the problem had to do with the Aegis installations in Eastern Europe, as mentioned above. Here's an article from a few years ago describing some of the issues and how they might have been resolved:FLBear5630 said:Come on, this was not a 6 month issue, it started under Obama in 2008 and Trump finally pulled out because all it did was put the US in a competitive disadvantage. That is years. There is no reason to stay in an agreement where only one side adheres.Sam Lowry said:Because it was an important agreement and there are ways of resolving those issues and verifying compliance. That's the normal approach if you want the agreement, and the overall arms control framework, to be effective.FLBear5630 said:Why stay in an agreement we do not agree with after we, and our allies, discover that the other side is not honoring. 9M729, Russia was breaking the treaty the US was honoring. Not rocket science. Russia is who scuttled the INF.Sam Lowry said:We haven't really argued the merits of the policy yet. In most of these conversations, we never do. I'm still trying to establish the basic historical facts. Then we can decide whether they're positive or negative.FLBear5630 said:You just went on about how withdrawing from the agreement within the agreed timeline was "bare minimum". You read that paragraph below and it is positive???Sam Lowry said:Who said withdrawing from the agreement was horrible?FLBear5630 said:Sam Lowry said:This is such a thorough distortion of history that I won't try to address it all. It's really remarkable, though.ATL Bear said:The trust is established by our actions and what we show as our intentions. We aren't and haven't surprised Russia with anything. We have had discussions with them repeatedly. We made great efforts to align them with the West. But they are not a transparent player, and never have been. They (really Putin) chose to reject greater cooperation. Reject democracy and freedom domestically It was a critical change Putin made when he benefited from our Mid East forays, particularly Iraq, and the price of energy escalated. He began consolidating assets and authority in Russia, and decided to be expansionist and resist the West. He threw the gauntlet down in 2007 and never looked back. The West completely miscalculated the direction he would go, and if there's blame to point West, it was Iraq that gave him the cover he needed to pursue it. Russia more than the West has been resistant to new Arms Control agreements,Sam Lowry said: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.ATL Bear said: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.Sam Lowry said: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.ATL Bear said: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.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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
The ABM, color revolutions, Kosovo, etc. have been spun into a tale to cover Russia's actions. The U.S. isn't and doesn't need to be a Knight in shining armor to see that Russia (Putin) is a bad actor.
A Normally there would have been serious efforts to resolve any disputes before such a thing was even contemplated. In our case none of that happened.
You seem to defend any act they do as a reaction to the US, not their fault, including invading a Nation.
Yet, you just argued that the US honoring the arms agreement and giving the agreed upon notice is horrible. Not contemplated or some nonsense.
ATL Bear is correct, the US had gone above and beyond to assist Russia align more west. After the fall of the USSR I doubt Putin would have been so even handed and fair toward the US. At least they have no history of it when in a position of strength. But that is the US fault too, right?
"to the topic of arms control, Russia absolutely was surprised and shocked by our sudden withdrawal from the treaties, especially the INF. That we gave bare minimum notice as required by the agreements doesn't change that; in fact it only emphasizes the point."
This is an example of how you, ATL, and others do it the other way around. First you decide what's positive for the US, then you choose which facts to accept. If I say "the US is bordered to the south by Mexico," your brains hear "the US is evil." You demand links, maps, expert testimony, etc., and after all that you remain firmly in denial.
The point is simply that Russia was surprised and reacted badly to our withdrawal from the treaties. This is an obvious fact, which no one who knows anything about it would deny. We could have mitigated the damage in any number of ways, for example, by not placing missiles in Romania and Poland. There was no real need for them, since even ATL admits our decision to withdraw wasn't a reaction to any Russian threat. But that's another discussion.
https://www.brookings.edu/articles/the-blame-game-begins-over-the-inf-treatys-demise-and-washington-is-losing/
Russia was claiming that the system was compliant. If we had taken the steps to prove or disprove that claim, we would have found out whether there was a material violation and whether they were willing to remedy it. It's possible that we would have reached an impasse, but I doubt it. All of this is what's supposed to happen before you decide to ditch the agreement.FLBear5630 said:That is the problem. The Russians actually built and deployed 9M729. They said "IF" the US put the same type of cruise missile it would be a violation. The US never deployed the offensive capable missiles. The Russian position was always based on hypotheticals, not what actually happened, as opposed to their indiscretions.Sam Lowry said:Years during which, I would argue, more could have been done to save the treaty. Part of the problem had to do with the Aegis installations in Eastern Europe, as mentioned above. Here's an article from a few years ago describing some of the issues and how they might have been resolved:FLBear5630 said:Come on, this was not a 6 month issue, it started under Obama in 2008 and Trump finally pulled out because all it did was put the US in a competitive disadvantage. That is years. There is no reason to stay in an agreement where only one side adheres.Sam Lowry said:Because it was an important agreement and there are ways of resolving those issues and verifying compliance. That's the normal approach if you want the agreement, and the overall arms control framework, to be effective.FLBear5630 said:Why stay in an agreement we do not agree with after we, and our allies, discover that the other side is not honoring. 9M729, Russia was breaking the treaty the US was honoring. Not rocket science. Russia is who scuttled the INF.Sam Lowry said:We haven't really argued the merits of the policy yet. In most of these conversations, we never do. I'm still trying to establish the basic historical facts. Then we can decide whether they're positive or negative.FLBear5630 said:You just went on about how withdrawing from the agreement within the agreed timeline was "bare minimum". You read that paragraph below and it is positive???Sam Lowry said:Who said withdrawing from the agreement was horrible?FLBear5630 said:Sam Lowry said:This is such a thorough distortion of history that I won't try to address it all. It's really remarkable, though.ATL Bear said:The trust is established by our actions and what we show as our intentions. We aren't and haven't surprised Russia with anything. We have had discussions with them repeatedly. We made great efforts to align them with the West. But they are not a transparent player, and never have been. They (really Putin) chose to reject greater cooperation. Reject democracy and freedom domestically It was a critical change Putin made when he benefited from our Mid East forays, particularly Iraq, and the price of energy escalated. He began consolidating assets and authority in Russia, and decided to be expansionist and resist the West. He threw the gauntlet down in 2007 and never looked back. The West completely miscalculated the direction he would go, and if there's blame to point West, it was Iraq that gave him the cover he needed to pursue it. Russia more than the West has been resistant to new Arms Control agreements,Sam Lowry said: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.ATL Bear said: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.Sam Lowry said: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.ATL Bear said: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.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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
The ABM, color revolutions, Kosovo, etc. have been spun into a tale to cover Russia's actions. The U.S. isn't and doesn't need to be a Knight in shining armor to see that Russia (Putin) is a bad actor.
A Normally there would have been serious efforts to resolve any disputes before such a thing was even contemplated. In our case none of that happened.
You seem to defend any act they do as a reaction to the US, not their fault, including invading a Nation.
Yet, you just argued that the US honoring the arms agreement and giving the agreed upon notice is horrible. Not contemplated or some nonsense.
ATL Bear is correct, the US had gone above and beyond to assist Russia align more west. After the fall of the USSR I doubt Putin would have been so even handed and fair toward the US. At least they have no history of it when in a position of strength. But that is the US fault too, right?
"to the topic of arms control, Russia absolutely was surprised and shocked by our sudden withdrawal from the treaties, especially the INF. That we gave bare minimum notice as required by the agreements doesn't change that; in fact it only emphasizes the point."
This is an example of how you, ATL, and others do it the other way around. First you decide what's positive for the US, then you choose which facts to accept. If I say "the US is bordered to the south by Mexico," your brains hear "the US is evil." You demand links, maps, expert testimony, etc., and after all that you remain firmly in denial.
The point is simply that Russia was surprised and reacted badly to our withdrawal from the treaties. This is an obvious fact, which no one who knows anything about it would deny. We could have mitigated the damage in any number of ways, for example, by not placing missiles in Romania and Poland. There was no real need for them, since even ATL admits our decision to withdraw wasn't a reaction to any Russian threat. But that's another discussion.
https://www.brookings.edu/articles/the-blame-game-begins-over-the-inf-treatys-demise-and-washington-is-losing/
Good discussion here, thanks.
It came down to the US having to prove what Russia did vs the US defending hypotheticals. Most weapon AA systems can be used offensively. Hell the Vulcan was an Anti-Air system that was used for ground support. There is no defense for "you could do it". It was an impasse, both wanted to develop next generations of weapons and wanted out...Sam Lowry said:Russia was claiming that the system was compliant. If we had taken the steps to prove or disprove that claim, we would have found out whether there was a material violation and whether they were willing to remedy it. It's possible that we would have reached an impasse, but I doubt it. All of this is what's supposed to happen before you decide to ditch the agreement.FLBear5630 said:That is the problem. The Russians actually built and deployed 9M729. They said "IF" the US put the same type of cruise missile it would be a violation. The US never deployed the offensive capable missiles. The Russian position was always based on hypotheticals, not what actually happened, as opposed to their indiscretions.Sam Lowry said:Years during which, I would argue, more could have been done to save the treaty. Part of the problem had to do with the Aegis installations in Eastern Europe, as mentioned above. Here's an article from a few years ago describing some of the issues and how they might have been resolved:FLBear5630 said:Come on, this was not a 6 month issue, it started under Obama in 2008 and Trump finally pulled out because all it did was put the US in a competitive disadvantage. That is years. There is no reason to stay in an agreement where only one side adheres.Sam Lowry said:Because it was an important agreement and there are ways of resolving those issues and verifying compliance. That's the normal approach if you want the agreement, and the overall arms control framework, to be effective.FLBear5630 said:Why stay in an agreement we do not agree with after we, and our allies, discover that the other side is not honoring. 9M729, Russia was breaking the treaty the US was honoring. Not rocket science. Russia is who scuttled the INF.Sam Lowry said:We haven't really argued the merits of the policy yet. In most of these conversations, we never do. I'm still trying to establish the basic historical facts. Then we can decide whether they're positive or negative.FLBear5630 said:You just went on about how withdrawing from the agreement within the agreed timeline was "bare minimum". You read that paragraph below and it is positive???Sam Lowry said:Who said withdrawing from the agreement was horrible?FLBear5630 said:Sam Lowry said:This is such a thorough distortion of history that I won't try to address it all. It's really remarkable, though.ATL Bear said:The trust is established by our actions and what we show as our intentions. We aren't and haven't surprised Russia with anything. We have had discussions with them repeatedly. We made great efforts to align them with the West. But they are not a transparent player, and never have been. They (really Putin) chose to reject greater cooperation. Reject democracy and freedom domestically It was a critical change Putin made when he benefited from our Mid East forays, particularly Iraq, and the price of energy escalated. He began consolidating assets and authority in Russia, and decided to be expansionist and resist the West. He threw the gauntlet down in 2007 and never looked back. The West completely miscalculated the direction he would go, and if there's blame to point West, it was Iraq that gave him the cover he needed to pursue it. Russia more than the West has been resistant to new Arms Control agreements,Sam Lowry said: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.ATL Bear said: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.Sam Lowry said: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.ATL Bear said: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.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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
The ABM, color revolutions, Kosovo, etc. have been spun into a tale to cover Russia's actions. The U.S. isn't and doesn't need to be a Knight in shining armor to see that Russia (Putin) is a bad actor.
A Normally there would have been serious efforts to resolve any disputes before such a thing was even contemplated. In our case none of that happened.
You seem to defend any act they do as a reaction to the US, not their fault, including invading a Nation.
Yet, you just argued that the US honoring the arms agreement and giving the agreed upon notice is horrible. Not contemplated or some nonsense.
ATL Bear is correct, the US had gone above and beyond to assist Russia align more west. After the fall of the USSR I doubt Putin would have been so even handed and fair toward the US. At least they have no history of it when in a position of strength. But that is the US fault too, right?
"to the topic of arms control, Russia absolutely was surprised and shocked by our sudden withdrawal from the treaties, especially the INF. That we gave bare minimum notice as required by the agreements doesn't change that; in fact it only emphasizes the point."
This is an example of how you, ATL, and others do it the other way around. First you decide what's positive for the US, then you choose which facts to accept. If I say "the US is bordered to the south by Mexico," your brains hear "the US is evil." You demand links, maps, expert testimony, etc., and after all that you remain firmly in denial.
The point is simply that Russia was surprised and reacted badly to our withdrawal from the treaties. This is an obvious fact, which no one who knows anything about it would deny. We could have mitigated the damage in any number of ways, for example, by not placing missiles in Romania and Poland. There was no real need for them, since even ATL admits our decision to withdraw wasn't a reaction to any Russian threat. But that's another discussion.
https://www.brookings.edu/articles/the-blame-game-begins-over-the-inf-treatys-demise-and-washington-is-losing/
Good discussion here, thanks.
Russia didn't want out. We have to remember that the "hypothetical" threat from the Aegis systems wasn't entirely hypothetical. The lack of knowledge in itself was an issue that necessarily affected Russia's calculations. Of course I don't deny that the same was true on our side. But we were the ones who resisted verification measures.FLBear5630 said:It came down to the US having to prove what Russia did vs the US defending hypotheticals. Most weapon AA systems can be used offensively. Hell the Vulcan was an Anti-Air system that was used for ground support. There is no defense for "you could do it". It was an impasse, both wanted to develop next generations of weapons and wanted out...Sam Lowry said:Russia was claiming that the system was compliant. If we had taken the steps to prove or disprove that claim, we would have found out whether there was a material violation and whether they were willing to remedy it. It's possible that we would have reached an impasse, but I doubt it. All of this is what's supposed to happen before you decide to ditch the agreement.FLBear5630 said:That is the problem. The Russians actually built and deployed 9M729. They said "IF" the US put the same type of cruise missile it would be a violation. The US never deployed the offensive capable missiles. The Russian position was always based on hypotheticals, not what actually happened, as opposed to their indiscretions.Sam Lowry said:Years during which, I would argue, more could have been done to save the treaty. Part of the problem had to do with the Aegis installations in Eastern Europe, as mentioned above. Here's an article from a few years ago describing some of the issues and how they might have been resolved:FLBear5630 said:Come on, this was not a 6 month issue, it started under Obama in 2008 and Trump finally pulled out because all it did was put the US in a competitive disadvantage. That is years. There is no reason to stay in an agreement where only one side adheres.Sam Lowry said:Because it was an important agreement and there are ways of resolving those issues and verifying compliance. That's the normal approach if you want the agreement, and the overall arms control framework, to be effective.FLBear5630 said:Why stay in an agreement we do not agree with after we, and our allies, discover that the other side is not honoring. 9M729, Russia was breaking the treaty the US was honoring. Not rocket science. Russia is who scuttled the INF.Sam Lowry said:We haven't really argued the merits of the policy yet. In most of these conversations, we never do. I'm still trying to establish the basic historical facts. Then we can decide whether they're positive or negative.FLBear5630 said:You just went on about how withdrawing from the agreement within the agreed timeline was "bare minimum". You read that paragraph below and it is positive???Sam Lowry said:Who said withdrawing from the agreement was horrible?FLBear5630 said:Sam Lowry said:This is such a thorough distortion of history that I won't try to address it all. It's really remarkable, though.ATL Bear said:The trust is established by our actions and what we show as our intentions. We aren't and haven't surprised Russia with anything. We have had discussions with them repeatedly. We made great efforts to align them with the West. But they are not a transparent player, and never have been. They (really Putin) chose to reject greater cooperation. Reject democracy and freedom domestically It was a critical change Putin made when he benefited from our Mid East forays, particularly Iraq, and the price of energy escalated. He began consolidating assets and authority in Russia, and decided to be expansionist and resist the West. He threw the gauntlet down in 2007 and never looked back. The West completely miscalculated the direction he would go, and if there's blame to point West, it was Iraq that gave him the cover he needed to pursue it. Russia more than the West has been resistant to new Arms Control agreements,Sam Lowry said: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.ATL Bear said: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.Sam Lowry said: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.ATL Bear said: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.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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
The ABM, color revolutions, Kosovo, etc. have been spun into a tale to cover Russia's actions. The U.S. isn't and doesn't need to be a Knight in shining armor to see that Russia (Putin) is a bad actor.
A Normally there would have been serious efforts to resolve any disputes before such a thing was even contemplated. In our case none of that happened.
You seem to defend any act they do as a reaction to the US, not their fault, including invading a Nation.
Yet, you just argued that the US honoring the arms agreement and giving the agreed upon notice is horrible. Not contemplated or some nonsense.
ATL Bear is correct, the US had gone above and beyond to assist Russia align more west. After the fall of the USSR I doubt Putin would have been so even handed and fair toward the US. At least they have no history of it when in a position of strength. But that is the US fault too, right?
"to the topic of arms control, Russia absolutely was surprised and shocked by our sudden withdrawal from the treaties, especially the INF. That we gave bare minimum notice as required by the agreements doesn't change that; in fact it only emphasizes the point."
This is an example of how you, ATL, and others do it the other way around. First you decide what's positive for the US, then you choose which facts to accept. If I say "the US is bordered to the south by Mexico," your brains hear "the US is evil." You demand links, maps, expert testimony, etc., and after all that you remain firmly in denial.
The point is simply that Russia was surprised and reacted badly to our withdrawal from the treaties. This is an obvious fact, which no one who knows anything about it would deny. We could have mitigated the damage in any number of ways, for example, by not placing missiles in Romania and Poland. There was no real need for them, since even ATL admits our decision to withdraw wasn't a reaction to any Russian threat. But that's another discussion.
https://www.brookings.edu/articles/the-blame-game-begins-over-the-inf-treatys-demise-and-washington-is-losing/
Good discussion here, thanks.
If the Russians are violating a treaty gif years it's not worth saving. Any measures we might have taken to repair it would have been futile because the Russians cannot be trusted to keep their end. Maybe our govt secretly tried to do those things already? Continuing to adhere to a treaty in such a lopsided fashion is like trying to fight with one hand (or both) tied behind your back. The action taken was the most intelligent and rational.
It's like when Reagan ended the ABM treaty in the 1980s. That, along with his insistence on SDI, won the Cold War & produced the INF treaty in the first place. It has served its purpose but is no longer useful.
It's like when Reagan ended the ABM treaty in the 1980s. That, along with his insistence on SDI, won the Cold War & produced the INF treaty in the first place. It has served its purpose but is no longer useful.
Reagan didn't withdraw from the ABM. That was George W. Bush, one of the most foolish presidents the GOP ever produced.historian said:
If the Russians are violating a treaty gif years it's not worth saving. Any measures we might have taken to repair it would have been futile because the Russians cannot be trusted to keep their end. Maybe our govt secretly tried to do those things already? Continuing to adhere to a treaty in such a lopsided fashion is like trying to fight with one hand (or both) tied behind your back. The action taken was the most intelligent and rational.
It's like when Reagan ended the ABM treaty in the 1980s. That, along with his insistence on SDI, won the Cold War & produced the INF treaty in the first place. It has served its purpose but is no longer useful.
He was a damned sight better than Clinton, Obama, and Biden.Sam Lowry said:Reagan didn't withdraw from the ABM. That was George W. Bush, one of the most foolish presidents the GOP ever produced.historian said:
If the Russians are violating a treaty gif years it's not worth saving. Any measures we might have taken to repair it would have been futile because the Russians cannot be trusted to keep their end. Maybe our govt secretly tried to do those things already? Continuing to adhere to a treaty in such a lopsided fashion is like trying to fight with one hand (or both) tied behind your back. The action taken was the most intelligent and rational.
It's like when Reagan ended the ABM treaty in the 1980s. That, along with his insistence on SDI, won the Cold War & produced the INF treaty in the first place. It has served its purpose but is no longer useful.
Reagan was the best president of the US since Abraham Lincoln.
Dave Smith goes beast mode pic.twitter.com/JBtdNWa93e
— Karli Bonne’ 🇺🇸 (@KarluskaP) November 10, 2024
BS, GHW Bush was my favorite President.Sam Lowry said:Reagan didn't withdraw from the ABM. That was George W. Bush, one of the most foolish presidents the GOP ever produced.historian said:
If the Russians are violating a treaty gif years it's not worth saving. Any measures we might have taken to repair it would have been futile because the Russians cannot be trusted to keep their end. Maybe our govt secretly tried to do those things already? Continuing to adhere to a treaty in such a lopsided fashion is like trying to fight with one hand (or both) tied behind your back. The action taken was the most intelligent and rational.
It's like when Reagan ended the ABM treaty in the 1980s. That, along with his insistence on SDI, won the Cold War & produced the INF treaty in the first place. It has served its purpose but is no longer useful.
He stood up to Tyranny.
But together a coalition with UN support that left no doubt of the outcome
Deployed troops with a clear mission
DID NOT exceed that even when we could have taken Baghdad.
Set up pre-positioned equipment in case
Got us home in a reasonable amount of time.
So, you sit here and argue policy and **** that doesn't impact your life. Give me Bush any day, he took care of his troops better than any President since. So, sorry if my wife and I are GHW Bush fans. I don't go to Baylor if Bush Jr, Trump or Obama were in office, I would have been deploying over and over without accomplishing a thing.
So, in our house GHW Bush is a great President and if you want to see how to deal with tyrants look to his playbook.
I was referring to Bush 43, not Bush 41.FLBear5630 said:BS, GHW Bush was my favorite President.Sam Lowry said:Reagan didn't withdraw from the ABM. That was George W. Bush, one of the most foolish presidents the GOP ever produced.historian said:
If the Russians are violating a treaty gif years it's not worth saving. Any measures we might have taken to repair it would have been futile because the Russians cannot be trusted to keep their end. Maybe our govt secretly tried to do those things already? Continuing to adhere to a treaty in such a lopsided fashion is like trying to fight with one hand (or both) tied behind your back. The action taken was the most intelligent and rational.
It's like when Reagan ended the ABM treaty in the 1980s. That, along with his insistence on SDI, won the Cold War & produced the INF treaty in the first place. It has served its purpose but is no longer useful.
He stood up to Tyranny.
But together a coalition with UN support that left no doubt of the outcome
Deployed troops with a clear mission
DID NOT exceed that even when we could have taken Baghdad.
Set up pre-positioned equipment in case
Got us home in a reasonable amount of time.
So, you sit here and argue policy and **** that doesn't impact your life. Give me Bush any day, he took care of his troops better than any President since. So, sorry if my wife and I are GHW Bush fans. I don't go to Baylor if Bush Jr, Trump or Obama were in office, I would have been deploying over and over without accomplishing a thing.
So, in our house GHW Bush is a great President and if you want to see how to deal with tyrants look to his playbook.
GHW was a good president.FLBear5630 said:BS, GHW Bush was my favorite President.Sam Lowry said:Reagan didn't withdraw from the ABM. That was George W. Bush, one of the most foolish presidents the GOP ever produced.historian said:
If the Russians are violating a treaty gif years it's not worth saving. Any measures we might have taken to repair it would have been futile because the Russians cannot be trusted to keep their end. Maybe our govt secretly tried to do those things already? Continuing to adhere to a treaty in such a lopsided fashion is like trying to fight with one hand (or both) tied behind your back. The action taken was the most intelligent and rational.
It's like when Reagan ended the ABM treaty in the 1980s. That, along with his insistence on SDI, won the Cold War & produced the INF treaty in the first place. It has served its purpose but is no longer useful.
He stood up to Tyranny.
But together a coalition with UN support that left no doubt of the outcome
Deployed troops with a clear mission
DID NOT exceed that even when we could have taken Baghdad.
Set up pre-positioned equipment in case
Got us home in a reasonable amount of time.
So, you sit here and argue policy and **** that doesn't impact your life. Give me Bush any day, he took care of his troops better than any President since. So, sorry if my wife and I are GHW Bush fans. I don't go to Baylor if Bush Jr, Trump or Obama were in office, I would have been deploying over and over without accomplishing a thing.
So, in our house GHW Bush is a great President and if you want to see how to deal with tyrants look to his playbook.
Suspect his reputation will improve over time.
Sam Lowry said:I was referring to Bush 43, not Bush 41.FLBear5630 said:BS, GHW Bush was my favorite President.Sam Lowry said:Reagan didn't withdraw from the ABM. That was George W. Bush, one of the most foolish presidents the GOP ever produced.historian said:
If the Russians are violating a treaty gif years it's not worth saving. Any measures we might have taken to repair it would have been futile because the Russians cannot be trusted to keep their end. Maybe our govt secretly tried to do those things already? Continuing to adhere to a treaty in such a lopsided fashion is like trying to fight with one hand (or both) tied behind your back. The action taken was the most intelligent and rational.
It's like when Reagan ended the ABM treaty in the 1980s. That, along with his insistence on SDI, won the Cold War & produced the INF treaty in the first place. It has served its purpose but is no longer useful.
He stood up to Tyranny.
But together a coalition with UN support that left no doubt of the outcome
Deployed troops with a clear mission
DID NOT exceed that even when we could have taken Baghdad.
Set up pre-positioned equipment in case
Got us home in a reasonable amount of time.
So, you sit here and argue policy and **** that doesn't impact your life. Give me Bush any day, he took care of his troops better than any President since. So, sorry if my wife and I are GHW Bush fans. I don't go to Baylor if Bush Jr, Trump or Obama were in office, I would have been deploying over and over without accomplishing a thing.
So, in our house GHW Bush is a great President and if you want to see how to deal with tyrants look to his playbook.
Gottcha. Can't disagree. No fly was working. Iraq countered Iran. Never understood Iraq.
Cool.FLBear5630 said:Sam Lowry said:I was referring to Bush 43, not Bush 41.FLBear5630 said:BS, GHW Bush was my favorite President.Sam Lowry said:Reagan didn't withdraw from the ABM. That was George W. Bush, one of the most foolish presidents the GOP ever produced.historian said:
If the Russians are violating a treaty gif years it's not worth saving. Any measures we might have taken to repair it would have been futile because the Russians cannot be trusted to keep their end. Maybe our govt secretly tried to do those things already? Continuing to adhere to a treaty in such a lopsided fashion is like trying to fight with one hand (or both) tied behind your back. The action taken was the most intelligent and rational.
It's like when Reagan ended the ABM treaty in the 1980s. That, along with his insistence on SDI, won the Cold War & produced the INF treaty in the first place. It has served its purpose but is no longer useful.
He stood up to Tyranny.
But together a coalition with UN support that left no doubt of the outcome
Deployed troops with a clear mission
DID NOT exceed that even when we could have taken Baghdad.
Set up pre-positioned equipment in case
Got us home in a reasonable amount of time.
So, you sit here and argue policy and **** that doesn't impact your life. Give me Bush any day, he took care of his troops better than any President since. So, sorry if my wife and I are GHW Bush fans. I don't go to Baylor if Bush Jr, Trump or Obama were in office, I would have been deploying over and over without accomplishing a thing.
So, in our house GHW Bush is a great President and if you want to see how to deal with tyrants look to his playbook.
Gottcha. Can't disagree. No fly was working. Iraq countered Iran. Never understood Iraq.
GHW was a good President but poor politician.
He should have worked something out with Perot like Trump did with Kennedy.
He should have worked something out with Perot like Trump did with Kennedy.
No distortion. Just listen to Putin's speech to the Munich security conference 15 plus years ago. In fact many left thinking he had initiated the second Cold War. With his follow on activities he likely did, including increased assassination attempts in Europe, and clandestine ops across Eastern Europe, Central Asia, and Africa.Sam Lowry said:This is such a thorough distortion of history that I won't try to address it all. It's really remarkable, though.ATL Bear said:The trust is established by our actions and what we show as our intentions. We aren't and haven't surprised Russia with anything. We have had discussions with them repeatedly. We made great efforts to align them with the West. But they are not a transparent player, and never have been. They (really Putin) chose to reject greater cooperation. Reject democracy and freedom domestically It was a critical change Putin made when he benefited from our Mid East forays, particularly Iraq, and the price of energy escalated. He began consolidating assets and authority in Russia, and decided to be expansionist and resist the West. He threw the gauntlet down in 2007 and never looked back. The West completely miscalculated the direction he would go, and if there's blame to point West, it was Iraq that gave him the cover he needed to pursue it. Russia more than the West has been resistant to new Arms Control agreements,Sam Lowry said: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.ATL Bear said: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.Sam Lowry said: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.ATL Bear said: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.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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
The ABM, color revolutions, Kosovo, etc. have been spun into a tale to cover Russia's actions. The U.S. isn't and doesn't need to be a Knight in shining armor to see that Russia (Putin) is a bad actor.
As to the topic of arms control, Russia absolutely was surprised and shocked by our sudden withdrawal from the treaties, especially the INF. That we gave bare minimum notice as required by the agreements doesn't change that; in fact it only emphasizes the point. Normally there would have been serious efforts to resolve any disputes before such a thing was even contemplated. In our case none of that happened.
And I'm not sure why you're tying two treaty events together almost 20 years apart. A lot of independent dynamics related to each.