[Continuation] The Russian invasion of Ukraine part 6 - Page 77

Doubt · Yesterday, 09:54 PM

Originally Posted by theprestige

Okay, yes. You're saying Putin would refrain from deploying tactical nukes in the Ukraine conflict, if the US had stuck to this treaty. What's next? You'll tell us how you looked Putin in the eye and saw that he was a good man?

In fact, you seem to be a bit wounded by this. Trump pulled us out of a treaty that was imperfect but had kept the bigger nukes out of Europe. In exchange for ending the treaty we got exactly nothing and Putin got what he wanted.

Tell me what we gained from Trump ending that treaty?

Is there a plan for us to deploy new nukes in Europe?

Did anybody ask Trump to get rid of the treaty and what was the reasoning? (Hint. John Bolton, who is a complete moron when it comes to figuring out military issues, is the one guy that did ask for this.)

Aridas · Yesterday, 11:48 PM

Originally Posted by Doubt

In fact, you seem to be a bit wounded by this. Trump pulled us out of a treaty that was imperfect but had kept the bigger nukes out of Europe. In exchange for ending the treaty we got exactly nothing and Putin got what he wanted.

Tell me what we gained from Trump ending that treaty?

Is there a plan for us to deploy new nukes in Europe?

Did anybody ask Trump to get rid of the treaty and what was the reasoning? (Hint. John Bolton, who is a complete moron when it comes to figuring out military issues, is the one guy that did ask for this.)

To add to this a little - at the time, I saw a number of assessments that stated that while it was well known that Russia wasn't fully abiding by that treaty (and the other treaties with Russia that Trump also ripped up for no real gain to the US) completely, they were still effective in restricting Russia's actions, which meant that they were still far better to leave in place. As it stood, literally the only "side" that benefited from the end of those treaties was the Russian warmongering factions. That fairly certainly included Putin and frankly, it's disturbingly likely that Trump ripped up those treaties at Putin's behest. Just like the military exercises with South Korea were fairly certainly ended at Russia's behest.

If the treaties were still in place (among the rest of Trump's relevant actions that favored Russia), it's entirely plausible that Putin wouldn't have been emboldened enough to engage in the major invasion that he did in the first place. The question of Putin deploying tactical nukes in the Ukraine conflict is closer to a red herring from the start, really.

BrettM · Yesterday, 11:51 PM

Originally Posted by Aridas

Another is that it's fundamentally a showy move to threaten NATO with without real intent for usage.

Russian scarecrows! Empty, non-functional facsimiles designed to frighten Western powers, and keep then out of Putin's hair!

-

Drewbot · Today, 05:48 AM

Originally Posted by Doubt

Some guy named Trump pissed away a treaty we had about intermediate nuclear weapons.

yeah blame Trump. Knowing that Russia signed the Budapest Memorandum in 1994 promising not to use aggression on Ukraine, and acknowledging Ukraine's borders.

If Putin uses a nuke, it's over for Russia regardless of an imaginary Trump treaty thing.

The Don · Today, 06:10 AM

Another excellent video from Perun, this one looking at attrition over the winter.

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

Doubt · Today, 08:16 AM

Originally Posted by Drewbot

yeah blame Trump. Knowing that Russia signed the Budapest Memorandum in 1994 promising not to use aggression on Ukraine, and acknowledging Ukraine's borders.

If Putin uses a nuke, it's over for Russia regardless of an imaginary Trump treaty thing.

Binary thinking about global problems is just plain supported
Stupid. Yes, Putin is at fault for the missile threat. But thinks to Trump he isn't even violating a treaty. Trump enabled Putin.

theprestige · Today, 10:02 AM

Originally Posted by Doubt

Binary thinking about global problems is just plain supported
Stupid. Yes, Putin is at fault for the missile threat. But thinks to Trump he isn't even violating a treaty. Trump enabled Putin.

Moscow violates or ignores treaties all the time.

And Donald Trump doesn't actually have to be shoehorned into every single discussion that comes up in every single part of your life. I understand that the President of the United states is an important and powerful figure. But he shouldn't be your cognitive center of gravity.

Aridas · Today, 11:30 AM

Originally Posted by theprestige

Moscow violates or ignores treaties all the time.

And Donald Trump doesn't actually have to be shoehorned into every single discussion that comes up in every single part of your life. I understand that the President of the United states is an important and powerful figure. But he shouldn't be your cognitive center of gravity.

Similarly, Trump's relevant actions shouldn't be reflexively ignored just because they're Trump's actions. When the question that started this tangent was about prior agreements involving nukes between NATO and Russia, pointing out that Trump unilaterally ended one along those lines isn't even remotely shoehorning Trump into the discussion. Rather, this "Moscow violates or ignores treaties all the time" hand waving and reflexive horror at Trump's dumpster fire foreign policy decisions being relevant to the question seems worthy of an eye roll. If there was some issue with the treaty in question not actually being relevant to the question asked, that would be one thing. This? This is more like TDS as done by theprestige.

Drewbot · Today, 12:01 PM

Originally Posted by Aridas

Similarly, Trump's relevant actions shouldn't be reflexively ignored just because they're Trump's actions. When the question that started this tangent was about prior agreements involving nukes between NATO and Russia, pointing out that Trump unilaterally ended one along those lines isn't even remotely shoehorning Trump into the discussion. Rather, this "Moscow violates or ignores treaties all the time" hand waving and reflexive horror at Trump's dumpster fire foreign policy decisions being relevant to the question seems worthy of an eye roll. If there was some issue with the treaty in question not actually being relevant to the question asked, that would be one thing. This? This is more like TDS as done by theprestige.

First of all, The CNN article says Putin is moving 'tactical nuclear weapons' into Belarus, and tactical nuclear weapons have nothing to do with the INF treaty. So yes he is shoehorning Trump into this conversation.

I'd like to add that the fact that Trump was President when it happened, does not mean that he just arbitrarily decided to withdraw from the treaty.
In each year, 2014-2019, Russia was in violation of the 1987 treaty. In 2019 the USA withdrew from the treaty, citing Russian non-compliance.
You can read the whole thing here:

https://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/INFtreaty

The article may have shown a picture of a INF rated missile, but it is a misleading photo.
Intended to shock scare people.

Myriad · Today, 01:03 PM

Originally Posted by The Don

Meanwhile Putin is moving tactical nuclear weapons into Belarus

He probably thinks he can hug his children with them.

(But if so, he's wrong, according to research from the 1980s published in The Journal of Crap Printed on Bumper Stickers).

theprestige · Today, 01:07 PM

Originally Posted by Aridas

Similarly, Trump's relevant actions shouldn't be reflexively ignored just because they're Trump's actions. When the question that started this tangent was about prior agreements involving nukes between NATO and Russia, pointing out that Trump unilaterally ended one along those lines isn't even remotely shoehorning Trump into the discussion. Rather, this "Moscow violates or ignores treaties all the time" hand waving and reflexive horror at Trump's dumpster fire foreign policy decisions being relevant to the question seems worthy of an eye roll. If there was some issue with the treaty in question not actually being relevant to the question asked, that would be one thing. This? This is more like TDS as done by theprestige.

Oof. No, I think that Putin's ambitions in Ukraine, and his decisions about how to prosecute his war of aggression, have an infinitesimal relationship to President Trump's policy decisions.

dudalb · Today, 01:37 PM

Originally Posted by theprestige

Oof. No, I think that Putin's ambitions in Ukraine, and his decisions about how to prosecute his war of aggression, have an infinitesimal relationship to President Trump's policy decisions.

I think PUtin would have behaved this way no matter who was President, but Trump's obvious fondness and envy for Putin did not help matters. I think Putin hoped that if reelected, Trump would have pulled the US out of NATO making his attack on the Ukarine a lot easier, but went ahead anyway.
And you have dbout that Trump still has a crush on Putin, Trump;s comments during his Waco rant removes all doubt.

Yesterday, 09:54 PM	#3041
Doubt Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2002 Posts: 7,789	Originally Posted by theprestige Okay, yes. You're saying Putin would refrain from deploying tactical nukes in the Ukraine conflict, if the US had stuck to this treaty. What's next? You'll tell us how you looked Putin in the eye and saw that he was a good man? In fact, you seem to be a bit wounded by this. Trump pulled us out of a treaty that was imperfect but had kept the bigger nukes out of Europe. In exchange for ending the treaty we got exactly nothing and Putin got what he wanted. Tell me what we gained from Trump ending that treaty? Is there a plan for us to deploy new nukes in Europe? Did anybody ask Trump to get rid of the treaty and what was the reasoning? (Hint. John Bolton, who is a complete moron when it comes to figuring out military issues, is the one guy that did ask for this.)
Doubt Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2002 Posts: 7,789	__________________ 45 es un titere

Yesterday, 11:48 PM	#3042
Aridas Crazy Little Green Dragon Join Date: Sep 2011 Location: East Coast, US Posts: 9,770	Originally Posted by Doubt In fact, you seem to be a bit wounded by this. Trump pulled us out of a treaty that was imperfect but had kept the bigger nukes out of Europe. In exchange for ending the treaty we got exactly nothing and Putin got what he wanted. Tell me what we gained from Trump ending that treaty? Is there a plan for us to deploy new nukes in Europe? Did anybody ask Trump to get rid of the treaty and what was the reasoning? (Hint. John Bolton, who is a complete moron when it comes to figuring out military issues, is the one guy that did ask for this.) To add to this a little - at the time, I saw a number of assessments that stated that while it was well known that Russia wasn't fully abiding by that treaty (and the other treaties with Russia that Trump also ripped up for no real gain to the US) completely, they were still effective in restricting Russia's actions, which meant that they were still far better to leave in place. As it stood, literally the only "side" that benefited from the end of those treaties was the Russian warmongering factions. That fairly certainly included Putin and frankly, it's disturbingly likely that Trump ripped up those treaties at Putin's behest. Just like the military exercises with South Korea were fairly certainly ended at Russia's behest. If the treaties were still in place (among the rest of Trump's relevant actions that favored Russia), it's entirely plausible that Putin wouldn't have been emboldened enough to engage in the major invasion that he did in the first place. The question of Putin deploying tactical nukes in the Ukraine conflict is closer to a red herring from the start, really.
	__________________ So sayeth the crazy little dragon. Last edited by Aridas; Yesterday at 11:59 PM.

Yesterday, 11:51 PM	#3043
BrettM Student Join Date: Jun 2022 Posts: 44	Originally Posted by Aridas Another is that it's fundamentally a showy move to threaten NATO with without real intent for usage. Russian scarecrows! Empty, non-functional facsimiles designed to frighten Western powers, and keep then out of Putin's hair! -
BrettM Student Join Date: Jun 2022 Posts: 44

Today, 05:48 AM	#3044
Drewbot Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 7,617	Originally Posted by Doubt Some guy named Trump pissed away a treaty we had about intermediate nuclear weapons. yeah blame Trump. Knowing that Russia signed the Budapest Memorandum in 1994 promising not to use aggression on Ukraine, and acknowledging Ukraine's borders. If Putin uses a nuke, it's over for Russia regardless of an imaginary Trump treaty thing.
Drewbot Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 7,617	__________________ "I dont call that evolution, I call that the survival of the fittest." - Bulletmaker "I thought skeptics would usually point towards a hoax rather than a group being duped." - makaya325 Kit is not a skeptic. He is a former Bigfoot believer that changed his position to that of non believer.- Crowlogic

Today, 08:16 AM	#3046
Doubt Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2002 Posts: 7,789	Originally Posted by Drewbot yeah blame Trump. Knowing that Russia signed the Budapest Memorandum in 1994 promising not to use aggression on Ukraine, and acknowledging Ukraine's borders. If Putin uses a nuke, it's over for Russia regardless of an imaginary Trump treaty thing. Binary thinking about global problems is just plain supported Stupid. Yes, Putin is at fault for the missile threat. But thinks to Trump he isn't even violating a treaty. Trump enabled Putin.
Doubt Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2002 Posts: 7,789	__________________ 45 es un titere

Today, 10:02 AM	#3047
theprestige Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: The Antimemetics Division Posts: 63,545	Originally Posted by Doubt Binary thinking about global problems is just plain supported Stupid. Yes, Putin is at fault for the missile threat. But thinks to Trump he isn't even violating a treaty. Trump enabled Putin. Moscow violates or ignores treaties all the time. And Donald Trump doesn't actually have to be shoehorned into every single discussion that comes up in every single part of your life. I understand that the President of the United states is an important and powerful figure. But he shouldn't be your cognitive center of gravity.
	__________________ There is no Antimemetics Division.

Today, 11:30 AM	#3048
Aridas Crazy Little Green Dragon Join Date: Sep 2011 Location: East Coast, US Posts: 9,770	Originally Posted by theprestige Moscow violates or ignores treaties all the time. And Donald Trump doesn't actually have to be shoehorned into every single discussion that comes up in every single part of your life. I understand that the President of the United states is an important and powerful figure. But he shouldn't be your cognitive center of gravity. Similarly, Trump's relevant actions shouldn't be reflexively ignored just because they're Trump's actions. When the question that started this tangent was about prior agreements involving nukes between NATO and Russia, pointing out that Trump unilaterally ended one along those lines isn't even remotely shoehorning Trump into the discussion. Rather, this "Moscow violates or ignores treaties all the time" hand waving and reflexive horror at Trump's dumpster fire foreign policy decisions being relevant to the question seems worthy of an eye roll. If there was some issue with the treaty in question not actually being relevant to the question asked, that would be one thing. This? This is more like TDS as done by theprestige.
	__________________ So sayeth the crazy little dragon.

Today, 12:01 PM	#3049
Drewbot Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 7,617	Originally Posted by Aridas Similarly, Trump's relevant actions shouldn't be reflexively ignored just because they're Trump's actions. When the question that started this tangent was about prior agreements involving nukes between NATO and Russia, pointing out that Trump unilaterally ended one along those lines isn't even remotely shoehorning Trump into the discussion. Rather, this "Moscow violates or ignores treaties all the time" hand waving and reflexive horror at Trump's dumpster fire foreign policy decisions being relevant to the question seems worthy of an eye roll. If there was some issue with the treaty in question not actually being relevant to the question asked, that would be one thing. This? This is more like TDS as done by theprestige. First of all, The CNN article says Putin is moving 'tactical nuclear weapons' into Belarus, and tactical nuclear weapons have nothing to do with the INF treaty. So yes he is shoehorning Trump into this conversation. I'd like to add that the fact that Trump was President when it happened, does not mean that he just arbitrarily decided to withdraw from the treaty. In each year, 2014-2019, Russia was in violation of the 1987 treaty. In 2019 the USA withdrew from the treaty, citing Russian non-compliance. You can read the whole thing here: https://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/INFtreaty The article may have shown a picture of a INF rated missile, but it is a misleading photo. Intended to shock scare people.
Drewbot Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 7,617	__________________ "I dont call that evolution, I call that the survival of the fittest." - Bulletmaker "I thought skeptics would usually point towards a hoax rather than a group being duped." - makaya325 Kit is not a skeptic. He is a former Bigfoot believer that changed his position to that of non believer.- Crowlogic Last edited by Drewbot; Today at 12:03 PM.

Today, 01:03 PM	#3050
Myriad The Clarity Is Devastating Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Betwixt Posts: 19,988	Originally Posted by The Don Meanwhile Putin is moving tactical nuclear weapons into Belarus He probably thinks he can hug his children with them. (But if so, he's wrong, according to research from the 1980s published in The Journal of Crap Printed on Bumper Stickers).
	__________________ A zømbie once bit my sister...

Today, 01:07 PM	#3051
theprestige Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: The Antimemetics Division Posts: 63,545	Originally Posted by Aridas Similarly, Trump's relevant actions shouldn't be reflexively ignored just because they're Trump's actions. When the question that started this tangent was about prior agreements involving nukes between NATO and Russia, pointing out that Trump unilaterally ended one along those lines isn't even remotely shoehorning Trump into the discussion. Rather, this "Moscow violates or ignores treaties all the time" hand waving and reflexive horror at Trump's dumpster fire foreign policy decisions being relevant to the question seems worthy of an eye roll. If there was some issue with the treaty in question not actually being relevant to the question asked, that would be one thing. This? This is more like TDS as done by theprestige. Oof. No, I think that Putin's ambitions in Ukraine, and his decisions about how to prosecute his war of aggression, have an infinitesimal relationship to President Trump's policy decisions.
	__________________ There is no Antimemetics Division.

Today, 01:37 PM	#3052
dudalb Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Sacramento Posts: 57,771	Originally Posted by theprestige Oof. No, I think that Putin's ambitions in Ukraine, and his decisions about how to prosecute his war of aggression, have an infinitesimal relationship to President Trump's policy decisions. I think PUtin would have behaved this way no matter who was President, but Trump's obvious fondness and envy for Putin did not help matters. I think Putin hoped that if reelected, Trump would have pulled the US out of NATO making his attack on the Ukarine a lot easier, but went ahead anyway. And you have dbout that Trump still has a crush on Putin, Trump;s comments during his Waco rant removes all doubt.
	__________________ Pacifism is a shifty doctrine under which a man accepts the benefits of the social group without being willing to pay - and claims a halo for his dishonesty. Robert Heinlein.