Trump to withdraw from INF missile treaty

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-45939544

For fuck sake - a heightened threat of nuclear war in Europe is all we need right now.

John Bolton - the chickenhawk cunt - has his fingers all over this.

How does this square with the "Putin owns Trump" narrative?

As for the Putin/Trump connection most on the left will say it's a smokescreen to hide what they are really up to. They will rework the story to comply with the "Trump = evil" narrative as per usual no matter what anyway.

If anybody gives Trump any credibility on anything to do with Russia, then... I just feel sorry for you. I'll never trust this president on anything to do with Putin's Russia.... I am certain that he would put himself and his self interest before the country. He's proven it time and again. This is bad.

A pet owner doesn't have to be kind.

It legitimizes Putin's efforts to implement a class of nukes previously limited by treaty, while fomenting dissent and fanning the flames of Trump's base here.

Russia wants these as they are a cost effective means of gaining power in the international arena.

so, Vladdy is released from any treaty obligation on the subject? I'm sure he's heartbroken, and his oligarchs are crushed.

Meanwhile...


I'm sure a nuclear dick-measuring contest on the world stage will end well - but arms makers (who are already feasting on taxpayer dollars) will struggle through somehow.

I don't see any smoke screen. It seems pretty obvious that this opens up the manufacture of restricted nuclear weapons, and opens up classes of smaller tactical nukes which threaten places like europe and the Ukraine which Putin has been pushing into. not to mention interests in the middle east. I don't see any obfuscation of this. The purpose of the original treaty seems to have been to lower aggression and threat over the world, and these two guys profit and like aggressive action. The treaty was making it harder for both sides of it to enhance their military, and now they have both dropped it.

I agree with Tererun (now there's something you don't see every day). Trump tells the US we're pulling out because Russia violated it, Putin tells Russia they're pulling out because the US is. Also it's a good distraction for Putin for his recent domestic missteps.

Explained several times already. Putin wants the treaty gone for his own purposes, Trump kills it for him, Putin gets to do what he wants while avoiding the blame for violating the treaty.

Your move, Rick.

Muscovy has been in violation of the treaty for the last 4 years.

This is a sincere question:

If one side of an agreement is already unashamedly violating the terms of the agreement, what rational justification is there for the other party to the agreement to pretend that the agreement is still in force?

to keep the left happy. You know how they can get!

You don't pretend, you take the moral high ground to get the other side to stop violating it.

Hasn't worked. Like Krieg said, the Rooshuns have been in violation of the treaty for some time now. I think it unlikely that the US will try to stick GLCMs or Pershing IIs back into Europe (small problem of we don't have any of those any more) so this is less of an issue than it appears. Yeah, the optics are bad, but really not all that different from the Clinton "agreed framework" with North Korea that the Norks violated even before the ink had dried on the signatures. People like Rick will always see these things as All America's Fault All The Time, but those of us in the real world can see that a treaty that one side ignores is no treaty at all.

The same reason we don't junk the law on murder or theft just because some folk kill or steal. The rules are there to set an example and to make it clear when one side is not following them.

Ok. Let's tease out your analogy.

In the case of murder, the "treaty" goes something like this: "You, the People, shall not unlawfully kill one another. We, the State, shall not unlawfully stick you in jail. You, the People, broke this treaty by unlawfully killing someone. We, the State, will now stick you in jail."

Let's apply that to the current treaty. "You, Russia, shall not possess land-based Intermediate Range Nuclear Weapons. We, the United States shall not possess land-based Intermediate Range Nuclear Weapons. You, Russia broke the treaty by possessing land-based Intermediate Range Nuclear Weapons. We, the United States, will now ____________________________."

What do we put in the "____________________________" block?

1. Do nothing.
2. Complain.
3. Keep honoring the treaty.
4. Recognize that the treaty is effectively non-existent and withdraw.
5. Something else?

[I have not come to any solid conclusion as to whether it's good, bad, or indifferent that Trump intends to pull out of the treaty.]

5. Enforce the sanctions that Congress passed because of Russia's violations of this treaty.

That said, after getting a bit more context, I think this isn't the worst idea, withdrawing from the treaty, just the most obviously beneficial-for-Russia response to their violations. Removes the cause for the sanctions, and it might force China to the negotiating table for a sequel.

So... The fact that the Russians have been cheating and breaking the treaty since at least 2014 doesn't factor in at all for you?

This is sadly true. How would you deal with it given the fact that even Obama said the Russians have routinely violated the treaty and deployed classes of banned missiles? Any ideas?

If we do nothing that cedes to them the strategic advantage while if we drop the treaty an arms race would likely develop but one the US is most likely to win. I prefer a negotiated solution but given that Putin routinely ignores his country's treaty obligations... The answer is what?

And after four years of trying that we have accomplished...?

Cut them off from SWIFT.

I’m sorry but it’s utterly moronic to say “they’re breaching it so throw it in the dustbin”. Have any of you guys excusing this on that basis stopped to consider that Trump has told Putin he can violate whatever treaty he wants and get away with it?

If you hve a treaty and another party fails to comply you press that party to comply by continuing to uphold it and press the international community to put pressure on the country breaking it. If this were a smaller non-ally of the US it’d be sanctions galore. But not with Vlad. Are any of you still doubting the Russians have something on Trump?

Oh, and a couple of days ago it so, Trump vowed to increase the US nuclear arsenal, so it seems he wants to go from deterrent back to the days of arms races. Yeah, that’s needed.

@GhostEcho, I deleted the comment and your quote of the comment.

Thank you, @shootER

1. Presumably the agreement comes with consequences for violating it. Everyone else walks away from the agreement instead of trying to enforce it, the party violating the agreement basically gets a free pass.

2. Do we repeal every law that someone breaks?

3. Knowing how you feel about trying to enforce agreements, is there any chance I can borrow a large sum of money from you?

Reasonable.

No, certainly not. But I don't think treaties are analogous to laws. Laws are imposed unilaterally and treaties are by mutual agreement.

I don't give loans, but I'd give generously if you were in need.

A treaty isn't exactly a law and is more of an agreement between two or more countries where they each agree to do certain things. If Russia isn't honoring its side of tye agreement then why shouldn't we say the deal is off?

Would you call off a prenup if your wife violated it? Would you walk away from a lease if your tenant stopped paying rent? No, you'd use the terms of those agreements to punish the other party.

Trump walking away from the treaty is just a way to get out of punishing Russia for violating it. He's protecting his boss, just like he always does.

This is incorrect, generally. Treaties are a major component of international law. But you're banned so it doesn't matter.