Who Meddled more Putin or Trump? The Collusion Thread visits Venezuela

paulsurovell said:

Of course there were "other factors" involved in Yeltsin's victory.

That doesn't detract from the fact -- proven by the declassified Secret conversations -- that Clinton colluded with Yeltsin in a big way to influence Russian presidential election of 1996.
Real, serious collusion.

And thus the factual basis for the title of this thread.

 There's the actual words of the conversation, and Mr. Surovell's version, and I'll stick with the actual words.  And how the "other factors" were the significant ones, as people with more experience and background knowledge concluded years ago.

And whatever some Americans did to toot their own horns in a Time Magazine article is beside the point, Ms. Nan.

nohero said:

paulsurovell said:Of course there were "other factors" involved in Yeltsin's victory.


That doesn't detract from the fact -- proven by the declassified Secret conversations -- that Clinton colluded with Yeltsin in a big way to influence Russian presidential election of 1996.
Real, serious collusion.

And thus the factual basis for the title of this thread.

 There's the actual words of the conversation, and Mr. Surovell's version, and I'll stick with the actual words.  And how the "other factors" were the significant ones, as people with more experience and background knowledge concluded years ago.
And whatever some Americans did to toot their own horns in a Time Magazine article is beside the point, Ms. Nan.

Even if one agrees with your absurd suggestion that pledges to facilitate billions of dollars of loans to Russia and other assistance, to prop up Yeltsin in his election campaign were not "significant," that in no way detracts from the obvious fact that the conversations between Clinton and Yeltsin constituted blatant collusion to influence the 1996 Russian presidential election.

Here are the conversations:

https://clinton.presidentiallibraries.us/items/show/57569

paulsurovell said:

Even if one agrees with your absurd suggestion that pledges to facilitate billions of dollars of loans to Russia and other assistance, to prop up Yeltsin in his election campaign were not "significant," that in no way detracts from the obvious fact that the conversations between Clinton and Yeltsin constituted blatant collusion to influence the 1996 Russian presidential election.

Here are the conversations:
https://clinton.presidentiallibraries.us/items/show/57569

 "Pledges" or "I'll check" don't really mean anything.  If you think that mattered to the Russian people more than all of the other genuine factors, that's your unsupported opinion.

And if you're saying "Here are the conversations" as if they weren't already in my earlier posts, I guess you didn't bother to read my earlier posts.

nohero said:

paulsurovell said:Even if one agrees with your absurd suggestion that pledges to facilitate billions of dollars of loans to Russia and other assistance, to prop up Yeltsin in his election campaign were not "significant," that in no way detracts from the obvious fact that the conversations between Clinton and Yeltsin constituted blatant collusion to influence the 1996 Russian presidential election.

Here are the conversations:
https://clinton.presidentiallibraries.us/items/show/57569

 "Pledges" or "I'll check" don't really mean anything.  If you think that mattered to the Russian people more than all of the other genuine factors, that's your unsupported opinion.
And if you're saying "Here are the conversations" as if they weren't already in my earlier posts, I guess you didn't bother to read my earlier posts.

The fact that collusion took place between Yeltsin and Clinton to influence the 1996 Russian presidential election has nothing to do with whether the goals of the collusion mattered "more" or "less" than other factors that influenced the election.

And FYI you didn't reference all of the conversations.

Dear Russiagate proponents:

Mission accomplished.

Trump has become the insane nuclear warmonger you wanted him to be.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/oct/20/trump-us-nuclear-arms-treaty-russia?CMP=share_btn_tw

paulsurovell said:
Dear Russiagate proponents:
Mission accomplished.
Trump has become the insane nuclear warmonger you wanted him to be.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/oct/20/trump-us-nuclear-arms-treaty-russia?CMP=share_btn_tw

 Trump hasn't "become" anything he wasn't already, including during the 2016 election.  But the stupidity of thinking otherwise about him at the time has been discussed to death here.

Now the Russians don't have to worry about trying to explain their way out of the treaty requirements, since Trump is killing the treaty for them.  I posted about the Russian violations back in March of 2017 --

So now that Trump has been President for about 50 days, Russia rolls out (literally) intermediate-range nuclear missiles that violate a 1987 treaty to eliminate intermediate-range nuclear missiles.
http://www.npr.org/sections/parallels/2017/03/10/519498196/u-s-confirms-russian-missile-deployment-violates-nuclear-treaty-now-what
As noted in the news report: "The INF Treaty marked a high point in Cold War diplomacy between the United States and the then-Soviet Union. It removed the peril of nuclear missiles on opposite sides of the Iron Curtain that could have escalated a crisis on very short notice."

https://maplewood.worldwebs.com/forums/discussion/former-us-intelligence-analysts-cia-allegations-of-email-hacking-are-baseless?page=next&limit=600#discussion-replies-3341789

If anyone is saying "Mission Accomplished" they're saying it in Russian.

I'll bet Vladimir includes a few extra rubles in the next paycheck.   

paulsurovell said:
Dear Russiagate proponents:
Mission accomplished.
Trump has become the insane nuclear warmonger you wanted him to be.

I applaud the rhetorical flourish. Can the thread go back to describing Russiagate skeptics as Trump supporters now?

DaveSchmidt said:

paulsurovell said:
Dear Russiagate proponents:
Mission accomplished.
Trump has become the insane nuclear warmonger you wanted him to be.

I applaud the rhetorical flourish. Can the thread go back to describing Russiagate skeptics as Trump supporters now?

 You just had to poke that stick through the bars of the enclosure, didn't you?    

https://www.xe.com/currencyconverter/convert/?Amount=1&From=RUB&To=USD

Just in case anyone wants to calculate how much extra butter and milk they can buy this month.

Always like to help.

At least now we have the definitive working definition of "collusion".

paulsurovell said:
Even if one agrees with your absurd suggestion that pledges to facilitate billions of dollars of loans to Russia and other assistance, to prop up Yeltsin in his election campaign were not "significant," that in no way detracts from the obvious fact that the conversations between Clinton and Yeltsin constituted blatant collusion to influence the 1996 Russian presidential election. 

paulsurovell said:

The fact that collusion took place between Yeltsin and Clinton to influence the 1996 Russian presidential election has nothing to do with whether the goals of the collusion mattered "more" or "less" than other factors that influenced the election.

So, conversations with foreign representatives about influencing the election constitute collusion without regard to the actual effect on the election.

I will leave it to others to measure the reported facts against that standard.  You can start with the all-star "Trump Tower Meeting".

South_Mountaineer said:

paulsurovell said:
Dear Russiagate proponents:
Mission accomplished.
Trump has become the insane nuclear warmonger you wanted him to be.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/oct/20/trump-us-nuclear-arms-treaty-russia?CMP=share_btn_tw

 Trump hasn't "become" anything he wasn't already, including during the 2016 election.  But the stupidity of thinking otherwise about him at the time has been discussed to death here.
Now the Russians don't have to worry about trying to explain their way out of the treaty requirements, since Trump is killing the treaty for them.  I posted about the Russian violations back in March of 2017 --

So now that Trump has been President for about 50 days, Russia rolls out (literally) intermediate-range nuclear missiles that violate a 1987 treaty to eliminate intermediate-range nuclear missiles.
http://www.npr.org/sections/parallels/2017/03/10/519498196/u-s-confirms-russian-missile-deployment-violates-nuclear-treaty-now-what
As noted in the news report: "The INF Treaty marked a high point in Cold War diplomacy between the United States and the then-Soviet Union. It removed the peril of nuclear missiles on opposite sides of the Iron Curtain that could have escalated a crisis on very short notice."

https://maplewood.worldwebs.com/forums/discussion/former-us-intelligence-analysts-cia-allegations-of-email-hacking-are-baseless?page=next&limit=600#discussion-replies-3341789

If anyone is saying "Mission Accomplished" they're saying it in Russian.

 So you agree with Trump and Bolton that Russia has violated the treaty. You're supporting Trump.

DaveSchmidt said:

paulsurovell said:
Dear Russiagate proponents:
Mission accomplished.
Trump has become the insane nuclear warmonger you wanted him to be.

I applaud the rhetorical flourish. Can the thread go back to describing Russiagate skeptics as Trump supporters now?

 They never stopped. But now Trump is showing us what it means to be "tough with Russia."  It looks like the Russiagate believers are going to be full-force "Trump supporters" now as he takes us to the brink.  This has been the logic of Russiagate from Day 1 and why the neocons have been in the vanguard, leading the charge.

Edited to Add: Quotes around "Trump supporters." See exchange with Dave Schmidt below.

nohero said:
At least now we have the definitive working definition of "collusion".

paulsurovell said:
Even if one agrees with your absurd suggestion that pledges to facilitate billions of dollars of loans to Russia and other assistance, to prop up Yeltsin in his election campaign were not "significant," that in no way detracts from the obvious fact that the conversations between Clinton and Yeltsin constituted blatant collusion to influence the 1996 Russian presidential election. 

paulsurovell said:The fact that collusion took place between Yeltsin and Clinton to influence the 1996 Russian presidential election has nothing to do with whether the goals of the collusion mattered "more" or "less" than other factors that influenced the election.

So, conversations with foreign representatives about influencing the election constitute collusion without regard to the actual effect on the election.
I will leave it to others to measure the reported facts against that standard.  You can start with the all-star "Trump Tower Meeting".

 Conversations about material support for the election campaign.  Didn't happen at Trump Tower. See the OP.

paulsurovell said:

 They never stopped. But now Trump is showing us what it means to be "tough with Russia."  It looks like the Russiagate believers are going to be full-force Trump supporters now as he takes us to the brink.  This has been the logic of Russiagate from Day 1 and why the neocons have been in the vanguard, leading the charge.

If you draw a line between holding an opinion and supporting others who share it, you can either decline to cross the line yourself or join those who blur or erase it. The choice is yours.

paulsurovell said:

nohero said:
At least now we have the definitive working definition of "collusion".

paulsurovell said:
Even if one agrees with your absurd suggestion that pledges to facilitate billions of dollars of loans to Russia and other assistance, to prop up Yeltsin in his election campaign were not "significant," that in no way detracts from the obvious fact that the conversations between Clinton and Yeltsin constituted blatant collusion to influence the 1996 Russian presidential election. 

paulsurovell said:The fact that collusion took place between Yeltsin and Clinton to influence the 1996 Russian presidential election has nothing to do with whether the goals of the collusion mattered "more" or "less" than other factors that influenced the election.

So, conversations with foreign representatives about influencing the election constitute collusion without regard to the actual effect on the election.
I will leave it to others to measure the reported facts against that standard.  You can start with the all-star "Trump Tower Meeting".

 Conversations about material support for the election campaign.  Didn't happen at Trump Tower. See the OP.

 And you believed that?  You sound like Trump whenever he believes whatever the Saudis and Putin say.  Do you know what Manafort told Mueller about the meeting?   Why on earth did Trump have to dictate the meeting explanation for his son.  There's a lot of articles that are a bit more thorough then the one in the OP- it is a bit dated now.

DaveSchmidt said:

paulsurovell said:

 They never stopped. But now Trump is showing us what it means to be "tough with Russia."  It looks like the Russiagate believers are going to be full-force Trump supporters now as he takes us to the brink.  This has been the logic of Russiagate from Day 1 and why the neocons have been in the vanguard, leading the charge.

If you draw a line between holding an opinion and supporting others who share it, you can either decline to cross the line yourself or join those who blur or erase it. The choice is yours.
 

Thank you for drawing the distinction. I haven't heard anyone other than myself, or perhaps Nan, draw that distinction on this thread. Which side do you come down on?

Among those attacking me for a year and a half for dissenting from the intelligence community / media / Democratic Party leadership, a number of posters on this thread have erased the distinction and none of the others have challenged it.

Recently, in light of Democratic Party officials joining forces with Trump on major issues and some Democratic candidates highlighting Trump's support for them, I've applied the logic of those who erase the distinction to show the hypocrisy of their position.

The post quoted above was written in that spirit. If it wasn't clear, I'll go back and put "Trump supporters" in quotes.

jamie said:

paulsurovell said:

nohero said:
At least now we have the definitive working definition of "collusion".

paulsurovell said:
Even if one agrees with your absurd suggestion that pledges to facilitate billions of dollars of loans to Russia and other assistance, to prop up Yeltsin in his election campaign were not "significant," that in no way detracts from the obvious fact that the conversations between Clinton and Yeltsin constituted blatant collusion to influence the 1996 Russian presidential election. 

paulsurovell said:The fact that collusion took place between Yeltsin and Clinton to influence the 1996 Russian presidential election has nothing to do with whether the goals of the collusion mattered "more" or "less" than other factors that influenced the election.

So, conversations with foreign representatives about influencing the election constitute collusion without regard to the actual effect on the election.
I will leave it to others to measure the reported facts against that standard.  You can start with the all-star "Trump Tower Meeting".

 Conversations about material support for the election campaign.  Didn't happen at Trump Tower. See the OP.

 And you believed that?  You sound like Trump whenever he believes whatever the Saudis and Putin say.  Do you know what Manafort told Mueller about the meeting?   Why on earth did Trump have to dictate the meeting explanation for his son.  There's a lot of articles that are a bit more thorough then the one in the OP- it is a bit dated now.

 Why don't you tell us what was offered by the Russian government to the Trump campaign at the meeting?  Did you read Goldstone's transcript?

Gallopin'!

paulsurovell said:
Dear Russiagate proponents:
Mission accomplished.
Trump has become the insane nuclear warmonger you wanted him to be.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/oct/20/trump-us-nuclear-arms-treaty-russia?CMP=share_btn_tw

 Exactly. They have created a monster out of a monster.  The neocons they love must be popping the champagne. Should cause some self-reflection, but no, they are just looking to continue to blame Susan Sarandon, Bernie, the Russians, and some people on MOL.  Got an early morning text letting me know it was my fault.  

nan said:

Should cause some self-reflection ...

paulsurovell said:

 Why don't you tell us what was offered by the Russian government to the Trump campaign at the meeting? 

 I wasn't there - but the Trump's had several explanations.  I'll be awaiting Mueller's assessment after the midterms.  Unless you were there.

paulsurovell said:

South_Mountaineer said:

paulsurovell said:
Dear Russiagate proponents:
Mission accomplished.
Trump has become the insane nuclear warmonger you wanted him to be.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/oct/20/trump-us-nuclear-arms-treaty-russia?CMP=share_btn_tw

 Trump hasn't "become" anything he wasn't already, including during the 2016 election.  But the stupidity of thinking otherwise about him at the time has been discussed to death here.
Now the Russians don't have to worry about trying to explain their way out of the treaty requirements, since Trump is killing the treaty for them.  I posted about the Russian violations back in March of 2017 --

So now that Trump has been President for about 50 days, Russia rolls out (literally) intermediate-range nuclear missiles that violate a 1987 treaty to eliminate intermediate-range nuclear missiles.
http://www.npr.org/sections/parallels/2017/03/10/519498196/u-s-confirms-russian-missile-deployment-violates-nuclear-treaty-now-what
As noted in the news report: "The INF Treaty marked a high point in Cold War diplomacy between the United States and the then-Soviet Union. It removed the peril of nuclear missiles on opposite sides of the Iron Curtain that could have escalated a crisis on very short notice."

https://maplewood.worldwebs.com/forums/discussion/former-us-intelligence-analysts-cia-allegations-of-email-hacking-are-baseless?page=next&limit=600#discussion-replies-3341789

If anyone is saying "Mission Accomplished" they're saying it in Russian.

 So you agree with Trump and Bolton that Russia has violated the treaty. You're supporting Trump.

No, that's a stupid comment. I don't have to agree with Trump and Bolton on anything.  That makes me different from you.

I mentioned a post of mine from 19 months ago about Russia already violating the INF treaty, based on news reports about, and I quote from the report, "the vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, confirmed longstanding suspicions that Russian's new intermediate-range missile was operational. He told a House Armed Services Committee hearing this week that it can threaten almost all of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization." 

Time for some of you to STFU.

“Putin’s Puppet” Advances Nuclear Missile Escalations Against Putin

https://caitlinjohnstone.com/2018/10/21/putins-puppet-advances-nuclear-missile-escalations-against-putin/

excerpt:

In response to this predictable escalation the path for which has been lubricated by McResistance pundits and their neoconservative allies, those very same pundits are now reacting with horror that Putin’s puppet is now dangerously escalating tensions with Putin.

“BREAKING: Trump announces that the United States will pull out of the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty that the US has been in for 31 years,” exclaimed the popular Russiagater Brian Krassenstein in a tweet that as of this writing has over 5,000 shares. “Welcome back to the Cold War. This time it’s scarier And no, It’s not Obama, or Hillary or the Democrat’s fault. It’s ALL TRUMP!”

“Hilarious to listen to all this alarmed screaming about US withdrawal from INF Treaty emanating from those who for 2 years have been demanding that Trump get tough with Russia,” tweeted George Szamuely of the Global Policy Institute. “Now that they’ve got their arms race I hope they are pleased with themselves.”

“Are those who have spent the past two years warning of a Trump-Kremlin conspiracy & cheering confrontation w/ Russia ready to shut the **** up yet?” asked Aaron Maté, who has been among the most consistently lucid critics of the Russiagate narrative in the US.

Are they ready to shut the **** up? That would be great, but this is just the latest escalation in a steadily escalating new cold war, and these blithering idiots didn’t shut the **** up at any of the other steps toward nuclear holocaust. They didn’t shut the **** up after Trump’s capitulation to the longstanding neoconservative agenda to arm Ukraine against Russia. They didn’t shut the **** up after Americans killed Russians in Syria as part of their regime change occupation of that country. They didn’t shut the **** up when this administration adopted a Nuclear Posture Review with greatly increased aggression toward Russia and blurred lines between when nuclear strikes are and are not appropriate. They didn’t shut the **** up when Trump started sending war ships into the Black Sea “to counter Russia’s increased presence there.” They didn’t shut the **** up when this administration forced RT and Sputnik to register as foreign agents. They didn’t shut the **** up when this administration helped expand NATO with the addition of Montenegro, at the assigning of Russia hawk Kurt Volker as special representative to Ukraine, at the shutting down of a Russian consulate in San Francisco and throwing out Russian diplomats in August of last year, when Trump threw out dozens more diplomats in response to shaky claims about the poisoning of Sergei and Yulia Skripal, or when he implemented aggressive sanctions on Russian oligarchs. Why would they shut the **** up now?

As signs point to Mueller’s investigation wrapping up in the near future without turning up a single shred of evidence that Trump colluded with the Russian government, it’s time for everyone who helped advance this toxic, suicidal anti-Russia narrative to ask themselves one question: was it worth it? Was it worth it to help mount political pressure on a sitting president to continually escalate tensions with a nuclear superpower and loudly screaming that he’s a Putin puppet whenever he takes a step toward de-escalation? Was it worth it to help create an atmosphere where cooler heads don’t prevail in the one area where it’s absolutely essential for everyone’s survival that they do? Or is it maybe time to shut the **** up for a while and rethink your entire worldview?

nan said:
Time for some of you to STFU.

“Putin’s Puppet” Advances Nuclear Missile Escalations Against Putin
https://caitlinjohnstone.com/2018/10/21/putins-puppet-advances-nuclear-missile-escalations-against-putin/
excerpt:

 STFU? Holy Ignorance.  Russia is winning this one.

From the other day -- https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/19/us/politics/russia-nuclear-arms-treaty-trump-administration.html

President Trump has been moving toward scrapping the three-decade-old treaty, which grew out of President Ronald Reagan’s historic meeting with Mikhail Gorbachev in 1986. While the treaty was seen as effective for years, Russia has been violating it at least since 2014 in an effort to menace other nations.

Now that the treaty is largely in tatters, the question is whether the decision to leave it will accelerate the increasingly Cold War-like behavior among the three superpowers: the United States, Russia and China.

As Russia has flown bombers over Europe and has conducted troop exercises on its borders with former Soviet states, the United States and its NATO allies have been rotating forces through countries under threat. Ukraine has become a low-level battleground, with ground skirmishes and a daily cyberconflict. China and the United States are jostling for position around reefs in the South China Sea that Beijing has turned into military bases, and they are both preparing for any possibility of war in space.

For the past four years, the United States has argued that Russia is in violation of the treaty because it has deployed prohibited tactical nuclear weapons to intimidate European nations and former Soviet states that have aligned with the West. But  President Barack Obama chose not to leave the agreement because of objections from the Europeans — particularly Germany — and out of concern that it would rekindle an arms race.

Did you read that part, about our European allies not wanting the treaty to be cancelled?  About how cancelling the treaty is NOT something wanted by our allies?  The article goes on, about who *does* like those weapons --

 For cash-constrained Russia, tactical nuclear weapons, along with cyberweapons, are cheap offensive options. Just last week, Mr. Putin, in an annual speech, reported that Russia was preparing to deploy a new hypersonic missile, reinforcing the sense that the long hiatus in the nuclear arms race is over. Such missiles step around current arms control limits.

So much for Vlad not being happy.  This helps him scare Europe again, just like he wanted.

Jon Wolfsthal, a nuclear expert on the National Security Council during the Obama administration, said a withdrawal would roil Europe.

“Things are just now calming down,” he said. “This would be another hand grenade in the middle of NATO to split the allies.”

In reporting on the Trump/Putin summit, it said that Putin already wanted to renegotiate this treaty.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/jul/17/helsinki-summit-what-did-trump-and-putin-agree

He raised the perceived dangers represented by the US anti-missile defence system, but said he wanted to negotiate on the Intermediate Nuclear Treaty, the 1987 treaty that banned all US and Russian ground-launched missiles of intermediate range – between 500 and 5,000km .

South_Mountaineer said:

paulsurovell said:

South_Mountaineer said:

paulsurovell said:
Dear Russiagate proponents:
Mission accomplished.
Trump has become the insane nuclear warmonger you wanted him to be.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/oct/20/trump-us-nuclear-arms-treaty-russia?CMP=share_btn_tw

 Trump hasn't "become" anything he wasn't already, including during the 2016 election.  But the stupidity of thinking otherwise about him at the time has been discussed to death here.
Now the Russians don't have to worry about trying to explain their way out of the treaty requirements, since Trump is killing the treaty for them.  I posted about the Russian violations back in March of 2017 --

So now that Trump has been President for about 50 days, Russia rolls out (literally) intermediate-range nuclear missiles that violate a 1987 treaty to eliminate intermediate-range nuclear missiles.
http://www.npr.org/sections/parallels/2017/03/10/519498196/u-s-confirms-russian-missile-deployment-violates-nuclear-treaty-now-what
As noted in the news report: "The INF Treaty marked a high point in Cold War diplomacy between the United States and the then-Soviet Union. It removed the peril of nuclear missiles on opposite sides of the Iron Curtain that could have escalated a crisis on very short notice."

https://maplewood.worldwebs.com/forums/discussion/former-us-intelligence-analysts-cia-allegations-of-email-hacking-are-baseless?page=next&limit=600#discussion-replies-3341789

If anyone is saying "Mission Accomplished" they're saying it in Russian.

 So you agree with Trump and Bolton that Russia has violated the treaty. You're supporting Trump.

No, that's a stupid comment. I don't have to agree with Trump and Bolton on anything.  That makes me different from you.
I mentioned a post of mine from 19 months ago about Russia already violating the INF treaty, based on news reports about, and I quote from the report, "the vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, confirmed longstanding suspicions that Russian's new intermediate-range missile was operational. He told a House Armed Services Committee hearing this week that it can threaten almost all of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization." 

So this is the inane "they supported it before they supported Trump for doing it so their support for Trump doesn't count" argument. Which was it you or @nohero who said that, I don't recall.

South_Mountaineer said:

nan said:
Time for some of you to STFU.

“Putin’s Puppet” Advances Nuclear Missile Escalations Against Putin
https://caitlinjohnstone.com/2018/10/21/putins-puppet-advances-nuclear-missile-escalations-against-putin/
excerpt:

 STFU? Holy Ignorance.  Russia is winning this one.
From the other day -- https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/19/us/politics/russia-nuclear-arms-treaty-trump-administration.html

President Trump has been moving toward scrapping the three-decade-old treaty, which grew out of President Ronald Reagan’s historic meeting with Mikhail Gorbachev in 1986. While the treaty was seen as effective for years, Russia has been violating it at least since 2014 in an effort to menace other nations.

Now that the treaty is largely in tatters, the question is whether the decision to leave it will accelerate the increasingly Cold War-like behavior among the three superpowers: the United States, Russia and China.

As Russia has flown bombers over Europe and has conducted troop exercises on its borders with former Soviet states, the United States and its NATO allies have been rotating forces through countries under threat. Ukraine has become a low-level battleground, with ground skirmishes and a daily cyberconflict. China and the United States are jostling for position around reefs in the South China Sea that Beijing has turned into military bases, and they are both preparing for any possibility of war in space.

For the past four years, the United States has argued that Russia is in violation of the treaty because it has deployed prohibited tactical nuclear weapons to intimidate European nations and former Soviet states that have aligned with the West. But  President Barack Obama chose not to leave the agreement because of objections from the Europeans — particularly Germany — and out of concern that it would rekindle an arms race.

Did you read that part, about our European allies not wanting the treaty to be cancelled?  About how cancelling the treaty is NOT something wanted by our allies?  The article goes on, about who *does* like those weapons --

 For cash-constrained Russia, tactical nuclear weapons, along with cyberweapons, are cheap offensive options. Just last week, Mr. Putin, in an annual speech, reported that Russia was preparing to deploy a new hypersonic missile, reinforcing the sense that the long hiatus in the nuclear arms race is over. Such missiles step around current arms control limits.

So much for Vlad not being happy.  This helps him scare Europe again, just like he wanted.

Jon Wolfsthal, a nuclear expert on the National Security Council during the Obama administration, said a withdrawal would roil Europe.

“Things are just now calming down,” he said. “This would be another hand grenade in the middle of NATO to split the allies.”

In reporting on the Trump/Putin summit, it said that Putin already wanted to renegotiate this treaty.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/jul/17/helsinki-summit-what-did-trump-and-putin-agree

He raised the perceived dangers represented by the US anti-missile defence system, but said he wanted to negotiate on the Intermediate Nuclear Treaty, the 1987 treaty that banned all US and Russian ground-launched missiles of intermediate range – between 500 and 5,000km .

 Useful idiots.

paulsurovell said:

Thank you for drawing the distinction. I haven't heard anyone other than myself, or perhaps Nan, draw that distinction on this thread. Which side do you come down on?

I’ve tried to honor the distinction by not crossing it. I hope that answers your question.

paulsurovell said:

South_Mountaineer said:

paulsurovell said:
So you agree with Trump and Bolton that Russia has violated the treaty. You're supporting Trump.

No, that's a stupid comment. I don't have to agree with Trump and Bolton on anything.  That makes me different from you.
I mentioned a post of mine from 19 months ago about Russia already violating the INF treaty, based on news reports about, and I quote from the report, "the vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, confirmed longstanding suspicions that Russian's new intermediate-range missile was operational. He told a House Armed Services Committee hearing this week that it can threaten almost all of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization." 

So this is the inane "they supported it before they supported Trump for doing it so their support for Trump doesn't count" argument. Which was it you or @nohero who said that, I don't recall.

It's kind of predictable that the "change the subject" strategy (two different diversions in this one) would pop up after I disagreed with the "Mission accomplished" and "STFU" posts.  (By the way, haven't seen a response to my second one). (Post edited to add -- Responding to my obvious disagreement with Trump with "So you agree with Trump" doesn't even deserve a "nice try" response)

This has nothing to do with the "Putin's puppet" issue, and everything to do with the fact that Trump has to be Putin's favorite ignorant jerk who runs a major world power.  Here's one more article you can consider, especially the last line -- "Russian officials are probably celebrating the news.".

https://www.brookings.edu/blog/order-from-chaos/2018/10/19/the-trump-administration-is-preparing-a-major-mistake-on-the-inf-treaty/

First, the United States will get the blame for killing the treaty. Moscow has vigorously denied the U.S. charge and claims the United States is in fact the one in violation. U.S. evidence of the Russian violation is highly classified, so the public debate will devolve into an exchange of charges, counter-charges, and denials. Given the low credibility of the Trump administration, Washington will have a hard time winning that debate.

Second, once the United States withdraws from the treaty, there is no reason for Russia to even pretend it is observing the limits. Moscow will be free to deploy the 9M729 cruise missile, and an intermediate-range ballistic missile if it wants, without any restraint.

Third, the U.S. decision will prove controversial with European allies and others who continue to see value in the treaty. It’s hard to feel too much sympathy; no European leader has raised a public stink with the Kremlin about the Russian violation, and there’s little to suggest the violation was protested much in private at high levels. Still, this is the kind of question where the U.S. position would benefit from alliance solidarity.

Fourth, the United States currently has no missile that it could quickly deploy to match the Russians. The “integrated strategy” included a treaty-compliant research and development program for a U.S. intermediate-range missile (development is allowed short of flight-testing), but it provided little money.
Even if the Pentagon were to build the missile, however, a big question remains: Where could the United States put it? An intermediate-range missile based in the United States cannot reach Russia, so it will not cause much alarm in the Kremlin. And it is unlikely that the United States could persuade NATO, Japan or South Korea to deploy it.

So, U.S. withdrawal from the INF Treaty is a loser all around. Russian officials probably are celebrating the news.