An RT article (for Deez!)

[Musburger1]

Does Guantanamo ring a bell?

Who should be sent to Guantanamo to be tortured by the Americans? The Ukraine Nazis or the Russian soldiers remaining on the base per their agreement?

 

[Seattle Husker]

Who should be sent to Guantanamo to be tortured by the Americans? The Ukraine Nazis or the Russian soldiers remaining on the base per their agreement?

Continued deflection? You act as if the only way to keep Sevastopol for Russia was to annex Crimea. Clearly there were other options.

That's beside the point. You claimed that Putin wasn't a threat to sovereign nations when by your very own facts that's patently absurd which completely deflates the entire premise of your argument in this thread. The former Russia satellites have every reason to fear Russia and look to NATO for defense help.

Furthermore, it's a self-serving argument to want to bypass the governments of said countries and try to appeal to the population when for decades it was formal USSR policy to transplant Russians by the thousands to the point that in some countries Russians make up as much as 30% of the population. Until the fall of the curtain, this Russian minority was the ruling class.

 

[Musburger1]

Continued deflection? You act as if the only way to keep Sevastopol for Russia was to annex Crimea. Clearly there were other options.
​

I asked you a straight forward question as to what would happen had the Russians not helped out the citizens in Crimea. You're response? There were other options. But you couldn't even name a single one. That's the definition of deflection. Looks like you are projecting too.

That's beside the point. You claimed that Putin wasn't a threat to sovereign nations when by your very own facts that's patently absurd which completely deflates the entire premise of your argument in this thread. The former Russia satellites have every reason to fear Russia and look to NATO for defense help.​

More nonsensical rhetoric from you. In fact, your response is so ridiculous, I have to question my own sanity for responding. I'm only doing so because there may be people who read these posts that are capable of critical thinking.

The US has violated the sovereignty of nations non-stop since the bombings of former Yugoslavia. No UN resolutions in many cases, such as with Libya and Syria. No approval by Congress. This is not only illegal internationally, but unconstitutional. It continues today. In the process, MILLIONS of civilians have been killed or misplaced. Many of which are now creating a massive refugee swarm all over Europe. And I guess you cheer it on. Go USA!

Furthermore, it's a self-serving argument to want to bypass the governments of said countries and try to appeal to the population when for decades it was formal USSR policy to transplant Russians by the thousands to the point that in some countries Russians make up as much as 30% of the population. Until the fall of the curtain, this Russian minority was the ruling class.
​

First of all, Crimea had been part of Russia proper since the 1700's. It was given to Ukraine by Kruschev in the 1950's. If anything, the all-Russian Crimea (Russians and Tatars) had been slightly diluted by Ukrainians rather than the other way around.

​

So by your reasoning, the right of the "state" is superior to the rights of the people. That's a tyrannical view, but even if you hold that view, keep in mind the people of Crimea voted in the legally, though corrupt, President that was overthrown by an illegal coup. It is your view, and the view of the United States government, that the illegal coup is legitimate, but the democratic will of the people of Crimea has no standing. Sorry, but I can't agree with that logic.

Meanwhile, Russia does have a defense for the annexation of Crimea. The UN charter allows that people have the right to self-determination. There is something called the Bucharest memo (or something similar) that states a referendum must be granted and held before a region can secede. In the case of Crimea, Ukraine would not allow for a referendum, so the Crimean's held their own. When there is a conflict between what the UN charter says (people have the right to self-determination) and what a "memo" says, which one should have preference?

 

[Mr. Deez]

I asked you a straight forward question as to what would happen had the Russians not helped out the citizens in Crimea. You're response? There were other options. But you couldn't even name a single one. That's the definition of deflection.

You do realize that this entire discussion about the Ukraine is a deflection, right?

 

[Musburger1]

You do realize that this entire discussion about the Ukraine is a deflection, right?

Let's go to the beginning. I posted an article from RT and posed a question regarding the legal implication of an agreement for NATO not to permanently deploy troops in new NATO countries. You pointed out, and I agreed with you, that the wording of the agreement was not binding.

The implication is that the US used a position of strength which Russia signed on to, and due to circumstances since that time, the US has found a legal loophole to do what they said they weren't going to do. Right?

When the Ukraine coup occurred, and Crimea voted to become part of Russia, the US reacted by imposing sanctions, and since that time have accelerated a buildup up troops in Eastern Europe and have now expanded the ABM structure to Romania and soon Poland.

So how am I deflecting from the original topic, when the events in Ukraine are very much interwoven into the current events?

You want to take every opinion I have, and turn it into practically accusing me of working for the Kremlin.

I understand the US point of view, that Russia presents an "existential threat" to Eastern Europe, and that the ABM shield is for the sole purpose of protecting all of Europe.

I think I understand the Russian point of view, which is that the US wants to maintain hegemonic control in the region, and are using asymmetric means (color revolutions, military force, and Islamic radicalism), to force Russia to submit to the US.

Russia is trying to untie itself to the US dollar system. Both Russia, the Middle East, and the West wish to control the energy flow into Europe.

All of these things considered, I think the US is the major aggressor and I believe the policies we are implementing will only lead to more war and dislocation of peoples like what is happening now in Europe, the Middle East, and North Africa.

Is that clear enough to satisfy you, or is that a deflection?

 

[Seattle Husker]

Continued deflection? You act as if the only way to keep Sevastopol for Russia was to annex Crimea. Clearly there were other options.
​

I asked you a straight forward question as to what would happen had the Russians not helped out the citizens in Crimea. You're response? There were other options. But you couldn't even name a single one. That's the definition of deflection. Looks like you are projecting too.

That's beside the point. You claimed that Putin wasn't a threat to sovereign nations when by your very own facts that's patently absurd which completely deflates the entire premise of your argument in this thread. The former Russia satellites have every reason to fear Russia and look to NATO for defense help.​

More nonsensical rhetoric from you. In fact, your response is so ridiculous, I have to question my own sanity for responding. I'm only doing so because there may be people who read these posts that are capable of critical thinking.

The US has violated the sovereignty of nations non-stop since the bombings of former Yugoslavia. No UN resolutions in many cases, such as with Libya and Syria. No approval by Congress. This is not only illegal internationally, but unconstitutional. It continues today. In the process, MILLIONS of civilians have been killed or misplaced. Many of which are now creating a massive refugee swarm all over Europe. And I guess you cheer it on. Go USA!

Furthermore, it's a self-serving argument to want to bypass the governments of said countries and try to appeal to the population when for decades it was formal USSR policy to transplant Russians by the thousands to the point that in some countries Russians make up as much as 30% of the population. Until the fall of the curtain, this Russian minority was the ruling class.
​

First of all, Crimea had been part of Russia proper since the 1700's. It was given to Ukraine by Kruschev in the 1950's. If anything, the all-Russian Crimea (Russians and Tatars) had been slightly diluted by Ukrainians rather than the other way around.

​

So by your reasoning, the right of the "state" is superior to the rights of the people. That's a tyrannical view, but even if you hold that view, keep in mind the people of Crimea voted in the legally, though corrupt, President that was overthrown by an illegal coup. It is your view, and the view of the United States government, that the illegal coup is legitimate, but the democratic will of the people of Crimea has no standing. Sorry, but I can't agree with that logic.

Meanwhile, Russia does have a defense for the annexation of Crimea. The UN charter allows that people have the right to self-determination. There is something called the Bucharest memo (or something similar) that states a referendum must be granted and held before a region can secede. In the case of Crimea, Ukraine would not allow for a referendum, so the Crimean's held their own. When there is a conflict between what the UN charter says (people have the right to self-determination) and what a "memo" says, which one should have preference?

You've lost your cool, Mus.

To recap, you posted an article that was slanted towards Russia claiming the US violated a Treaty in which the language was purposely ambiguous and you admitted had no teeth.

You then admitted that Russia annexed Crimea (the "why" is inconsequential) which was a direct violation of another countries sovereignty.

You then followed up that facts quote with this:

Why is it wrong for a country's leader to aspire greatness for their country so long as they do not threaten another country's sovereignty? Is that so terrible?

Regardless of whatever justification you invent, Russia incontrovertibly violated and continues to threaten another country's sovereignty (Ukraine) in the same region as other countries which have similar history with Russia. Yet you claim to not understand why they might be fearful enough of Russia to want missile defense systems? Your answer is that US/NATO are forcing themselves on these governments to install systems that could potentially be if retrofitted or redesigned offensive systems. Which is more plausible?

Unfortunately, when displaying the contradictions in your own statements you're response is "but the US did XXX and YYY" in areas that having nothing to do with the topic you started.

I'm now more convinced than ever you've reached a threshold in the Kremlin propaganda machine where suddenly you can't reconcile the various often contradictory stances you've taken or that someone is paying you to take.

 

[Musburger1]

I've already responded to each point with a counter point so there is no need to go over it again. You either refuse to acknowledge what I've written, or you are mentally incapable of comprehending it. Possibly both.

 

[Seattle Husker]

I've already responded to each point with a counter point so there is no need to go over it again. You either refuse to acknowledge what I've written, or you are mentally incapable of comprehending it. Possibly both.

What you wrote was an evasion of the obvious conflict within your argument. A conflict which at least 2 other people on this thread witnessed. Your insults are acknowledgement of that you've reached the limits of your propaganda. Better turn the page on the script.

 

[Musburger1]

I've totally explained the "contradiction" with respect to the sovereignty vs self-determination issue involving the annexation of Crimea. Read it again. In your case, read it ten times.

Had Russia wanted, they could have occupied and annexed part of the Donnass region. They didn't. Russia wants Ukraine as an independent buffer region between Russia and the West. The US wants NATO troops and missiles right next to the Russian border. Which approach is more likely to set off a military confrontation? Ditto Poland and the Baltic States.

 

[Mr. Deez]

Let's go to the beginning. I posted an article from RT and posed a question regarding the legal implication of an agreement for NATO not to permanently deploy troops in new NATO countries. You pointed out, and I agreed with you, that the wording of the agreement was not binding.

Actually you pointed that there was nothing binding, and I agreed with you.

The implication is that the US used a position of strength which Russia signed on to, and due to circumstances since that time, the US has found a legal loophole to do what they said they weren't going to do. Right?

Wrong. Part of the problem with you is that you use a lot of loaded verbiage that helps you jump to false conclusions and spin phony narratives. When you use terms like "legal loophole" and phrases like "do what they said they weren't going to do," you imply that the US is exploiting some ambiguity in the language that wasn't known to one of the parties to the treaty (Russia). That's utter ********.

When governments hire lawyers to draft and review treaties, they don't hire losers. They hire the top legal minds in the world who charge colossal hourly rates. The guys who reviewed this deal for the Russian government would charge you $500 to just to walk into their own conference room and fart in front of you and walk out. They wouldn't hire a guy like me to clean their toilets.
You don't even have my expertise but were still able to read the language and see no binding agreement not to expand NATO or not to deploy troops. Don't you think Russia's legal counsel saw the same issue you saw? Obviously, they did. They knew what they were getting and what they weren't getting. Despite that, you still talk about it as though the Russian government is like a naïve old lady getting duped on some aluminum siding.

So how am I deflecting from the original topic, when the events in Ukraine are very much interwoven into the current events?

The original topic wasn't about current events. It was about about an almost 20 year old agreement between Russia and the US and its application to current events. The fact that one of the events is arguably related to Ukraine is somewhat beside the point.

You want to take every opinion I have, and turn it into practically accusing me of working for the Kremlin.

It's hard not to. You make very firm and unshakable judgments on things even when overwhelming contrary proof is sometimes literally right in your face. Furthermore, your overt bias is frankly beyond even what I hear from most government officials. It's pretty over the top. If you were stupid, I could just dismiss your analysis as the ramblings of an idiot and move on with my life, but you've proven yourself not to be stupid on several occasions. Even on this topic, at a minimum you do the rhetorical dance very well. Do I think you're taking orders from the Kremlin? No, because I don't have any evidence, but you speak like someone who does. If the Kremlin isn't paying you, it should be.

I understand the US point of view, that Russia presents an "existential threat" to Eastern Europe, and that the ABM shield is for the sole purpose of protecting all of Europe.

Actually that's not the US's position on the ABM shield, but you'll dismiss whatever they say without any evidence so there's little point in getting into that.

 

[Musburger1]

Deez, you've once again twisted everything to align with your worldview. A simple question. What is the point to making agreements that are non-binding and meant to be broken? It may be perfectly legal but that doesn't make it ethical.

If you don't see how the Ukraine/Crimean episode; the coup and then the transfer of Crimea back to Russia, acted as a catalyst for the troop buildup I don't know what to say. Not relevant? Sanctions, talk of permanent bases, and missile facilities aren't relevant? You are as delusional as your dim witted buddy from Seattle.

As far as your assumption that I'm a brainwashed stooge influenced by the Kremlin, I assure you I read multiple opinions from independent sources. It just so happens that western sources generally do not provide a platform within mainstream publications for journalists and analysts who offer view points incompatible with the US government. Those western sources that do allow a platform or marginalized as Socialists, Russian agents, and so forth.

The idea that the ABM shield is not directed against Russia, but rather solely to protect against Iran or North Korea is too absurd to discuss. I bet even you don't really believe that to be the case.

 

[Mr. Deez]

Deez, you've once again twisted everything to align with your worldview. A simple question. What is the point to making agreements that? It may be perfectly legal but that doesn't make it ethical.

I'm twisting everything? Lol. Mus, in fact the agreement is binding, wasn't meant to be broken, and wasn't broken. The problem is that you infer something much broader and more onerous into the agreement that isn't there. It's an agreement about the understandings and the intentions of the parties at the time of its execution. It's not a promise to do or not to do something in the future. The US knew this, and Russia knew this. Nothing about it was unethical or nefarious in any way.

If you don't see how the Ukraine/Crimean episode; the coup and then the transfer of Crimea back to Russia, acted as a catalyst for the troop buildup I don't know what to say.

I didn't say that it didn't.

Not relevant? Sanctions, talk of permanent bases, and missile facilities aren't relevant? You are as delusional as your dim witted buddy from Seattle.

It's not relevant to the original issue raised in your post. I'm not saying it isn't relevant to the broader issue of NATO rebuilding its militaries. And again, I have to correct your jump to conclusions. There isn't talk of building missile facilities coming from anyone except you and Russian officials who make the same leaps that you do. The US isn't talking about that and isn't giving any indication that it plans to do that. If it does, it'll probably withdraw from the INF Treaty as it withdrew from the ABM Treaty.

As for Seattle Husker, is he always right? No, and I've argued with him before on several issues. Some of the hard right folks on this board might call him liberal. Nobody in their right mind would call him dim witted. In fact, he's probably one of the most respected people here. He's very sharp, thinks for himself, and doesn't follow anybody's talking points. The fact that you'd suggest that he's dumb says more about your intelligence than his.

As far as your assumption that I'm a brainwashed stooge influenced by the Kremlin, I assure you I read multiple opinions from independent sources.

I can only judge what you post here, and what I see is loaded with false information not based on what I read in Western sources but based on what I've read in the various agreements we've discussed. It is largely propaganda.

The idea that the ABM shield is not directed against Russia, but rather solely to protect against Iran or North Korea is too absurd to discuss. I bet even you don't really believe that to be the case.

Yep, you responded as I thought you would. It's absurd, but the idea that Russia and its army of legal scholars got tricked by something that didn't even trick you isn't absurd.

Frankly, that's absurd.

 

[Seattle Husker]

I've totally explained the "contradiction" with respect to the sovereignty vs self-determination issue involving the annexation of Crimea. Read it again. In your case, read it ten times.

In your rush to insult you're missing that your own rationalization of the Russian violation of the sovereignty of Ukraine while calling the overthrow of a corrupt politician a "coup". In the end, BOTH actions were illegal yet you claim benevolence for the Russian actions. Can you admit that neither action was truly benevolent?

The lens with which you just Russia's actions is not the same as used with others. When this contradiction is plainly displayed you jump to conspiracy theories and media biases. That's what gives credence to the accusation of being a paid Russian internet supporter.

 

[Musburger1]

Do you care to elaborate on your response to my question at the beginning of the last post? I'll repeat it.
What is the point of making non-binding agreements that can be broken at will?

At first you said the agreement was non-binding because there was no verbiage other than at the present time of the agreement, to deploy permanent troops or nuclear weapons. I agreed that was how I interpreted it.

Now I'm asking what the point of the exercise was in the first place. Could this be close? Your reply seems to be that all the lawyers involved are freakin experts. What did it accomplish? A PR victory for somebody? Earlier you indicated it was likely negotiated out of a position of strength by the US. Ok. Probably so. If that was the case, it implies the US was saying, we'll go along with this for now. Play ball and we reserve the right to change our mind because this agreement has no teeth. A decade later Putin comes in and blocks some US actions in both Crimea and Syria. So you had the nerve to oppose our hegemony, now we are going to go counter to what the agreement was because we no longer feel the same.

How is this argument relative to the original post? The conditions in Ukraine/Crimea, facilitated the conditions which put the agreement to the test. Russia was not allowed to pursue its own interests without triggering a change in the mindset of US policy makers. The message is simply, "you ****** our policy of regional interventions and we have changed course from the worthless non-binding deal we both agreed to.

As to your assertion that my conclusions are based on propaganda, I back them up using logic and compare that to the policies and rationale used to support what we are doing in the region. I look at these things in the context of our allies, what their goals are, etc. Based on these, I'm convinced our stated policies do not align with the actual policies. Not only Russian press, but patriotic Americans such as Pat Buchanan, Ron Paul, and David Stockmon are closer to where I am than where you are. Are they agents of the Kremlin?

 

[Musburger1]

In your rush to insult you're missing that your own rationalization of the Russian violation of the sovereignty of Ukraine while calling the overthrow of a corrupt politician a "coup". In the end, BOTH actions were illegal yet you claim benevolence for the Russian actions. Can you admit that neither action was truly benevolent?

The lens with which you just Russia's actions is not the same as used with others. When this contradiction is plainly displayed you jump to conspiracy theories and media biases. That's what gives credence to the accusation of being a paid Russian internet supporter.

Benevolence isn't the issue. The US wanted Ukraine under its influence. Yanukovic was corrupt and the people had a legitimate reason to have him removed. A negotiation was worked out, negotiated by intermediaries (I think France and one or two other countries) where Yanukovich agreed to step down at a designated time later in the year and there would be elections. After the agreement was reached, the protests turned violent and he was removed. The agreement wasn't honored and a Nulans's pre-selected people were inserted. These goons that now ran things hastily proposed and passed anti-Russian speaking measures which frightened the population in the Southeast. Crimea formed groups to oppose the new government, and Russia, fearing the loss of their long time naval port in danger, supported the rebellion. Those are facts. From Russia's vantage, they did nothing wrong.

The lens I view this takes into account the fact that the citizens of Ukraine, especially in the western part, wanted to see a deal signed with the EU and Yanukovic backed out. I understand the US rhetoric was that Russia invaded Crimea and annexed it at gun point. I reject that view as over simplification and incorrect. You can say this opinion is biased toward Russia, but it's certainly not conspiracy theory as I've laid out logic based on both history and interest.

 

[Mr. Deez]

What is the point of making non-binding agreements that can be broken at will? At first you said the agreement was non-binding because there was no verbiage other than at the present time of the agreement, to deploy permanent troops or nuclear weapons. I agreed that was how I interpreted it.

I'm going to back to the answer I previously gave. The agreement that you have in your mind never existed. There was no agreement not to expand NATO. (In fact, if you look at the language in the agreement, you'll see a reference to "new members." Were Russia and NATO anticipating that there would be new NATO members?) There was no agreement not to ever deploy troops to member states. There was no agreement never to deploy nuclear weapons to member states. The agreement simply stated the goals and the positions of the parties as they stood at the time. Now if NATO secretly had plans to deploy nuclear weapons to (for example) Poland at the time the agreement was made, then NATO would have been in breach of the agreement.

Now I'm asking what the point of the exercise was in the first place. Could this be close? Your reply seems to be that all the lawyers involved are freakin experts. What did it accomplish?

Yes, they are would have been experts. However, hiring a lawyer to draft an agreement can only make sure your interests are protected to the extent possible under the circumstances. They can't create leverage where it doesn't exist. However, like I said at the beginning, what Russia's lawyers got wasn't worthless.

A PR victory for somebody?

Unquestionably a PR victory for both sides.

Earlier you indicated it was likely negotiated out of a position of strength by the US. Ok. Probably so. If that was the case, it implies the US was saying, we'll go along with this for now. Play ball and we reserve the right to change our mind because this agreement has no teeth. A decade later Putin comes in and blocks some US actions in both Crimea and Syria. So you had the nerve to oppose our hegemony, now we are going to go counter to what the agreement was because we no longer feel the same.

No, they didn't go counter to what the agreement was, because it never said what you claim it said. By its very terms, it was based on the time and circumstances in place at the time it was signed. And yes, if Russia interferes with or opposes US foreign policy (which it has done in far more areas than just Syria and Crimea), then are you surprised that the US would change its policy with Russia? What country wouldn't do that?

How is this argument relative to the original post? The conditions in Ukraine/Crimea, facilitated the conditions which put the agreement to the test.

Yes, but that's not relevant to applicability of the agreement and whether or not its being violated by anybody.

As to your assertion that my conclusions are based on propaganda, I back them up using logic and compare that to the policies and rationale used to support what we are doing in the region.

When they're full of objectively false statements about treaties and international agreements, your sources lose their credibility. No amount of logic (or what you think is logic) can fix that.

 

[Musburger1]

I'm going to back to the answer I previously gave. The agreement that you have in your mind never existed. There was no agreement not to expand NATO. (In fact, if you look at the language in the agreement, you'll see a reference to "new members." Were Russia and NATO anticipating that there would be new NATO members?) There was no agreement not to ever deploy troops to member states. There was no agreement never to deploy nuclear weapons to member states. The agreement simply stated the goals and the positions of the parties as they stood at the time. Now if NATO secretly had plans to deploy nuclear weapons to (for example) Poland at the time the agreement was made, then NATO would have been in breach of the agreement.
​

Ok. So far, I'm with you.

Yes, they all would have been experts. However, hiring a lawyer to draft an agreement can only make sure your interests are protected to the extent possible under the circumstances. They can't create leverage where it doesn't exist. However, like I said at the beginning, what Russia's lawyers got wasn't worthless.​

But it wasn't worth much. Unless the US was chomping at the bits to move eastward at that time.

Unquestionably a PR victory for both sides.​

Hip, hip hooray.

No, they didn't go counter to what the agreement was, because it never said what you claim it said. By its very terms, it was based on the time and circumstances in place at the time it was signed. And yes, if Russia interferes with or opposes US foreign policy (which it has done in far more areas than just Syria and Crimea), then are you surprised that the US would change its policy with Russia? What country wouldn't do that?​

So, in other words, the agreement had zero relevance to the future. They agreement may as well have said, we'll keep the status quo...until we don't.

Furthermore, you make the assertion that Russia interfered with US policy. Indeed they did; but you neglected to deny that Russia's response was in defense of the actions taken by Ukraine and fully supported by the US which elicited the response.

Yes, but that's not relevant to applicability of the agreement and whether or not its being violated by anybody.​

The Ukraine incident isn't relevant to the agreement in the sense that when the agreement was signed, no one knew what would happen in the future. Which again, illustrates the weakness of the agreement.

When they're full of objectively false statements about treaties and international agreements, your sources lose their credibility. No amount of logic (or what you think is logic) can fix that.​

This is again a broad mischaracterization. You rely on the interpretation of minutia, to distort the big picture. You are the legally trained person, not me. So technically, I'll concede the argument to you. The US did not break an agreement.

The agreement was written in such a way that the US could change terms of the agreement in terms of time; that is, the agreement was only good for the present, and didn't specify any binding time period. It's like I sign agreement with you that for now, I will not burn your house down. But tomorrow, I might decide to give your neighbor a torch. And if you take the torch out of his hand, that I reserve the right to change my mind and burn your house down...because circumstances aren't the same.

The member States of NATO reiterate that they have no intention, no plan and no reason to deploy nuclear weapons on the territory of new members, nor any need to change any aspect of NATO's nuclear posture or nuclear policy - and do not foresee any future need to do so. This subsumes the fact that NATO has decided that it has no intention, no plan, and no reason to establish nuclear weapon storage sites on the territory of those members, whether through the construction of new nuclear storage facilities or the adaptation of old nuclear storage facilities. Nuclear storage sites are understood to be facilities specifically designed for the stationing of nuclear weapons, and include all types of hardened above or below ground facilities (storage bunkers or vaults) designed for storing nuclear weapons.​

After re-reading the paragraph, I noticed something I hadn't before. Note the underlined portion. That part seems to apply to the NATO configuration at that time; not new member states. If I'm not mistaken, the US has recently upped the nuclear ante in Germany (possibly other countries, but Germany for sure). So again, its not a breach of the agreement basically because the agreement was worthless as soon as the ink dried.

The agreement has zero teeth, and no meaning other than to say "we have no intent to harm you....today." But in the grand scope of things, it boils down to the fact that the US has been a uni-power for a quarter of century, and is used to doing basically whatever it wants militarily. Russian and China have begun to challenge that. That isn't necessarily right or wrong. It's just how it is. And both sides will use propaganda to strengthen their position.

So whereas you can technically be correct in stating the US broke now agreement, in essence no meaningful agreement existed. Not really; certainly nothing that governs the reality on the ground in a changing world.

 

[Seattle Husker]

Furthermore, you make the assertion that Russia interfered with US policy. Indeed they did; but you neglected to deny that Russia's response was in defense of the actions taken by Ukraine and fully supported by the US which elicited the response.

Wait, Ukrainian history started with the ouster of Yushschenko? His corrupt administration was being propped up by Russia. Only Russia gets to meddle or are they always responding to the US? It appears US meddling was more effective which might explain the consistent butthurt actions coming from Putin and his propaganda machine.

 

[Musburger1]

Wait, Ukrainian history started with the ouster of Yushschenko? His corrupt administration was being propped up by Russia. Only Russia gets to meddle or are they always responding to the US? It appears US meddling was more effective which might explain the consistent butthurt actions coming from Putin and his propaganda machine.

As far as the US being the more effective meddlar, it depends on how you want to measure success. The US chose "Yats" as the successor even before the coup. That's on tape. And the US got what they wanted. Sort of. Ukraine is now a failed state, Crimea is now part of Russia, and the EU has lost hundreds of millions of dollars due to the sanctions on Russia. So you could argue the US meddling was more effective. But it didn't turn out as planned, did it?

Kind of a whole new topic but since you brought up meddling, let's take a look.

How about the meddling in Iraq? The entire project was based on erroneous intelligence. Was false intelligence intentional? Can't say for sure. That didn't turn out as planned either. The US spent billions erecting the largest embassy in the world (the "green zone"). Instead of a US friendly democracy, we ended up with a corrupt, Iran friendly shia government, and ISIS. Now we did remove a tyrant in Saddam Hussein. But what took his place? Another corrupt government that also has employed death squads, steals money, and further divides the population.

What about Afghanistan? Probably half a trillion dollars later, the Taliban has control of nearly the entire country, and we've resorted to paying off warlords in an effort to hold them back. Heroine is at an all time high. This isn't turning out well. At least there was a rationale to go into Afghanistan, but the nation building attempt was a fiasco. Oh, and many Afghans have fled the country looking for a European home.

What about Libya? Ghadaffi was threatening no one, and Libya posed zero risk to US interests or security. So the US manufactured the tried and true rationale for intervention. We must bomb the country's infrastructure in order to stop the human rights abuse. Talk about irony. Let's make half the country homeless in order to protect human rights. Libya is now a failed state. After this venture, we've seen an outflow of weapons into Africa. The northern part of that continent is now a candidate for a caliphate. Meanwhile, tens of thousands of refugees have exited Libya for Europe.

So what did we do next? The Libya campaign worked so well we should do another one. How can we get something going in Syria? I know, let's play the human rights abuse card again. We'll pay jihadist mercenaries to invade Syria to stop the human rights abuse. Yeah, nothing like fundamental Islamists as a remedy for fighting against a human rights violator. Gee what like a great idea. And we'll get our friendly dictatorship in Saudi Arabia to help fund this project and supply fighters. And we'll enlist our aspiring dictator in Turkey, our good NATO buddy, to open their borders and let the jihadists enter. It's worked out so great. Millions have lost their homes and continue to flood into Europe (and Obama is welcoming some into the US). But killing tens of thousands, destroying the infrastructure, and making millions homeless is a small price to pay for restoring human rights.

Do you see a pattern yet? Russia didn't figure into the initiation of any of these scenarios other than Ukraine. Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria - those are our babies. Every single intervention has led to an expansion of terrorism, an exodus of the population, and the spending of billions more in tax dollars. The US was involved in every one of these campaigns from the get-go; you know, to make the world a better place. Safe from all the tyrants. Accept the one in the mirror.

 

[Mr. Deez]

But it wasn't worth much. Unless the US was chomping at the bits to move eastward at that time.

Like I said previously, it was worth goodwill, which led to economic opportunity, and that was a big deal for Russia. In the '90s, the Russian economy was a mess. It wasn't just weak or in recession. It had major fundamental problems - plenty of raw materials but poor infrastructure, lots of corruption, little comprehension of money or modern economics, etc. They needed Western investment to help modernize their economy and build their infrastructure, and they needed access to Western markets. If they had tried to play hardball, they wouldn't have gotten any of that, and they wouldn't be in much better shape today than they were in the '90s.

Furthermore, they got a pretty nice deal in context. They had just lost the Cold War, and their country was **** in pretty much every respect, and everybody knew it. There was no bluffing to be done. We could have screwed with them in so many ways. We could have isolated them from the world or even worse. We could have exploited their weakness, attacked them, and completely finished them off. We could have finished the job Hitler failed to do. Instead, we invested money in them and gave them access to Western markets. Who the hell does that to a sworn enemy it just defeated? Would the Soviet Union have been that gracious had the US collapsed? Hell no. They would have kicked the living **** out of us.

So, in other words, the agreement had zero relevance to the future.

Stop saying "in other words." When you summarize what I say, you always throw in your spin and frequently misspeak. The agreement did not bind the future, but it was relevant to it, because it did identify what both sides expected in the future and what plans they had in the future.

Furthermore, you make the assertion that Russia interfered with US policy. Indeed they did; but you neglected to deny that Russia's response was in defense of the actions taken by Ukraine and fully supported by the US which elicited the response.

My issue here is narrow. I'm not interested in getting sidetracked down that rabbit's trail and having my point get lost.

This is again a broad mischaracterization. You rely on the interpretation of minutia, to distort the big picture. You are the legally trained person, not me. So technically, I'll concede the argument to you. The US did not break an agreement.

What I've done requires no legal training, and there's really very little room for interpretation. It requires about a 10th grade reading level and a willingness to read the documents carefully and as they're written. It's pretty plain and unambiguous language. Interpreting minutia would be inferring intent from things like comma placement and making very nuanced distinctions in the definitions of words. I'm not doing any of that.

The agreement was written in such a way that the US could change terms of the agreement in terms of time; that is, the agreement was only good for the present, and didn't specify any binding time period.

The terms of the agreement are not being changed.

The agreement has zero teeth, and no meaning other than to say "we have no intent to harm you....today."

That's true of both sides. However, let's revisit the status of things in 1997. The US had no idea where Russia was heading. It was a promising but still unstable democracy. Do you think it would have been wise for the US to make significant commitments on its future defense posture? How would that have been smart?

And both sides will use propaganda to strengthen their position.

I'm sure they do, though you rarely admit that yours does. The big difference is that I caught your side in blatant dishonesty. They went beyond the realm of mere spin.

 

[Musburger1]

You posit that the agreement was a magnanimous gesture to Russia to help them build infrastructure. That we could have attacked them. left them isolated, etc. I'm not sure what you mean by attacking them. Surely you don't mean the US should have declared war and bombed the country after the USSR had just dissolved.
Let's be truthful. There was no reason to isolate the Russia either, because there is a plethora of natural resources and with the dissolution of the Soviet Union, those resources could be integrated into the globalized economy. In short, there was a window of opportunity for the corporate world. What ensued was a lawless grabbing of the resources by both western interests and Russian oligarchs. The infrastructure of Russia was not developed and the general well being of the population went from bad to worse. It wasn't until the combination of Putin coming to power, and higher global energy prices, that the lot of the Russian people began to improve. Don't try to pass off the horse **** that the US was being acting out of some kind of benevolence here.

When I state an opinion, I'm not necessarily misspeaking, simply because your interpretation is different and often erroneous.
​

 

[Musburger1]

I'm sure they do, though you rarely admit that yours does. The big difference is that I caught your side in blatant dishonesty. They went beyond the realm of mere spin.​

I'm not sure what you are referring to. Can you be specific? As far as spin (lies if you prefer), what we've seen from the United States in this regard is as close to anything since Nazi Germany.

Iraq was collaborating with Al Qeda and was producing weapons of mass production. Spin. Blatant dishonesty.
We must bomb Libya to prevent the human rights abuse. Spin. Blatant dishonesty.
We must help the "moderate rebels" to remove Assad to end the human rights abuse. Spin. Blatant dishonesty.
Russia invaded Crimea. Spin. Blatant dishonesty.
The ABM missiles will be deployed to protect Europe from an Iranian attack. Spin. Blatant dishonesty.

The entire US foreign policy decisions are supported by spin and Blatant dishonesty.

 

[Mr. Deez]

You posit that the agreement was a magnanimous gesture to Russia to help them build infrastructure.

It had many purposes, but yes, helping a struggling former enemy that wanted to incorporate itself into the civilized world was part of it. No doubt.

That we could have attacked them. left them isolated, etc. I'm not sure what you mean by attacking them. Surely you don't mean the US should have declared war and bombed the country after the USSR had just dissolved.

No, I'm not saying that we should have declared war. What I'm saying is that for a collapsing enemy, they got a good deal. We could have treated Russia the way France and Britain treated Germany after WWI or the way the Soviet Union treated East Germany and all of Eastern Europe after WWII.

There was no reason to isolate the Russia either, because there is a plethora of natural resources and with the dissolution of the Soviet Union, those resources could be integrated into the globalized economy. In short, there was a window of opportunity for the corporate world.

The West could have taken the natural resources. They didn't have to pay for them or grant the Russian government or its people any benefit from them. In other words, the West could have actually behaved like the aggressors you claim them to be.

It wasn't until the combination of Putin coming to power, and higher global energy prices, that the lot of the Russian people began to improve. Don't try to pass off the horse **** that the US was being acting out of some kind of benevolence here.

Putin couldn't have done diddly dick without Western investment and without access to Western markets. Oil and natural resources are worthless if you can't get them to market and sell them to somebody.

I'm not sure what you are referring to. Can you be specific? As far as spin (lies if you prefer), what we've seen from the United States in this regard is as close to anything since Nazi Germany.

Iraq was collaborating with Al Qeda and was producing weapons of mass production. Spin. Blatant dishonesty.
We must bomb Libya to prevent the human rights abuse. Spin. Blatant dishonesty.
We must help the "moderate rebels" to remove Assad to end the human rights abuse. Spin. Blatant dishonesty.
Russia invaded Crimea. Spin. Blatant dishonesty.
The ABM missiles will be deployed to protect Europe from an Iranian attack. Spin. Blatant dishonesty.

The entire US foreign policy decisions are supported by spin and Blatant dishonesty.

Not remotely comparable for two reasons. First, being wrong isn't the same as being dishonest. Sometimes being wrong means you acted on incorrect information or misjudgment. Second, many of the issues you cite above are based on characterization and suspicion, not objective fact. However, when you say Nation A is violating a treaty because they are doing X and the treaty says nothing about Nation A not being allowed to do X, that's not an error in judgment or being uninformed. It's a lie.

Also, I want to come back to this question, which you blew off:

That's true of both sides. However, let's revisit the status of things in 1997. The US had no idea where Russia was heading. It was a promising but still unstable democracy. Do you think it would have been wise for the US to make significant commitments on its future defense posture? How would that have been smart?

Can you answer this question?

 

[Musburger1]

I think the question was answered in the context of my previous response. Let me clarify.

1. The potential military catastrophe that lies ahead isn't attributable to the agreement that was signed in 1997. Hence, your conclusion that the agreement as constructed and signed was a wise policy decision by the US is valid as far as I'm concerned.

2. The problem as I see it is that the US decided it was in its interest to implement aggressive policies that are incompatible with the spirit of the agreement at the time it was made. The $5 billion dollar "investment" in Ukraine as described by Victoria Nuland was a major catalyst which set in motion the arms race both sides are now engaged in, as well as the previous move to make Georgia a member of NATO and then the Georgian military attack on the resistance in Ossetia.

I'm going to start a new thread which references US foreign policy with respect to Russia for the three or four people who might give a damn to read and comment.