Bastards! :mad:
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/29/world/europe/us-says-russia-tested-cruise-missile-in-violation-of-treaty.html?_r=0
QuoteRussians' Test Called Breach Of Missile Pact
By MICHAEL R. GORDONJULY 28, 2014
The United States has concluded that Russia violated a landmark arms control treaty by testing a prohibited ground-launched cruise missile, according to senior American officials, a finding that was conveyed by President Obama to President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia in a letter on Monday.
It is the most serious allegation of an arms control treaty violation that the Obama administration has leveled against Russia and adds another dispute to a relationship already burdened by tensions over the Kremlin's support for separatists in Ukraine and its decision to grant asylum to Edward J. Snowden, the former National Security Agency contractor.
At the heart of the issue is the 1987 treaty that bans medium-range missiles, which are defined as ground-launched ballistic or cruise missiles capable of flying 300 to 3,400 miles. That accord, which was signed by President Ronald Reagan and Mikhail S. Gorbachev, the Soviet leader, helped seal the end of the Cold War and has been regarded as a cornerstone of American-Russian arms control efforts.
Russia first began testing the cruise missiles as early as 2008, according to American officials, and the Obama administration concluded by the end of 2011 that they were a compliance concern. In May 2013, Rose Gottemoeller, the State Department's senior arms control official, first raised the possibility of a violation with Russian officials.
The New York Times reported in January that American officials had informed the NATO allies that Russia had tested a ground-launched cruise missile, raising serious concerns about Russia's compliance with the Intermediate-range Nuclear Forces Treaty, or I.N.F. Treaty as it is commonly called. The State Department said at the time that the issue was under review and that the Obama administration was not yet ready to formally declare it to be a treaty violation.
In recent months, however, the issue has been taken up by top-level officials, including a meeting early this month of the Principals' Committee, a cabinet-level body that includes Mr. Obama's national security adviser, the defense secretary, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the secretary of state and the director of the Central Intelligence Agency. Senior officials said the president's most senior advisers unanimously agreed that the test was a serious violation, and the allegation will be made public soon in the State Department's annual report on international compliance with arms control agreements.
"The United States has determined that the Russian Federation is in violation of its obligations under the I.N.F. treaty not to possess, produce or flight test a ground-launched cruise missile (GLCM) with a range capability of 500 kilometers to 5,500 kilometers or to possess or produce launchers of such missiles," that report will say.
In his letter to Mr. Putin, delivered by the American Embassy, Mr. Obama underscored his interest in a high-level dialogue with Moscow with the aim of preserving the 1987 treaty and discussing steps the Kremlin might take to come back into compliance. Secretary of State John Kerry delivered a similar message in a Sunday phone call to Sergey V. Lavrov, the Russian foreign minister.
Continue reading the main story
Because the treaty proscribes testing ground-launched cruise missiles of medium-range, the Kremlin cannot undo the violation. But administration officials do not believe the cruise missile has been deployed and say there are measures the Russians can take to ameliorate the problem.
Administration officials declined to say what such steps might be, but arms control experts say they could include a promise not to deploy the system and inspections to demonstrate that the cruise missiles and their launchers have been destroyed. Because the missiles are small and easily concealed, obtaining complete confidence that the weapons have been eliminated might be difficult.
NATO's top commander, Gen. Philip M. Breedlove, has said that the violation requires a response if it cannot be resolved.
"A weapon capability that violates the I.N.F., that is introduced into the greater European land mass, is absolutely a tool that will have to be dealt with," he said in an interview in April. "It can't go unanswered." Mr. Obama has determined that the United States will not retaliate against the Russians by violating the treaty and deploying its own prohibited medium-range system, officials said. So the responses might include deploying sea- and air-launched cruise missiles, which would be an allowable under the accord.
Republican lawmakers have repeatedly criticized the administration for dragging its feet on the issue. Ms. Gottemoeller, the State Department official, has had no discussions with her Russian counterparts on the subject since February. And Mr. Kerry's call on Sunday was the first time he had directly raised the violation with Mr. Lavrov, State Department officials said. Administration officials said the upheaval in Ukraine pushed the issue to the back burner and that the downturn in American-Russian relations has led to an interruption of regular arms-control meetings.
The prospects for resolving the violation were also uncertain at best. After Ms. Gottemoeller first raised the matter in 2013, Russian officials said that they had looked into the matter and consider the issue to be closed.
The Russians have also raised their own allegations, a move that American officials believe is intended to muddy the issue and perhaps give them leverage in any negotiations over compliance. One month after Ms. Gottemoeller raised the American concerns, the Russians responded by pointing to the United States plans to base the Aegis missile system in Romania.
The Aegis system, which is commonly used on warships, would be used to protect American and NATO forces from missile attacks. But the Russians have alleged that it could be used to fire prohibited cruise missiles.
When Mr. Kerry spoke with Mr. Lavrov on Sunday, the Russian foreign minister cited Russia's concerns over "decoys." That may have been a reference to Russian charges that the targets that the United States uses in antimissile tests are an I.N.F. treaty violation. American officials regard that allegation, about the issue of the Aegis system and complaints about the use of targets, to be spurious.
Continue reading the main story
An underlying concern of the Obama administration in dealing with the Russians is that the Kremlin may not be wedded to the I.N.F. agreement. During the George W. Bush administration, some Russians officials argued that the treaty should be dropped so that the Kremlin could augment its military abilities to deal with threats on its periphery, including China and Pakistan.
In a June 2013 meeting with Russian defense industry officials, Mr. Putin described Mr. Gorbachev's decision to sign the accord as "debatable to say the least," but asserted that Russia would uphold the agreement. Even some American conservative analysts say that in pursing the compliance concern, the United States should not provide the Kremlin with an opportunity to back out of the agreement.
"For the United States to declare that we are pulling out of the treaty in response to what Russia has done would actually be welcome in Moscow because they are wrestling with the question of how they terminate," Stephen Rademaker, a former Bush administration official, told the House Armed Services Committee this month. "We shouldn't make it any easier for them. We should force them to take the onus of that."
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fqfxblog.files.wordpress.com%2F2012%2F03%2F08-dr-strangelove.jpg&hash=dce47b96599e57546865476d047ddfd673b41ae8)
User comment:
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jul/29/us-says-russia-breached-nuclear-treaty
QuoteWith each passing day, the fascist regime in Washington finds new ways to try and reignite the cold war. Its like a flashback to the scene in Doctor Strangelove, in which George C. Scott's character laments the (then) alliance between the US and Germany, wishing we could become enemies again so we could have a proper war. Only this time the comedy is much, much darker.
I wonder why the Russians do not protest over the US contributions to the nuclear weapons programs of India and Israel, two of the nuclear powers that have not signed the Nonproliferation Treaty. Now that Obama has escallated, perhaps they will. And, oh, by the way, the US routinely tests its own cruise missiles, platforms that are quite capable of carrying nuclear warheads.
Reset! Reset!
Quote from: Syt on July 29, 2014, 04:51:35 AM
User comment:
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jul/29/us-says-russia-breached-nuclear-treaty
QuoteWith each passing day, the fascist regime in Washington finds new ways to try and reignite the cold war. Its like a flashback to the scene in Doctor Strangelove, in which George C. Scott's character laments the (then) alliance between the US and Germany, wishing we could become enemies again so we could have a proper war. Only this time the comedy is much, much darker.
I wonder why the Russians do not protest over the US contributions to the nuclear weapons programs of India and Israel, two of the nuclear powers that have not signed the Nonproliferation Treaty. Now that Obama has escallated, perhaps they will. And, oh, by the way, the US routinely tests its own cruise missiles, platforms that are quite capable of carrying nuclear warheads.
Worth the one ruble sixty seven he was paid for writing it.
Which was worse?
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcdn.historycommons.org%2Fimages%2Fevents%2Fb027_bush_mission_accomplished_2050081722-7750.jpg&hash=fe8f4968a50c0f964bd876e046cfa5341c45cac5)
or
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi2.cdn.turner.com%2Fcnn%2F2009%2Fimages%2F03%2F06%2Fart.clintonlavrov1.gi.jpg&hash=1599a11815b7d4ea461b201ef0913c75a9e62121)
In public perception, the first one is way worse. Second one doesn't get rehashed nearly as much.
True. One could argue that the first was, in substance, pretty much harmless though.
The second, in hindsight (and actually even at the time for many of us) was clearly just showing Russia how amateur the Obama Administration was...
The first one was "hells yeah, we kicked their ass and won the war" and then said war/conflict dragged on and on and on and on, and arguably has destabilised the entire region beyond repair, with the US ending up creating a shitload of problems for herself where there was much less beforehand.
The second one on the other hand was naïve, but I would argue that it was necessary: despite the US making a fool out of itself for trying hard and appease Putin and treat him like a human being, Russian propaganda still justifies all its aggressive actions as countering US aggression. Imagine if the reset button didn't happen.
Quote from: Berkut on July 29, 2014, 09:17:15 AM
True. One could argue that the first was, in substance, pretty much harmless though.
The second, in hindsight (and actually even at the time for many of us) was clearly just showing Russia how amateur the Obama Administration was...
The first one wasn't harmless at all. It showed how unprepared the administration was for even thinking about post invasion Iraq, which they bungled quite badly.
Quote from: Tamas on July 29, 2014, 09:20:20 AM
The first one was "hells yeah, we kicked their ass and won the war" and then said war/conflict dragged on and on and on and on, and arguably has destabilised the entire region beyond repair, with the US ending up creating a shitload of problems for herself where there was much less beforehand.
The picture didn't create any of that though - it is just symbolic of the short sighted view of the conflict. The audience was the US, it's not like the people who went on to create more strife in Iraq were encouraged by it.
Quote
The second one on the other hand was naïve, but I would argue that it was necessary: despite the US making a fool out of itself for trying hard and appease Putin and treat him like a human being, Russian propaganda still justifies all its aggressive actions as countering US aggression. Imagine if the reset button didn't happen.
I am imagining, and I can't see any possible negative to US interests by not sucking up to Putin at that time. It was, IMO, perfectly clear then that Putin was not someone who you could flatter or diplomacize into playing nice, and rather any attempt to do so would just encourage him.
You could argue that the audience for the move was not Putin, but rather the rest of the world - an attempt to show everyone else how impossible Russia is to work with (See how nice we were? And they were still assholes!) but it wasn't positioned that way at all at the time. Rather this was an honest and sincere attempt to actually get Russia to play nice, as if all that was needed to accomplish that was the sincere belief that the primary problem to relations prior to the "reset" was the previous administration.
It was, at that time, seen as grossly naive and playing into Putin's strength. Hindsight has shown that that was very much the case.
The least damaging argument you can make to defend the move is to note that it probably didn't matter all that much - Putin doesn't give a shit what the West or anyone else things about what he does anyway, *his* audience seems to be entirely internal.
Quote from: frunk on July 29, 2014, 09:22:15 AM
Quote from: Berkut on July 29, 2014, 09:17:15 AM
True. One could argue that the first was, in substance, pretty much harmless though.
The second, in hindsight (and actually even at the time for many of us) was clearly just showing Russia how amateur the Obama Administration was...
The first one wasn't harmless at all. It showed how unprepared the administration was for even thinking about post invasion Iraq, which they bungled quite badly.
No doubt, but in that case it was just the symptom of the problem, the action itself was immaterial.
The "reset" fiasco was directed at the actual players involved, and pretty much told Putin that we were ready and positioned to be abused.
I don't think any insurgents in Iraq were all "Oh man, I was going to go ahead and cooperate, but after that picture I am totally going to blow some people up!"
If we are just comparing pictures then the second is more damaging then the first. If we are comparing the mindsets that led to the pictures being taken then the first is still much more damaging. Not only did it show how unready we were for dealing with things post-invasion but that this wasn't even much of a priority when the invasion was being planned/considered.
Quote from: frunk on July 29, 2014, 09:33:59 AM
If we are just comparing pictures then the second is more damaging then the first. If we are comparing the mindsets that led to the pictures being taken then the first is still much more damaging. Not only did it show how unready we were for dealing with things post-invasion but that this wasn't even much of a priority when the invasion was being planned/considered.
Oh yeah, no question there.
Quote from: Berkut on July 29, 2014, 09:17:15 AM
The second, in hindsight (and actually even at the time for many of us) was clearly just showing Russia how amateur the Obama Administration was...
Yep. There's something to be said for trying to improve relations with Russia at that time, but gimmicky gestures like that just get under my skin. What also annoyed me was how they seemed to be throwing the previous administration under the bus, as if the Bush Administration had been mostly responsible for poor US-Russia relations.
Quote from: derspiess on July 29, 2014, 09:46:45 AM
Quote from: Berkut on July 29, 2014, 09:17:15 AM
The second, in hindsight (and actually even at the time for many of us) was clearly just showing Russia how amateur the Obama Administration was...
Yep. There's something to be said for trying to improve relations with Russia at that time, but gimmicky gestures like that just get under my skin. What also annoyed me was how they seemed to be throwing the previous administration under the bus, as if the Bush Administration had been mostly responsible for poor US-Russia relations.
Having finished reading Gates memoir, I think that is exactly how the Obama administration thought at that time. That the previous occupants were just unthinking goons, and *they* were the smart ones, and THEY could get this sorted out, because doesn't everyone really just want to get along? We just need to show the world that we are NOTBUSH and things will work themselves out.
Quote from: Berkut on July 29, 2014, 10:05:19 AM
Having finished reading Gates memoir, I think that is exactly how the Obama administration thought at that time. That the previous occupants were just unthinking goons, and *they* were the smart ones, and THEY could get this sorted out, because doesn't everyone really just want to get along? We just need to show the world that we are NOTBUSH and things will work themselves out.
Obama got Nobel Prize just for thinking this.
http://rt.com/politics/176396-moscow-usa-reset-unlikely/
QuoteTop Russian diplomat expects no new reset in relations with US
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcdn.rt.com%2Ffiles%2Fnews%2F2b%2F10%2Fc0%2F00%2Flavrov.si.jpg&hash=1fd8192436446f487ba01ed046eaa1f523edabff)
Russia's deputy foreign minister says relations with the US will not improve in the near future, as Washington's sanctions policy has already gone too far.
"Of course, there will be no new 'reset' like the one that happened a few years ago, and that yielded some positive results, I am still sure that this period was marked with a number of positive changes in Russian-US relations. But now I cannot foresee or expect anything like this," Sergey Ryabkov said in an interview with the Russian media.
"It is unlikely, because Washington has gone too far in its anti-Russian rhetoric and the constant urge to punish us for something, now it will be difficult to 'rewind' the situation," he noted.
The Russian diplomat said it was very regretful the US foreign policy doctrine does not extend beyond the use of sanctions and quasi-sanctions in reply for all events that do not satisfy their current desires.
Ryabkov also said that Russian authorities were facing a major setback in cooperation with the United States and this setback was because of the US initiative.
"We have not touched a single issue in order to, let's say, demonstratively influence the minds and moods in Washington. Everything we are doing is just a reciprocal measure and a reaction to the inadmissible steps performed by the USA," he said.
The traditional cooperation formats have already been frozen, and the possibility of their restoration remains rather vague in the current conditions, the official stated. The Russian side would like to hope these were not liquidated completely, he said.
Still, the top Russian diplomat emphasized that Moscow would continue the dialogue and would calmly inform all its partners about Russia's positions on all issues, defending its interests.
Ryabkov's statements came against a background of the threat of new sanctions against Russian companies and officials that come from Washington and Brussels. Earlier this year the USA, the EU and several US allies, like Canada and Australia introduced entry bans and asset freezes against Russian officials, politicians and heads of state-owned corporations over Russia's alleged complicity in the current crisis in Ukraine and the accession of the Crimean Republic into the Russian Federation that was strongly opposed by the West, despite being almost unanimously welcomed by Crimeans.
Quote from: Berkut on July 29, 2014, 10:05:19 AM
Quote from: derspiess on July 29, 2014, 09:46:45 AM
Quote from: Berkut on July 29, 2014, 09:17:15 AM
The second, in hindsight (and actually even at the time for many of us) was clearly just showing Russia how amateur the Obama Administration was...
Yep. There's something to be said for trying to improve relations with Russia at that time, but gimmicky gestures like that just get under my skin. What also annoyed me was how they seemed to be throwing the previous administration under the bus, as if the Bush Administration had been mostly responsible for poor US-Russia relations.
Having finished reading Gates memoir, I think that is exactly how the Obama administration thought at that time. That the previous occupants were just unthinking goons, and *they* were the smart ones, and THEY could get this sorted out, because doesn't everyone really just want to get along? We just need to show the world that we are NOTBUSH and things will work themselves out.
Yep, agreed. I think the Obama admin felt that their words and good vibes would go a long way to win over others, but many, like Putin, read that as breathing room and a green light to continue on how they wanted.
For Bush with the "Mission Accomplished" that was a mistake and the whole episode of him landing on the carrior should never have been done, because winning in the Iraq invasion was by far the easier part than winning the occupation which would be long and costly, as they should have realized. If they didn't realize it then they were even bigger fools for such a huge mishandling of the situation.
Wait, they did actually make a photo-op with the reset button? Jesus Christ, I thought it was just a figure of speech.
That said, I think there was nothing bad in trying to normalize relations with Russia at that moment though, the US doesn't have that many actual interests in there when you really think of it, and it was sensible to focus elsewhere.
Nothing at all bad with trying to normalize relations - that isn't the issue. It is the means to that end that was such a fuck up.
That being said, I don't think it was likely possible to normalize relations really, but that doesn't mean it isn't worth trying.
Quote from: derspiess on July 29, 2014, 09:10:49 AM
In public perception, the first one is way worse. Second one doesn't get rehashed nearly as much.
I had no idea Merkel was on Letterman.
Wait, we are comparing intro Obama to intro Bush and discussing Putin, and we aren't talking about Bush looking into Putin's soul and seeing goodness?
That was much more stupid and cringeworthy than the reset button.
Quote from: celedhring on July 29, 2014, 11:30:15 AM
Wait, they did actually make a photo-op with the reset button? Jesus Christ, I thought it was just a figure of speech.
Supposedly they also misspelled the word "reset" in Russian.
Quote from: alfred russel on July 29, 2014, 12:12:32 PM
Quote from: celedhring on July 29, 2014, 11:30:15 AM
Wait, they did actually make a photo-op with the reset button? Jesus Christ, I thought it was just a figure of speech.
Supposedly they also misspelled the word "reset" in Russian.
DG ALERT
Quote from: derspiess on July 29, 2014, 09:10:49 AM
In public perception, the first one is way worse. Second one doesn't get rehashed nearly as much.
Gets rehashed quite a bit on Breitbart.
Quote from: Razgovory on July 29, 2014, 12:26:58 PM
Quote from: derspiess on July 29, 2014, 09:10:49 AM
In public perception, the first one is way worse. Second one doesn't get rehashed nearly as much.
Gets rehashed quite a bit on Breitbart.
Yeah, but I wasn't talking about the right wing echo chamber now, was I?
Quote from: alfred russel on July 29, 2014, 12:12:32 PM
Quote from: celedhring on July 29, 2014, 11:30:15 AM
Wait, they did actually make a photo-op with the reset button? Jesus Christ, I thought it was just a figure of speech.
Supposedly they also misspelled the word "reset" in Russian.
Maybe it meant something vulgar instead then... no wonder the reset didn't work! ;)
Quote from: derspiess on July 29, 2014, 12:29:05 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on July 29, 2014, 12:26:58 PM
Quote from: derspiess on July 29, 2014, 09:10:49 AM
In public perception, the first one is way worse. Second one doesn't get rehashed nearly as much.
Gets rehashed quite a bit on Breitbart.
Yeah, but I wasn't talking about the right wing echo chamber now, was I?
Actually I don't know what you were talking about in particular.
Quote from: Razgovory on July 29, 2014, 12:33:42 PM
Actually I don't know what you were talking about in particular.
:D Btw I bottled my Razgovory Wheat Beer last weekend. Should be ready to test on Friday.
Quote from: alfred russel on July 29, 2014, 12:11:37 PM
Wait, we are comparing intro Obama to intro Bush and discussing Putin, and we aren't talking about Bush looking into Putin's soul and seeing goodness?
Maybe Putin was borrowing one.
Gerhard Schröder said when he was chancellor that Putin was a "flawless democrat," and why would he lie?
Quote from: Syt on July 29, 2014, 12:56:36 PM
Gerhard Schröder said when he was chancellor that Putin was a "flawless democrat," and why would he lie?
:yes: Obama wants to create the USSA.
QuoteQuoteThe Russian diplomat said it was very regretful the US foreign policy doctrine does not extend beyond the use of sanctions and quasi-sanctions in reply for all events that do not satisfy their current desires.
Damn people usually whine we bomb too much. Now they whine we stop at sanctions. There is just no satisfying people.
Quote from: Syt on July 29, 2014, 04:51:35 AM
User comment:
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jul/29/us-says-russia-breached-nuclear-treaty
QuoteWith each passing day, the fascist regime in Washington finds new ways to try and reignite the cold war. Its like a flashback to the scene in Doctor Strangelove, in which George C. Scott's character laments the (then) alliance between the US and Germany, wishing we could become enemies again so we could have a proper war. Only this time the comedy is much, much darker.
I wonder why the Russians do not protest over the US contributions to the nuclear weapons programs of India and Israel, two of the nuclear powers that have not signed the Nonproliferation Treaty.
The Russians don't protest over Israel because the key contributor there was France, not the US. They don't protest over India because it was the USSR that provided technical assistance to transform the civilian nuclear program in India into a viable weapons program, and the Russian regime is ill-placed to complain about past Soviet action.
There really needs to be an emergency medical outreach to Guardian readers to treat their allergy to facts.
Quote from: derspiess on July 29, 2014, 12:35:52 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on July 29, 2014, 12:33:42 PM
Actually I don't know what you were talking about in particular.
:D Btw I bottled my Razgovory Wheat Beer last weekend. Should be ready to test on Friday.
Sweet! Drink in good health!
Quote from: derspiess on July 29, 2014, 09:10:49 AM
In public perception, the first one is way worse. Second one doesn't get rehashed nearly as much.
It's not 2016 yet.
Quote from: DGuller on July 29, 2014, 02:28:41 PM
Quote from: derspiess on July 29, 2014, 09:10:49 AM
In public perception, the first one is way worse. Second one doesn't get rehashed nearly as much.
It's not 2016 yet.
The first one was related to deaths of thousands of Americans and God knows how many Iraqis. The second one, not so much.
Quote from: Razgovory on July 29, 2014, 02:30:38 PM
Quote from: DGuller on July 29, 2014, 02:28:41 PM
Quote from: derspiess on July 29, 2014, 09:10:49 AM
In public perception, the first one is way worse. Second one doesn't get rehashed nearly as much.
It's not 2016 yet.
The first one was related to deaths of thousands of Americans and God knows how many Iraqis. The second one, not so much.
The enemies that you created are not as scary as the enemies that chose to become your enemy. Misjudging the first type is not nearly as dangerous as misjudging the second type.
Wait, what?
Quote from: Berkut on July 29, 2014, 09:17:15 AMThe second, in hindsight (and actually even at the time for many of us) was clearly just showing Russia how amateur the Obama Administration was...
this comment is loaded with hindsight, though. i don't think the obama administration has been perfect, but at that time it was a worthwhile attempt
Quote"A weapon capability that violates the I.N.F., that is introduced into the greater European land mass, is absolutely a tool that will have to be dealt with," he said in an interview in April. "It can't go unanswered." Mr. Obama has determined that the United States will not retaliate against the Russians by violating the treaty and deploying its own prohibited medium-range system, officials said. So the responses might include deploying sea- and air-launched cruise missiles, which would be an allowable under the accord.
Considering Dubya withdrew from the ABM Treaty--notably the first time the US abrogated its responsibilities to the concept of arms control to work on the MDA Maginot Line, how's that for American exceptionalism in global leadership--I don't see how this is worse.
Quote from: LaCroix on July 29, 2014, 08:43:27 PM
Quote from: Berkut on July 29, 2014, 09:17:15 AMThe second, in hindsight (and actually even at the time for many of us) was clearly just showing Russia how amateur the Obama Administration was...
this comment is loaded with hindsight, though. i don't think the obama administration has been perfect, but at that time it was a worthwhile attempt
I can see why you would think that, but in fact I thought it was naive and amateurish even at the time.
Hindsight just proves that my fears were right.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 30, 2014, 12:08:20 AM
Quote"A weapon capability that violates the I.N.F., that is introduced into the greater European land mass, is absolutely a tool that will have to be dealt with," he said in an interview in April. "It can't go unanswered." Mr. Obama has determined that the United States will not retaliate against the Russians by violating the treaty and deploying its own prohibited medium-range system, officials said. So the responses might include deploying sea- and air-launched cruise missiles, which would be an allowable under the accord.
Considering Dubya withdrew from the ABM Treaty--notably the first time the US abrogated its responsibilities to the concept of arms control to work on the MDA Maginot Line, how's that for American exceptionalism in global leadership--I don't see how this is worse.
Not even remotely the same.
Bush withdrew from the treaty - a treaty is not a "till death do us part" pact. The US notified Russia that it had decided that their interests were no longer served by the treaty, and they would be ending it.
That is not the same at all as violating a treaty that you've agreed to.
Well at least we'll have those anti-ballistic missiles now, so we don't have to worry about the Russians cheating on the INF. So it's all good.
Quote from: LaCroix on July 29, 2014, 08:43:27 PM
Quote from: Berkut on July 29, 2014, 09:17:15 AMThe second, in hindsight (and actually even at the time for many of us) was clearly just showing Russia how amateur the Obama Administration was...
this comment is loaded with hindsight, though. i don't think the obama administration has been perfect, but at that time it was a worthwhile attempt
Not really everybody was mocking it at the time. Just like we mocked Dubya thinking he saw goodness in Putin's soul.
I don't really think ABM treaty mattered much, whatever the State of ABM technology (and it is genuinely far improved) unless it's a perfect shield against thousands of simultaneous targets it's never going to be a true dome of absolute protection. But, it by sinking money into it, it pushes our enemies into having to spend money on a large number of potential war heads and/or more technologically sophisticated delivery systems down the line. Basically it's continuing an arms race that we would always win due to being far richer than Russia will ever be.
The problem with Obama's relationship with Russia, is I think he views or at least viewed international relations like he does domestic relations. Like most liberals (or conservatives) Obama has lived his political life in a bubble of people that strongly agree with him. He thinks the people who disagree with him are stupid, and simply wrong on almost every issue. He believes that if you speak pretty enough, campaign hard enough, his superior ideas will be able to win over at least a majority of people and then he's "won" and what he wants to happen will then happen.
He basically thought Russia was the same, that they were wrong-headed but at least in part because Bush was stupid in how he dealt with other countries. All it would take is the same kind of pretty talk that got him elected to fix the Russia problem. I don't believe to this day Obama understands that on a fundamental level Russia cannot be what Putin wants it to be (a Great Power at minimum, potentially positioned to some day be a super power again) without doing this stuff. There is no point of compromise because what Putin wants is Russia to be more powerful, and Russia cannot be more powerful as long as parts of the Russian Empire remain independent of him.
This may not be true for the other BRICs countries, but in all honesty the term BRIC is nonsense. All the countries on that list except Russia have consistently had really high economic growth related primarily to lots of different industries and a growing educated population. Russia has a stagnating population and its economy essentially only does well based on the global energy market, they have no real substantial other industry driving their economy. Fundamentally Russia is more like an Old Europe style economy with more natural resources. Russia won't become more powerful due to internal growth like you can expect India or China to become, so only the old fashioned way has any chance of working. I think it will ultimately fail even in that regard though, because the old fashioned way doesn't work so well anyway. Take Crimea, every analysis I've seen has suggested that relative to the Russian economy, propping up Crimea and taking responsibility for its pension payments, the deficit it always runs and needs subsidized from the rest of the country and etc it's just an extremely, extremely (relative to Russian GDP) expensive vacation spot that serves no significant interest (since Russia was always going to have its base there.) I reckon the worst thing for Russia would be if it really did get Eastern Ukraine, because that's an even bigger mess than Crimea.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on July 30, 2014, 08:20:05 AM
I don't really think ABM treaty mattered much, whatever the State of ABM technology (and it is genuinely far improved) unless it's a perfect shield against thousands of simultaneous targets it's never going to be a true dome of absolute protection. But, it by sinking money into it, it pushes our enemies into having to spend money on a large number of potential war heads and/or more technologically sophisticated delivery systems down the line. Basically it's continuing an arms race that we would always win due to being far richer than Russia will ever be.
You don't bilaterally withdraw from arms control agreements when you've positioned yourself as the global leader on arms control and non-proliferation, two fundamental cornerstones of which US foreign policy has centered on for decades. It's was a hypocrisy and an abandonment of our moral authority on the matter. That's what makes us the United motherfucking States and the Russians the Russians. We're better than they are, and we're better than the world.
All the worse that it was for that ungodly boondoggle of the Missile Defense Agency. A lot of good worrying about a single shitty Fisher-Price rocket from 5 o'clock Charlie in North Korea that won't make it over the Pacific once San Diego or Philadelphia gets glassed from the homemade nuke shipped in one of the 12 billion shipping containers that arrive in US ports every year, of which less than 4% are inspected. Buh bye, Padres.
Rogue states. Nigga please.
There is a sense in which the ABM treaty was a Cold War relic, because it is based on a particular logic of deterrence (MAD) that makes sense in the context of two opposing camps maintaining a balance of terror. Remove the entire geo-political context, and the premise of the treaty no longer holds. I believe that was part of the rationale of the Bush decision.
The problem is that even in the new geopolitical context, the treaty still serves an important if different function, at least for Russia. Because the new Russia is shorn of the ideological and economic influence of the old USSR and the offensive conventional warfare potential, its continuing possession of a diminished but still potent nuclear arsenal is still an important source of influence (in the Schelling "Arms and Influence" sense), particular in respect to Russia's attempts to pursue interests in its post-Soviet "near abroad." The Russian concern was that deployment of ABM near its borders would attenuate that influence.
So the problem is not withdrawing from ABM per se, but rather pulling out without simultaneously reaching some understanding with Russia responding to its concerns. It should not be surprising that Russia would seek to respond by taking alternative actions with the aim of augmenting its influence and threat levels on and immediately across its borders.
This is not an endorsement of the particular steps the Russians have taken, just that it is naïve to think that such action would not lead to responses with consequences.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 30, 2014, 02:19:38 PM
You don't bilaterally withdraw from arms control agreements when you've positioned yourself as the global leader on arms control and non-proliferation, two fundamental cornerstones of which US foreign policy has centered on for decades.
I'm having a little trouble seeing the conflict between missile defense and non-proliferation, given that missile defense ostensibly decreases the desirability of nuclear weapon stockpiles.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 30, 2014, 03:59:38 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 30, 2014, 02:19:38 PM
You don't bilaterally withdraw from arms control agreements when you've positioned yourself as the global leader on arms control and non-proliferation, two fundamental cornerstones of which US foreign policy has centered on for decades.
I'm having a little trouble seeing the conflict between missile defense and non-proliferation, given that missile defense ostensibly decreases the desirability of nuclear weapon stockpiles.
i would think it would raise the need to have more missiles in the hope a few get through.
Quote from: HVC on July 30, 2014, 04:30:18 PM
i would think it would raise the need to have more missiles in the hope a few get through.
I suppose you could conceptualize a world in which some states perceive their goal as maintaining nuclear deterrent capability regardless of cost, but we haven't seen anyone respond in this way. It's more logical to look at costs and benefits.
Quote from: Berkut on July 30, 2014, 12:46:18 AMI can see why you would think that, but in fact I thought it was naive and amateurish even at the time.
Hindsight just proves that my fears were right.
i didn't necessarily mean hindsight for you :P
yes, in hindsight it didn't work, but i don't think we lost anything by it. georgia seems to have been the real test
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 30, 2014, 05:30:59 PM
Quote from: HVC on July 30, 2014, 04:30:18 PM
i would think it would raise the need to have more missiles in the hope a few get through.
I suppose you could conceptualize a world in which some states perceive their goal as maintaining nuclear deterrent capability regardless of cost, but we haven't seen anyone respond in this way. It's more logical to look at costs and benefits.
For a country like Russia, you almost can't put a price on the value of nuclear deterrent (assuming you're even wlling to put a price on an existential threat). They've seen first-hand what happens to countries that exchange nuclear deterrent for economic benefits and diplomatic guarantees.
Yeah, Ukraine learned that the hard way. A country like Brazil can afford to give up their nuclear program. So could South Africa. Could Pakistan? And here's the big question, could Iran?
Quote from: DGuller on July 30, 2014, 06:19:54 PM
For a country like Russia, you almost can't put a price on the value of nuclear deterrent (assuming you're even wlling to put a price on an existential threat). They've seen first-hand what happens to countries that exchange nuclear deterrent for economic benefits and diplomatic guarantees.
Both Russia and the US have dramatically reduced their nukes since the Wall came down.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 30, 2014, 03:44:02 PM
The problem is that even in the new geopolitical context, the treaty still serves an important if different function, at least for Russia. Because the new Russia is shorn of the ideological and economic influence of the old USSR and the offensive conventional warfare potential, its continuing possession of a diminished but still potent nuclear arsenal is still an important source of influence (in the Schelling "Arms and Influence" sense), particular in respect to Russia's attempts to pursue interests in its post-Soviet "near abroad." The Russian concern was that deployment of ABM near its borders would attenuate that influence.
So the problem is not withdrawing from ABM per se, but rather pulling out without simultaneously reaching some understanding with Russia responding to its concerns. It should not be surprising that Russia would seek to respond by taking alternative actions with the aim of augmenting its influence and threat levels on and immediately across its borders.
This is not an endorsement of the particular steps the Russians have taken, just that it is naïve to think that such action would not lead to responses with consequences.
I think that it naive to think that the Russians have taken the actions they have to project the power and influence over the near abroad would not have been undertaken had the ABM Treaty still been in force. I agree that the expiration of the treaty put Russia in a bind, and that this may have been avoidable through negotiating a post-treaty protocol that could have met their strategic needs, but the ABM Treaty's existence didn't stop the Soviets in Afghanistan.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 30, 2014, 03:59:38 PM
I'm having a little trouble seeing the conflict between missile defense and non-proliferation, given that missile defense ostensibly decreases the desirability of nuclear weapon stockpiles.
Strategic missile defenses increase the desirability of nuclear weapons stockpiles, because such defenses challenge the viability of a given offensive capability, without ever creating the impression of a viable defensive system. The proper answer to another country's nuclear defense initiatives is to build up your offensive capability and forgo the defense yourself.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 30, 2014, 07:25:05 PM
Quote from: DGuller on July 30, 2014, 06:19:54 PM
For a country like Russia, you almost can't put a price on the value of nuclear deterrent (assuming you're even wlling to put a price on an existential threat). They've seen first-hand what happens to countries that exchange nuclear deterrent for economic benefits and diplomatic guarantees.
Both Russia and the US have dramatically reduced their nukes since the Wall came down.
Yes, so? Partial mutual disarmament doesn't materially reduce nuclear deterrent.
Quote from: DGuller on July 30, 2014, 07:53:44 PM
Yes, so? Partial mutual disarmament doesn't materially reduce nuclear deterrent.
Did you read the post by Hillary I responded to? :huh:
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 30, 2014, 08:20:38 PM
Quote from: DGuller on July 30, 2014, 07:53:44 PM
Yes, so? Partial mutual disarmament doesn't materially reduce nuclear deterrent.
Did you read the post by Hillary I responded to? :huh:
Yes.
If the bolded bit is a genuine belief of Russian generals then they're fucking retarded.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jul/29/moscow-russia-violated-cold-war-nuclear-treaty-iskander-r500-missile-test-us
Quote
Moscow may walk out of nuclear treaty after US accusations of breach
Russia said to be on point of leaving 1987 treaty, after Obama administration said it violated the accord with tests of R-500
Alec Luhn in Moscow and Julian Borger
The Guardian, Tuesday 29 July 2014 12.38 BST
Russia may be on the point of walking out of a major cold war era arms-control treaty, Russian analysts have said, after President Obama accused Moscow of violating the accord by testing a cruise missile.
There has been evidence at least since 2011 of Russian missile tests in violation of the 1987 intermediate range nuclear forces (INF) treaty, which banned US or Russian ground-launched cruise missiles with a 500 to 5,500-mile (805 to 8,851km) range. But the Obama administration has been hesitant until now of accusing Moscow of a violation in the hope that it could persuade Vladimir Putin, the Russian president, to stop the tests or at least not deploy the weapon in question, known as the Iskander, or R-500.
Washington has also been reticent because of the technical differences in definition of what constitutes the range of a missile under the INF treaty. That ambiguity now seems to have dropped away. According to Pavel Felgenhauer, a defence analyst and columnist for the independent Russian newspaper Novaya Gazeta, Russia has indeed broken the treaty by testing the R-500 which has a range of more than 1,000km.
"Of course, this is in gross violation of the 1987 treaty, but Russian officials including Putin have said this treaty is unfair and not suitable for Russia," Felgenhauer said. "The United States doesn't have [medium-range missiles] but other countries do have them, such as China, Pakistan and Israel, so they say this is unfair and wrong."
Russian press reports have suggested the missile may even be in deployment, with state news agency RIA Novosti reporting in June that the "Russian army currently uses its Iskander-M and Iskander-K variants." Felgenhauer said he doesn't believe the missile has been deployed, although he said it's entirely possible that Russia will leave the treaty amid tensions with the US.
"The present situation of a new cold war in Europe – and not even cold, at least not in Ukraine right now – it's a situation in which Russia can abrogate the 1987 treaty, and the possibilities are rather high," Felgenhauer said.
Russian officials have previously criticised the 1987 treaty, including former defence minister Sergei Ivanov. In 2013, Ivanov, then presidential chief of staff, said of the treaty: "We are fulfilling it, but it can't last forever."
According to Kremlin-linked analyst Sergei Markov, Russia has a far greater need for medium-range cruise missiles than the |US, because military rivals including China are located near its borders and because Moscow lacks the Americans' long-range bombing capabilities.
"Russia would be happy to leave this agreement, and I think Russia is using the Ukraine crisis to leave the agreement," Markov said.
As for Russia's complaints about US aegis missiles, Felgenhauer said they reflect the genuine belief among Kremlin top brass that the US missile defence has a secret attack capability and poses a threat to Russia.
"This was a normal Soviet practice that missile interceptors had the in-built capability to be used as an attack missile," Felgenhauer said.
Quote from: grumbler on July 30, 2014, 07:44:47 PMI think that it naive to think that the Russians have taken the actions they have to project the power and influence over the near abroad would not have been undertaken had the ABM Treaty still been in force. I agree that the expiration of the treaty put Russia in a bind, and that this may have been avoidable through negotiating a post-treaty protocol that could have met their strategic needs, but the ABM Treaty's existence didn't stop the Soviets in Afghanistan.
Right, I'm not sure where Minsky was going with that nonsense but there's really no doubt that Putin would be doing anything differently had Bush not pulled out of the ABM.
I think Putin's motivations and the source of his power are fairly obvious. I don't think Putin is foolish enough to dream for a true resurrection of the Soviet Empire, but I do think he wants Russia to be a true "great power", and really in no sense of the word are they that any longer. They are a great power in one way only, and that is their nuclear arsenal, by all other measures Russia is weak. But Putin thinks he can change that by keeping the countries around Russia destabilized and by making sure the EU/NATO will not encroach too closely because of it. Further than that, Russia has positioned itself as the global leader for all countries that "dislike the United States and its leadership position in the world", and just like the Cold War probably the only countries that I would argue seem to not be embracing that are China and the countries that made up the Non-Aligned movement in the CW. But countries like Iran, Venezuela, Cuba, and various other troubling States are definitely signing on with Putin's vision. This gives Russia lots of trading partners and influence outside of the traditional "West" which is always going to be dominated by non-Russian Western powers.
China will never sign on for Russian leadership, but the Chinese are happy to do business with anyone, which also gives Russia a big market for its natural resources that is mostly immune to Western sanctions. A lot of the pieces are there for what Putin wants: great power status for Russia, and Russia as the leader/mouthpiece of the "fuck America" contingent.
Quote from: Razgovory on July 29, 2014, 02:19:03 PM
Quote from: derspiess on July 29, 2014, 12:35:52 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on July 29, 2014, 12:33:42 PM
Actually I don't know what you were talking about in particular.
:D Btw I bottled my Razgovory Wheat Beer last weekend. Should be ready to test on Friday.
Sweet! Drink in good health!
And it's on Untappd now. Your name in lights!
https://untappd.com/b/blue-hen-brewing-razgovory-wheat/762843
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on July 30, 2014, 10:24:02 PM
China will never sign on for Russian leadership, but the Chinese are happy to do business with anyone, which also gives Russia a big market for its natural resources that is mostly immune to Western sanctions.
Until they have their usual falling out.
Quote from: grumbler on July 30, 2014, 07:44:47 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 30, 2014, 03:44:02 PM
The problem is that even in the new geopolitical context, the treaty still serves an important if different function, at least for Russia. Because the new Russia is shorn of the ideological and economic influence of the old USSR and the offensive conventional warfare potential, its continuing possession of a diminished but still potent nuclear arsenal is still an important source of influence (in the Schelling "Arms and Influence" sense), particular in respect to Russia's attempts to pursue interests in its post-Soviet "near abroad." The Russian concern was that deployment of ABM near its borders would attenuate that influence.
So the problem is not withdrawing from ABM per se, but rather pulling out without simultaneously reaching some understanding with Russia responding to its concerns. It should not be surprising that Russia would seek to respond by taking alternative actions with the aim of augmenting its influence and threat levels on and immediately across its borders.
This is not an endorsement of the particular steps the Russians have taken, just that it is naïve to think that such action would not lead to responses with consequences.
I think that it naive to think that the Russians have taken the actions they have to project the power and influence over the near abroad would not have been undertaken had the ABM Treaty still been in force. I agree that the expiration of the treaty put Russia in a bind, and that this may have been avoidable through negotiating a post-treaty protocol that could have met their strategic needs, but the ABM Treaty's existence didn't stop the Soviets in Afghanistan.
Hell, I am not sure that "putting Russia in a bind" isn't a positive anyway.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 31, 2014, 11:34:13 AM
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on July 30, 2014, 10:24:02 PM
China will never sign on for Russian leadership, but the Chinese are happy to do business with anyone, which also gives Russia a big market for its natural resources that is mostly immune to Western sanctions.
Until they have their usual falling out.
That hasn't happened for quite a while.
Quote from: derspiess on July 31, 2014, 11:42:34 AM
That hasn't happened for quite a while.
So fucking what. I'm not worried about it. One thing we can always rely on is Russian-Chinese myopia. That shit never changes with those people.
Quote from: grumbler on July 30, 2014, 07:44:47 PM
I think that it naive to think that the Russians have taken the actions they have to project the power and influence over the near abroad would not have been undertaken had the ABM Treaty still been in force. I agree that the expiration of the treaty put Russia in a bind, and that this may have been avoidable through negotiating a post-treaty protocol that could have met their strategic needs, but the ABM Treaty's existence didn't stop the Soviets in Afghanistan.
There would have been some value in say offering to keep sites out of bordering territories as a pledge for Russian good behavior, thus reserving such a move as a carrot/stick.
Would that have had any impact on Putin's actions in the Ukraine? Of course I would have to admit not.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 31, 2014, 12:27:50 PM
Quote from: derspiess on July 31, 2014, 11:42:34 AM
That hasn't happened for quite a while.
So fucking what. I'm not worried about it. One thing we can always rely on is Russian-Chinese myopia. That shit never changes with those people.
There will be no falling out so long as Russia continues to act as the junior partner in these arrangements - i.e. as the passive purveyor of raw materials and resources at cheap prices. And it doesn't seem like they have any viable alternative.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 31, 2014, 12:27:50 PM
Quote from: derspiess on July 31, 2014, 11:42:34 AM
That hasn't happened for quite a while.
So fucking what. I'm not worried about it. One thing we can always rely on is Russian-Chinese myopia. That shit never changes with those people.
I just don't see any issues on either side that look like they'll cause a rift in the near future. I'd love to be proven wrong.
Minsky, it's not whether or not Russia plays the bottom in the relationship, it's to what degree the Chinese perceive them as the bottom. Chinese wariness has always been the bigger variable in that relationship and they will see Russian threats, even when there necessarily aren't any.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 31, 2014, 12:51:08 PMThere will be no falling out so long as Russia continues to act as the junior partner in these arrangements - i.e. as the passive purveyor of raw materials and resources at cheap prices. And it doesn't seem like they have any viable alternative.
I would agree with this, it's a pure business relationship and China has no qualms about the countries with which it does business. I think the independence of China from any form of Russian
political influence is so well established at this point that Russia under any leader I could imagine them having (obviously including Putin) would never even try that sort of thing.