4 ms·

> That also happened under the CURRENT administration, not the previous one. The withdraw was in 2021. Yah, sure-- but are you being deliberately misleading?

• foverzar 4y ago
  > This need to mislead about politics and events is so annoying Agreed. The increasingly post-truth nature of public narratives is disturbing. But I wonder what do you consider to be "good reasons" (even if arguably)?
  • mlyle 4y ago
    > But I wonder what do you consider to be "good reasons" (even if arguably)? If your counterpart in a treaty isn't following it much of the time, you need to consider: * Whether the benefit you're getting from their partial / grudging compliance is more than the downsides of complying yourself. * The symbolic benefits and costs of the treaty continuing to exist despite being ignored. * The precedent that you set by tolerating violations of important treaties; you might be emboldening that counterparty, or other counterparties, to engage in further violations. Basically, there has to be a credible belief that it's at least possible/somewhat likely you'll have a big reaction to a violation of a treaty for the treaty to remain effective. It doesn't mean you need to have a big reaction to any given violation.
    • foverzar 4y ago
      > If your counterpart in a treaty isn't following it much of the time Was this actually the case? Google tells me that "much of the time" seems like 3 specific instances. One of which isn't even technically related to Russia, but rather to Georgian (now Ossetian/Abhasian territories), implying that these are Russian territories (lol), while on another instance blaming Russia for providing an airport in Crimea, implying that these are not Russian territories (LOL! Truly logically consistent) The third instance of limiting flight over Kaliningrad oblast to 500km (total size about 15000 km^2, sqrt is about 150km) seems like the only one somewhat substantial. On the other hand, I see Russia accusing the US of denying flights over its territory on a few instances and also denying access by its newer planes back around 2014 Seems like the whole deal was somewhat dysfunctional already, but not like a total disaster, really. I've also managed to google Trump's rhetorics on the treaty with stuff like "force Russia to bring China to the table". Overall, it seems to me like a total insubstantial political bullshit, but I guess perspective may vary.
• partiallypro 4y ago
  > Yah, sure-- but are you being deliberately misleading? How is what I said deliberately misleading? The claim was that Russia left the treaty before 2021, which is false. They also claimed it is the reason Russia invaded Ukraine, which there's no evidence to support. I also NEVER said it was -because- of Biden, no idea why you are even putting words in my mouth. If I make a factual statement to refute someone else saying something false, that is misleading now? What kind of "post-truth" world are you living in? Not everything has to turn into a nuanced discussion, especially when someone is making a direct false claim. If you want to get nuanced, it's important to note that both Biden and Trump agreed in leaving it, Biden could have rejoined it (he was even asked, and said no); he has joined other things like the Paris Climate Accord which Trump left for example. The general reason the US left is because other countries, mainly Russia, kept breaking the agreement.
  • mlyle 4y ago
    > The claim was that Russia left the treaty before 2021 That was not the claim. The claim was the Trump administration "let Russia out of the agreement." Because the Trump administration left the agreement, they allowed Russia to leave the agreement without any further diplomatic consequence or scorn. It is hard to imagine any other action that "let Russia out of the agreement." I am trying to assume good faith but this assumption is being sorely tested.
    • partiallypro 4y ago
      > The claim was the Trump administration "let Russia out of the agreement." Which is false, because they left the agreement in 2021 on their own accord. > Because the Trump administration left the agreement, they allowed Russia to leave the agreement without any further diplomatic consequence or scorn. This was not the original claim made, this is goal post shifting for getting a fact wrong. > I am trying to assume good faith but this assumption is being sorely tested. Making false claims isn't "good faith."
      • mlyle 4y ago
        > Which is false, because they left the agreement in 2021 on their own accord. Yes... after the agreement was rendered meaningless by Trump's withdrawal, Russia did leave too.