Russia Violates Arms Treaty

[Devout Centrist]

https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/02/14/world/europe/russia-cruise-missile-arms-control-treaty.html?smid=fb-nytimes&smtyp=cur&referer=https://m.facebook.com/

Looks like the Kremlin gave the go ahead to deploy these cruise missiles in secret, violating a 1987 treaty on MRBM's and setting the stage for a new crisis.

How much you bet Trump folds like a house of cards?

[The_Doctor]

"BUT MUH GOOD RELATIONS WITH RUSSIA!"

I assume we will be doing everything but carry their water for them. "Would you like a hors d'oevure with that arms treaty violation?"

[Dr. Arch]

"BUT MUH GOOD RELATIONS WITH RUSSIA!"

I assume we will be doing everything but carry their water for them. "Would you like a hors d'oevure with that arms treaty violation?"

Good relations = Let them do whatever they want /= Weak foreign policy = Trump is a strong leader.

Muh Logics

[Wiz in Wis]

It's true... I AM getting tired of winning.

[Meclazine for Israel]

"The mobile launcher for the cruise missile, however, closely resembles the mobile launcher used for the Iskander, a nuclear-tipped short-range system that is permitted under treaties."

No alarm, it was most likely the one with the nuclear tipped warheads.

Nothing to see here. Move along.

[Frozen Sky Ever Why]

Just like the western powers violated their pledge not to expand NATO?

[Middle-aged Europe]

Just like the western powers violated their pledge not to expand NATO?

Is this supposed to be a "two wrongs make a right" fallacy?

[Deblano]

It's so hilarious to see Democrats not even trying to hide the fact that their party is just as (or even more) hawskish and obsessed with Russia as the GOP.

The next Democratic President will oversee US-Russia relations as bad as the early 1980s. I'm convinced at this rate.

I'm no fan of Russia, but the hysteria is genuinely concerning me.

[Beet]

As a dovish Democrat who favors good relations between all the major world powers, including Russia, I favor arms treaties and disfavor arms build ups. That's the real reason why this news is bad.

[Deblano]

As a dovish Democrat who favors good relations between all the major world powers, including Russia, I favor arms treaties and disfavor arms build ups. That's the real reason why this news is bad.

[heatcharger]

It's so hilarious to see Democrats not even trying to hide the fact that their party is just as (or even more) hawkish and obsessed with Russia as the GOP. "BUT RUSSIA!!" truly seems to be the new "BUT 9/11!!!!".

Did you even read the article? You've made it clear you really don't know anything about foreign policy.

Meanwhile, our former Director of Defense and National Security Advisor lied about speaking to Kremlin officials about sanctions and was already under investigation by the FBI for whether he received money from the Russian government. Russian state media and propaganda channels pretty quickly voiced their displeasure for his dismissal, and that didn't happen for no reason.

This is all in addition to Russia breaking international law numerous times within the last decade, including of course their invasion of Crimea. Oh, and that plane that "crashed" in Ukraine wasn't shot down or anything.

And now Russia feels emboldened by the current administration to violate an arms treaty and develop cruise missiles, which is a huge threat to NATO nations who could be overpowered by Russian forces without our backing. Last I checked, Hillary wasn't in favor of allowing Russia to build up arms, but oh right, according to your logic Hillary and Democrats are the ones trying to escalate tensions around the world.

Diplomacy is the best bulwark against warfare, not isolationism.

[Meclazine for Israel]

Russian state media and propaganda channels pretty quickly voiced their displeasure for his dismissal, and that didn't happen for no reason.

Maybe Flynn did not do much wrong in the eyes of the Russians except talk about a future relationship.

The Russians knew this, and thought it was an over-reaction.

[(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31]

What were they supposed to do with a missile they've been testing for nearly a decade?

[The_Doctor]

"BUT MUH GOOD RELATIONS WITH RUSSIA!"

I assume we will be doing everything but carry their water for them. "Would you like a hors d'oevure with that arms treaty violation?"

Good relations = Let them do whatever they want /= Weak foreign policy = Trump is a strong leader.

Muh Logics

Funny, the Republicans are quickly becoming the hippie/isolationist left of the 1960s. They're for accommodation with Moscow, retreat from the global stage, and think that the war in Iraq was a war for oil (according to the Republican president).

The Democratic Party, on the other hand, is slowly becoming the war hawks, the aggressive pro pax American party. Their Russian rhetoric rivals Reagan's in the 1980s. It's kinda cool to see even as the Republicans abandon the defense of American hegemony.

[(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31]

Funny, the Republicans are quickly becoming the hippie/isolationist left of the 1960s. They're for accommodation with Moscow, retreat from the global stage, and think that the war in Iraq was a war for oil (according to the Republican president).

Trust me, I wish that were the case, but it isn't. Drone strikes, sanctions, etc. are continuing under Trump.

-Yup. Sad! The biggest problem with this administration is that there's not enough change. I'd have removed the sanctions on Russia, ended DACA, and recognized Somaliland at this point in my administration.

[The_Doctor]

Funny, the Republicans are quickly becoming the hippie/isolationist left of the 1960s. They're for accommodation with Moscow, retreat from the global stage, and think that the war in Iraq was a war for oil (according to the Republican president).

Trust me, I wish that were the case, but it isn't. Drone strikes, sanctions, etc. are continuing under Trump.

It's not an overnight process and to an extent both parties will always favor some military action. But you cannot deny that Iraq has traumatized the Republicans deeply. I remember the South Carolina Republican debate, where Trump echoed Code Pink rhetoric and won the state a few days later. We've come a long way from Reagan and Bush, where the Republicans were more hawkish.

Also Trump and a wing of the Republicans favor lifting sanctions on Russia while another wing favors keeping them, which is a sea change for the Party. In 2005, this would've been unthinkable. There's a lot of open fissures in the Republicans as they're transitioning to being a less interventionist party.

I don't necessarily see the Republicans resuming their old ways. Maybe a bit under Pence in the future but it seems the Republican base is distinctly turning into the anti-war coalition to an extent.

[(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31]

Funny, the Republicans are quickly becoming the hippie/isolationist left of the 1960s. They're for accommodation with Moscow, retreat from the global stage, and think that the war in Iraq was a war for oil (according to the Republican president).

Trust me, I wish that were the case, but it isn't. Drone strikes, sanctions, etc. are continuing under Trump.

It's not an overnight process and to an extent both parties will always favor some military action. But you cannot deny that Iraq has traumatized the Republicans deeply. I remember the South Carolina Republican debate, where Trump echoed Code Pink rhetoric and won the state a few days later. We've come a long way from Reagan and Bush, where the Republicans were more hawkish.

Also Trump and a wing of the Republicans favor lifting sanctions on Russia while another wing favors keeping them, which is a sea change for the Party. In 2005, this would've been unthinkable. There's a lot of open fissures in the Republicans as they're transitioning to being a less interventionist party.

I don't necessarily see the Republicans resuming their old ways. Maybe a bit under Pence in the future but it seems the Republican base is distinctly turning into the anti-war coalition to an extent.

-Cool if true.

[Deblano]

"BUT MUH GOOD RELATIONS WITH RUSSIA!"

I assume we will be doing everything but carry their water for them. "Would you like a hors d'oevure with that arms treaty violation?"

Good relations = Let them do whatever they want /= Weak foreign policy = Trump is a strong leader.

Muh Logics

Funny, the Republicans are quickly becoming the hippie/isolationist left of the 1960s. They're for accommodation with Moscow, retreat from the global stage, and think that the war in Iraq was a war for oil (according to the Republican president).

The Democratic Party, on the other hand, is slowly becoming the war hawks, the aggressive pro pax American party. Their Russian rhetoric rivals Reagan's in the 1980s. It's kinda cool to see even as the Republicans abandon the defense of American hegemony.

I wish one of the parties could embrace foreign policy realism like the old days. I don't want to choose between paleocon isolationism and neoconservatism.

[OSR stands with Israel]

We need the Reagan/Bush administration back badly. They two gave this country 12 great years which the country greatly benefited from .

[HAnnA MArin County]

But really, who cares about Russia violating an arms treaty when SHE still hasn't been prosecuted?

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

We need the Reagan/Bush administration back badly. They two gave this country 12 great years which the country greatly benefited from .

Reagan is dead bro

[they don't love you like i love you]

Just like the western powers violated their pledge not to expand NATO?

https://youtu.be/RAA1xgTTw9w

[Frozen Sky Ever Why]

Just like the western powers violated their pledge not to expand NATO?

https://youtu.be/RAA1xgTTw9w

You don't, warmonger, but people who recognize Russians as fellow human beings and want good relations certainly do.

[they don't love you like i love you]

Just like the western powers violated their pledge not to expand NATO?

https://youtu.be/RAA1xgTTw9w

You don't, warmonger, but people who recognize Russians as fellow human beings and want good relations certainly do.

Uh, how did expanding NATO start any wars? Or hurt the Russian people? No the one hurting them is that thug Putin who is oppressing them, not NATO.

[Frozen Sky Ever Why]

Just like the western powers violated their pledge not to expand NATO?

https://youtu.be/RAA1xgTTw9w

You don't, warmonger, but people who recognize Russians as fellow human beings and want good relations certainly do.

Uh, how did expanding NATO start any wars? Or hurt the Russian people? No the one hurting them is that thug Putin who is oppressing them, not NATO.

No, it is Putin that saved Russians from the poverty and crime inflicted by western puppet Yeltsin. NATO is a military alliance against Russia, it is by it's nature threatening. Not to mention the US incited the violent Ukrainian revolution.