I am pretty sure the Russian invasion of Ukraine has basically nothing to do with Russia leaving the treaty. That also happened under the CURRENT administration, not the previous one. The withdraw was in 2021.
> I am pretty sure the Russian invasion of Ukraine has basically nothing to do with Russia leaving the treaty
It has everything to do with the US leaving the INF treaty.
Also, your choice of words is rather curious, Russia had only left the Open Sky treaty in 2021 after the US had left it in 2019, which kind of made it rather pointless for the following 2 years anyway.
EDIT: whoops, not 2019, but 2020. Still, my point stands.
> It has everything to do with the US leaving the INF treaty.
If you could find any expert on this topic that says this is the case, I'll gladly listen; but you'll struggle to find one, at least one that isn't a hack or serial "whatabouter." Especially given the conflict dates back to 2014 and Russian "little green men" had already been in Ukraine since; not to mention Putin had been drumming up war rhetoric for an invasion years before he invaded in 2022, well before the US or Russia left the treaty.
Yeah, ok, I can definitely see that you already solidified your opinion and totally not interested, judging by all those "counterargument" traps you so carefully laid out beforehand.
Always love the "whatabouter" bit, btw. Some sure like to perceive the world as a set of unconnected pieces existing in a perfect vacuum. But whatever, your choice.
I just wonder, do you actually live in the same infobubble as Putin's "rhetoric"? My impression of it was along the lines of "no-no-no-no-no-no-no-no-no-YES"
> That also happened under the CURRENT administration, not the previous one. The withdraw was in 2021.
Yah, sure-- but are you being deliberately misleading? After the US announced withdrawal in May 2020 under Trump (in response to Russian violations of the treaty), Russia did leave in 2021.
This need to mislead about politics and events is so annoying. Arguably the Trump administration had good reasons to withdraw, but pretending that the Russian withdrawal was because of Biden is wack.
> 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.
> 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.
> 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.
> 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.
