Do Nato Allies Support the US Withdrawal From INF?

30 posts / 0 new
Last post
montgomery
Do Nato Allies Support the US Withdrawal From INF?

https://www.rt.com/usa/450331-trump-nato-inf-support/

This is to introduce this issue, but also to encourage dialogue and opinions on the US/Russia situation that is hardening into a full out Cold War. And then byond that if Russia doesn't knuckle under to US dominance throughout the world. 

Now is the time for Nato countries to apply the brakes with some counter pressure against the US. 

montgomery

 I guess nobody knows or nobody wants to say. In any case, the US's politicians are making the case that Russia always wanted out of the treaty but wanted to make it look like the US was gulity by withdrawing first.....  And they're saying that it was Russia that never honoured the treaty! 

Now imagine that!! 

What does our pro-Nato expert Paladin think about this one? 

cco

montgomery wrote:

I guess nobody knows or nobody wants to say.

Just a tip: Online forums aren't like an in-person conversation, where a prolonged silence can lead you to draw a conclusion like that. You don't get to set the timeline for people responding to your posts.

On the actual topic: I used to do arms control research. (I also used to sleep better at night. For all the popular perception of brilliant and dedicated patriots thinking fifteen steps ahead, the Cold War was really the equivalent of a room full of 4-year-olds juggling hand grenades.) A few years ago I did extensive research into the negotiation of this very treaty.

The logic behind having INF in the first place was insane. Western Europe (West Germany, in particular) was worried about "decoupling" within NATO: the idea that a logical American president, upon seeing a Soviet invasion of Western Europe, might decide it wasn't worth starting a full-scale global nuclear apocalypse. Short-range land-based missiles like the Pershing II were brought in because they were fixed in one place, leading to this chain of logical assumptions:
1. The Soviets will know exactly where these missiles are.
2. Knowing where they are, the Soviets will attack them within minutes of a conflict erupting.
3. Knowing the Soviets will attack them, the US will have to use them immediately in any World War 3.
4. Knowing the US will have to use them, the Soviets will know they'll have to respond with an attack on the American mainland.
5. Knowing the Americans would respond with the full-scale annihilation of the entire Soviet bloc, the Soviets will thus be deterred from an invasion of West Germany, because those missiles are just too easy to destroy.

Still with me? That was, honestly, the justification for INF deployment. The way the treaty came about is even more darkly hilarious. I'll try to give a quick summary:

Reagan: I don't want any kind of arms reduction that'll weaken our position in Europe. But I also don't want to look like I'm the obstacle to peace, because those damn protesters might get left-wingers elected in Germany and the UK. So how about this: I'll propose getting rid of all the intermediate-range weapons! Gorbachev will never say yes to that, and I'll get to look like the peacemaker whose overtures have been rejected while keeping up business as usual.

Gorbachev: The Americans will never get rid of INF! Reagan's just doing this to make me look bad. So to make him look bad, I'll say yes to zero weapons, so he'll have to admit he was a hypocrite all along. Okay, Reagan, you got it. Let's get rid of all of them.

Reagan: ...Well, shit. Can't back out now. I guess we get rid of all of them. We can still destroy them with ICBMs.

Gorbachev: ...Well, shit. Maybe we'll get a Nobel Peace Prize out of it.

This is the kind of brilliant strategic thinking that, every day for 44 years, kept the entire world a sneeze away from the permanent end of humanity. And that was with relatively sane Presidents. How comfortable do you feel with Trump's finger on the trigger?

Sean in Ottawa

cco wrote:
montgomery wrote:

I guess nobody knows or nobody wants to say.

Just a tip: Online forums aren't like an in-person conversation, where a prolonged silence can lead you to draw a conclusion like that. You don't get to set the timeline for people responding to your posts.

On the actual topic: I used to do arms control research. (I also used to sleep better at night. For all the popular perception of brilliant and dedicated patriots thinking fifteen steps ahead, the Cold War was really the equivalent of a room full of 4-year-olds juggling hand grenades.) A few years ago I did extensive research into the negotiation of this very treaty.

The logic behind having INF in the first place was insane. Western Europe (West Germany, in particular) was worried about "decoupling" within NATO: the idea that a logical American president, upon seeing a Soviet invasion of Western Europe, might decide it wasn't worth starting a full-scale global nuclear apocalypse. Short-range land-based missiles like the Pershing II were brought in because they were fixed in one place, leading to this chain of logical assumptions: 1. The Soviets will know exactly where these missiles are. 2. Knowing where they are, the Soviets will attack them within minutes of a conflict erupting. 3. Knowing the Soviets will attack them, the US will have to use them immediately in any World War 3. 4. Knowing the US will have to use them, the Soviets will know they'll have to respond with an attack on the American mainland. 5. Knowing the Americans would respond with the full-scale annihilation of the entire Soviet bloc, the Soviets will thus be deterred from an invasion of West Germany, because those missiles are just too easy to destroy.

Still with me? That was, honestly, the justification for INF deployment. The way the treaty came about is even more darkly hilarious. I'll try to give a quick summary:

Reagan: I don't want any kind of arms reduction that'll weaken our position in Europe. But I also don't want to look like I'm the obstacle to peace, because those damn protesters might get left-wingers elected in Germany and the UK. So how about this: I'll propose getting rid of all the intermediate-range weapons! Gorbachev will never say yes to that, and I'll get to look like the peacemaker whose overtures have been rejected while keeping up business as usual. Gorbachev: The Americans will never get rid of INF! Reagan's just doing this to make me look bad. So to make him look bad, I'll say yes to zero weapons, so he'll have to admit he was a hypocrite all along. Okay, Reagan, you got it. Let's get rid of all of them. Reagan: ...Well, shit. Can't back out now. I guess we get rid of all of them. We can still destroy them with ICBMs. Gorbachev: ...Well, shit. Maybe we'll get a Nobel Peace Prize out of it.

This is the kind of brilliant strategic thinking that, every day for 44 years, kept the entire world a sneeze away from the permanent end of humanity. And that was with relatively sane Presidents. How comfortable do you feel with Trump's finger on the trigger?

The decision to not respond to a post is often nothing to do with agreement, disagreement or lack of interest in the topic.

It may be a decision to no longer engage with an individual -- especially one who is toxic.

WWWTT

Not really sure if this is about deployment or development?

Long range subs in the US and Russia are already equipped with them anyways I believe and since there’s an amount of stealth with subs, that would be the preferred option as a deterrent. 

kropotkin1951

IMO it's simply a matter of our arms dealers and military brass wanting no fetters on their design parameters.

WWWTT

Oh ya sure kropotkin. They have to be developed before deployed. But deployed where?

And as a special note, I did some Wikipedia checks on that treaty and it only covers land launched, not air and sea. 

WWWTT

Another curiosity is that the treaty was signed by the Soviet Union, not Russia and its associated republics. So how was the other former Soviet republics affected?

Also, Putin pulled Russia out of the treaty today. 

montgomery

cco wrote:
montgomery wrote:

I guess nobody knows or nobody wants to say.

Just a tip: Online forums aren't like an in-person conversation, where a prolonged silence can lead you to draw a conclusion like that. You don't get to set the timeline for people responding to your posts.

On the actual topic: I used to do arms control research. (I also used to sleep better at night. For all the popular perception of brilliant and dedicated patriots thinking fifteen steps ahead, the Cold War was really the equivalent of a room full of 4-year-olds juggling hand grenades.) A few years ago I did extensive research into the negotiation of this very treaty.

The logic behind having INF in the first place was insane. Western Europe (West Germany, in particular) was worried about "decoupling" within NATO: the idea that a logical American president, upon seeing a Soviet invasion of Western Europe, might decide it wasn't worth starting a full-scale global nuclear apocalypse. Short-range land-based missiles like the Pershing II were brought in because they were fixed in one place, leading to this chain of logical assumptions: 1. The Soviets will know exactly where these missiles are. 2. Knowing where they are, the Soviets will attack them within minutes of a conflict erupting. 3. Knowing the Soviets will attack them, the US will have to use them immediately in any World War 3. 4. Knowing the US will have to use them, the Soviets will know they'll have to respond with an attack on the American mainland. 5. Knowing the Americans would respond with the full-scale annihilation of the entire Soviet bloc, the Soviets will thus be deterred from an invasion of West Germany, because those missiles are just too easy to destroy.

Still with me?

No, I'm really not. You're talking about the Soviets in the present tense and that's very alarming. But I understand everything you say, just that I don't necessarily believe a lot of it. But I won't try to point out that which I reject because it's not on topic really.

 

Quote:
That was, honestly, the justification for INF deployment. The way the treaty came about is even more darkly hilarious. I'll try to give a quick summary:

Reagan: I don't want any kind of arms reduction that'll weaken our position in Europe. But I also don't want to look like I'm the obstacle to peace, because those damn protesters might get left-wingers elected in Germany and the UK. So how about this: I'll propose getting rid of all the intermediate-range weapons! Gorbachev will never say yes to that, and I'll get to look like the peacemaker whose overtures have been rejected while keeping up business as usual. Gorbachev: The Americans will never get rid of INF! Reagan's just doing this to make me look bad. So to make him look bad, I'll say yes to zero weapons, so he'll have to admit he was a hypocrite all along. Okay, Reagan, you got it. Let's get rid of all of them. Reagan: ...Well, shit. Can't back out now. I guess we get rid of all of them. We can still destroy them with ICBMs. Gorbachev: ...Well, shit. Maybe we'll get a Nobel Peace Prize out of it.

Well thanks for addressing the issue, or more correctly skirting it. That's speculative thinking out loud at best, but I have no reason to reject it. It's just that it isn't addressing the issue I raised on the US accusing Russia of wanting to get rid of it but needing to blame the US for getting rid of it. However, if you're claiming to know your stuff on the INF, then we can certainly get into a proper discussion if you wish. 

Quote:
This is the kind of brilliant strategic thinking that, every day for 44 years, kept the entire world a sneeze away from the permanent end of humanity. And that was with relatively sane Presidents. How comfortable do you feel with Trump's finger on the trigger?

Did you write any of that post as a rebuttal to something I said, or a confirmation of what I said? Do you really imagine that I need a lecture on the Cold war? And of course, the issue of Trump's finger on the button, is alarming, but I probably already made that point.

The issue is: My contention that the US is the aggressor and Russia is not. And I went a step further and said that the Soviet Union, when it actually existed, wasn't the aggressor then either. History now proves to us that it's always been the US. 40 wars of aggression since WW2 alone. Do you agree or disagree?

And now fwiw, Canada gains nothing from being a Nato member. Russia isn't coming now and never was. Our greatest enemy is now likely the US. 

As I've suggested, I'm inviting your informed comments! 

montgomery

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

 

 

The decision to not respond to a post is often nothing to do with agreement, disagreement or lack of interest in the topic.

It may be a decision to no longer engage with an individual -- especially one who is toxic.

Toxic Shine? Or is it that you are feeling really vulnerable and challenged. I really liked you better when you were in the silent treatment mode. 

montgomery

kropotkin1951 wrote:

IMO it's simply a matter of our arms dealers and military brass wanting no fetters on their design parameters.

You've nailed it bang on Kropotkin, as I expected you could, but didn't hold out any confidence you 'would'. But in any case, thanks for getting it right. Now it's time to try to convince a lot of the others on what is right.

I'll begin by saying that your comment probably went over the applicable heads, but we could be pleasantly surprised! Of ocurse it's the US demanding the end to the INF but being able to place the blame on Russia/Putin. 

It's Trump for public appearance but he's way too slow to be thinking the way it's currently going. It's the US war machine that are the brains behind this move, and it's extremely dangerous for the rest of the world.

I'm not here to try to upstage you Kropotkin, I'm here to help get the message out there. Nato's true purpose of serving the US war machine is a good start!

kropotkin1951

Monto you are absurd. I don't give a flying fuck why you are here. I come here to have intelligent discussions with people. Flame wars seems to be your preferred method of getting the message out, it's almost like you want to discredit the message with the nasty abrasive delivery system of the messenger.

WWWTT

Hey kropotkin I think montgomery is our new buddy. Definitely a creepy type buddy but still a buddy!

kropotkin1951

If he would stop insulting everyone maybe I could get a sense of what it is he is trying to say.

Paladin1

Asking questions, telling people what the right answer SHOULD be, but being above explaining why.
Baiting people who don't respond and attacking those that do who disagree.

Sounds like the USA personified.

voice of the damned

Just so we're all up to speed, you all know that Montgomery is Monty1, the poster who was banned from here a year or two ago, right? Or at least, is happy being perceived as the same guy. 

When I suggested a few weeks back  that he might be a Liberal, based on a similar posting style to Monty1, he replied to my post without rebutting my claim as to his identity.  

Paladin1

voice of the damned wrote:

Just so we're all up to speed, you all know that Montgomery is Monty1, the poster who was banned from here a year or two ago, right? Or at least, is happy being perceived as the same guy. 

When I suggested a few weeks back  that he might be a Liberal, based on a similar posting style to Monty1, he replied to my post without rebutting my claim as to his identity.  

That would of course explain his apparent familiarity with posters (which he points out and references) despite his short time here under his new moniker.

Sean in Ottawa

Paladin1 wrote:
voice of the damned wrote:

Just so we're all up to speed, you all know that Montgomery is Monty1, the poster who was banned from here a year or two ago, right? Or at least, is happy being perceived as the same guy. 

When I suggested a few weeks back  that he might be a Liberal, based on a similar posting style to Monty1, he replied to my post without rebutting my claim as to his identity.  

That would of course explain his apparent familiarity with posters (which he points out and references) despite his short time here under his new moniker.

In just three weeks he had fights or insulting exchanges with the following people and dominated a pile of threads

 Kropotkin,

TimeBandit,

Aristotle24,

WWWTT,

NDPP,

Unionist,

cco,

Paladin,

Ken Burch,

Lagatta

and of course myself...

Some may have forgiven him...

Also he has insulted the entire board and all NDP members several times.

He seems to dial it back just in time to avoid banning.

Yes, he looks like a guy familiar with the dynamics of the place and is extremely toxic between being simply passive aggressive. I was suprised that he lasted this long.

montgomery

kropotkin1951 wrote:

Monto you are absurd. I don't give a flying fuck why you are here. I come here to have intelligent discussions with people. Flame wars seems to be your preferred method of getting the message out, it's almost like you want to discredit the message with the nasty abrasive delivery system of the messenger.

I know you're feeling bad about my presense on this board but........ did you have anything further to say on the topic? I've actually commended you for being in touch with reality! you must have missed it?

montgomery

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

Paladin1 wrote:
voice of the damned wrote:

Just so we're all up to speed, you all know that Montgomery is Monty1, the poster who was banned from here a year or two ago, right? Or at least, is happy being perceived as the same guy. 

When I suggested a few weeks back  that he might be a Liberal, based on a similar posting style to Monty1, he replied to my post without rebutting my claim as to his identity.  

That would of course explain his apparent familiarity with posters (which he points out and references) despite his short time here under his new moniker.

In just three weeks he had fights or insulting exchanges with the following people and dominated a pile of threads

 Kropotkin,

TimeBandit,

Aristotle24,

WWWTT,

NDPP,

Unionist,

cco,

Paladin,

Ken Burch,

Lagatta

and of course myself...

Some may have forgiven him...

Also he has insulted the entire board and all NDP members several times.

He seems to dial it back just in time to avoid banning.

Yes, he looks like a guy familiar with the dynamics of the place and is extremely toxic between being simply passive aggressive. I was suprised that he lasted this long.

Just more personal attacks against me Shine. Did you have anything to say that's on-topic? Let's all try harder!

montgomery

Paladin1 wrote:
voice of the damned wrote:

Just so we're all up to speed, you all know that Montgomery is Monty1, the poster who was banned from here a year or two ago, right? Or at least, is happy being perceived as the same guy. 

When I suggested a few weeks back  that he might be a Liberal, based on a similar posting style to Monty1, he replied to my post without rebutting my claim as to his identity.  

That would of course explain his apparent familiarity with posters (which he points out and references) despite his short time here under his new moniker.

Paladin please, the topic? Anything more on your position vis a vis Nato?

kropotkin1951

Monty you gotta know that a compliment from you is like a slap in the face. I come here to express my views. I have no misconceptions that my brilliance will change the minds of people on this board. Almost everyone who is a regular is well read and opinionated. I also come here to listen to other peoples views. So far your views are largely well hidden behind a barrage of insults. Do you treat people like this in real life?

This chat room has been in turmoil since you arrived and you have not said a single thing that has not been said before by someone on this board. You are a legend in your own mind and apparently just a run of the mill troll who likes to dominate chat rooms for shits and giggles.

montgomery

kropotkin1951 wrote:

Monty you gotta know that a compliment from you is like a slap in the face. I come here to express my views. I have no misconceptions that my brilliance will change the minds of people on this board. Almost everyone who is a regular is well read and opinionated. I also come here to listen to other peoples views. So far your views are largely well hidden behind a barrage of insults. Do you treat people like this in real life?

This chat room has been in turmoil since you arrived and you have not said a single thing that has not been said before by someone on this board. You are a legend in your own mind and apparently just a run of the mill troll who likes to dominate chat rooms for shits and giggles.

I'm sorry you still feel that way. Do you have anything further to say on-topic? Fwiw, I respect your knowledge considerably and am hoping that this spat can eventually end and we can pool our resources in order to bring along new members to a better understanding of international politics at least. 

The thing is Kropotkin, when it bols down to the real issues, I can't remember a time since I started that we have been in real disagreement. 

Can you? If so then why not state it on the appropriate thread?

montgomery

montgomery wrote:

kropotkin1951 wrote:

Monty you gotta know that a compliment from you is like a slap in the face. I come here to express my views. I have no misconceptions that my brilliance will change the minds of people on this board. Almost everyone who is a regular is well read and opinionated. I also come here to listen to other peoples views. So far your views are largely well hidden behind a barrage of insults. Do you treat people like this in real life?

This chat room has been in turmoil since you arrived and you have not said a single thing that has not been said before by someone on this board. You are a legend in your own mind and apparently just a run of the mill troll who likes to dominate chat rooms for shits and giggles.

I'm sorry you still feel that way. Do you have anything further to say on-topic? Fwiw, I respect your knowledge considerably and am hoping that this spat can eventually end and we can pool our resources in order to bring along new members to a better understanding of international politics at least. 

The thing is Kropotkin, when it bols down to the real issues, I can't remember a time since I started that we have been in real disagreement. 

Can you? If so then why not state it on the appropriate thread?

p.s. Sean has asked for a moratorium on using slang for the names of others. I'll begin to do that, in the interest of improving relations. If leaving the 51 off your name is offensive then let me know. I prefer to be called 'montgomery'.

Paladin1

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

Also he has insulted the entire board and all NDP members several times.

He seems to dial it back just in time to avoid banning.

Yes, he looks like a guy familiar with the dynamics of the place and is extremely toxic between being simply passive aggressive. I was suprised that he lasted this long.

Been giving it some consideration. I do my best not to make jabs or personal insults but of course no none is perfect.

I've said before I think the insult/jab "Troll" gets over used and is the standard goto insult. Basically in 99.99% of the cases it seems we label someone a Troll for the sin of having an opinion we don't like. (when I say we I mean internet forum users).

His behavior; the passive aggressive attacks, insults, the condisending manner of speaking to people, theatrics. I would lable that an actual true description of troll behavior.

The tragedy of course being if it's not an act and the anti-social 'need for validation' behavior is legitimate in which case I don't want to contribute to and witness him having a blow out when people stop engaging him so he ramps up the theatrics to try and get attention.

kropotkin1951 wrote:
I have no misconceptions that my brilliance will change the minds of people on this board.

Honestly you really blew my mind when you showed the difference between Russian bases/stations abroad compared to American ones. That really opened my mind up about NATO and the US playing world police and I've referenced what you explained in real life debates - and people are usually as surprised as I was.

Ken Burch

montgomery wrote:

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

Paladin1 wrote:
voice of the damned wrote:

Just so we're all up to speed, you all know that Montgomery is Monty1, the poster who was banned from here a year or two ago, right? Or at least, is happy being perceived as the same guy. 

When I suggested a few weeks back  that he might be a Liberal, based on a similar posting style to Monty1, he replied to my post without rebutting my claim as to his identity.  

That would of course explain his apparent familiarity with posters (which he points out and references) despite his short time here under his new moniker.

In just three weeks he had fights or insulting exchanges with the following people and dominated a pile of threads

 Kropotkin,

TimeBandit,

Aristotle24,

WWWTT,

NDPP,

Unionist,

cco,

Paladin,

Ken Burch,

Lagatta

and of course myself...

Some may have forgiven him...

Also he has insulted the entire board and all NDP members several times.

He seems to dial it back just in time to avoid banning.

Yes, he looks like a guy familiar with the dynamics of the place and is extremely toxic between being simply passive aggressive. I was suprised that he lasted this long.

Just more personal attacks against me Shine. Did you have anything to say that's on-topic? Let's all try harder!

Oh, so Sean is the one you keep calling "Shine".  Is that some sort of obscure anti-Irish thing you're doing there?

montgomery

Ken Burch wrote:

 

Oh, so Sean is the one you keep calling "Shine".  Is that some sort of obscure anti-Irish thing you're doing there?

Ken, I've offered a truce to Sean and Kropotkin in exchange for their cooperation. Now I think it's time for you to help us all to move on.

But by all means continue to object specifically to anything I say that you find objectionable.

WWWTT

Off topic again sorry. 

I don’t think montgomery is going to get banned from what he’s writing. But if he was a previous poster that was banned???

I personally don’t think montgomery should be banned from the comments he’s made that I’ve read. 

But who knows, MegB will probably be here Monday and may have something to say?

Misfit Misfit's picture

How about this...

everyine just ignore him.

dont discuss should he be banned or is he a troll or respond to any insults or ideas he promotes.

just ignore him...

listen for crickets and move on just as if he never posted at all.

crickets...

shhh...

quiet...

listen...

now move on...

just ignore...

shhh...

montgomery

WWWTT wrote:

Off topic again sorry. 

I don’t think montgomery is going to get banned from what he’s writing. But if he was a previous poster that was banned???

I personally don’t think montgomery should be banned from the comments he’s made that I’ve read. 

But who knows, MegB will probably be here Monday and may have something to say?

Thank you again! I'm right on message for the NDP on the international politics side but what I say isn't the issue. First it was that I am a Liberal but that's quieted down somewhat. Now I wouldn't be surprised if somebody doesn't try to gin up som sympathy with the 'monty' identity issue. 

Although I may be reading things wrong and those who it concerns might have come to accept me on this forum.