Russia Threatens Withdrawal from Cold War Nuclear Treaty

[_JS]

I'd also say that Russia is probably looking beyond just this treaty and looking at something more complex than worrying about a NATO attack.

The United States is in a rather weak position to be negotiating international treaties, as not only is our international credibility very low (though, to her credit Condi has removed much of the political appointees and brought back diplomatic experience to the State Department) but our Supreme Military Might has shown itself to be more of a paper tiger in actual implementation.

I think this is more of a chess move than the sole focus of play.

[Michael Tee]

<<The United States is in a rather weak position to be negotiating international treaties, as not only is our international credibility very low . . . >>>

That's a real understatement.  Under the Bush administration, America has demonstrated to the whole world that anything signed by the U.S.A. isn't worth the paper it's printed on.  Morons like Rich actually celebrate the fact.

The U.S.A. is rapidly becoming an irrelevancy.  It's already being by-passed on numerous diplomatic fronts and this is only going to accelerate as China, India and Russia grow into their full statures. 

[Plane]

<<Why is Putin worried that NATO would attack Russia?

   << A lot of NATO is EU and that they would want to attack Russia sees unlikely in the very extreme.>>


Come now, plane.  You seem like a very historically-minded fellow.  Surely you can't have forgotten that the two leading continental members of the EU, France and Germany, have both attacked Russia in the past.   As have Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Romania, Italy and Croatia, to name the few that I can think of off-hand.  Non-European members of NATO that have attacked Russia include Canada and the U.S.A. in an assault that France and the U.K. also participated in.    Russia has plenty of good reasons to fear an attack from NATO or the EU and every reason to prepare against it.  A better question for you might well be:  Who IF NOT the EU or NATO would ever attack Russia?

And an even better question, of course, would be "Why did the U.S. claim to be worried that Iraq might attack it?"

Chechnia , Iran , Pickyourstan.

[Richpo64]

>>OK Rich, now what?<<

Based on the rest of your response, you need to keep trying.

>>That's how it works, Rich.  Treaties are made nation-to-nation, not regime-to-regime.<<

Really? So the treaties we had with Japan prior to WWII are still in effect?

Get a fucking clue.

[Michael Tee]

<<Really? So the treaties we had with Japan prior to WWII are still in effect?>>

Yes, they would be if they were not renegotiated, cancelled by mutual agreement, or expired by lapse of time as provided for in the treaty itself.  If you care to point to any pre-war treaty between the U.S.A. and Japan, I could probably show you what happened to it.

As a matter of fact, during WWII, the British were able to establish radar posts in the Azores (which in effect they handed over to the Americans to operate) because of an Anglo-Portuguese treaty which dated back to the Napoleonic Wars of the early 19th Century.

<<Get a fucking clue.>>

I'm not the one who needs a fucking clue, ass-hole.

[Richpo64]

Good lord but you're stupid.

[_JS]

Tee is right of course.

A good example is that the British honored treaties that Italy had made with her colonies in Ethiopia and Eritrea, despite the fact that Fascist Italy had been conquered and destroyed (the British took administrative control of the two colonies). Well, technically Ethiopia was not a colony, but was a conquered independent nation, but the point remains the same.

[Richpo64]

There's no reason to continue a treaty with a country that no longer exists. Especially with a country we were at war with. These liberals truly do live in a world of their own making. What sane person would think that way?

Sure, let's honor our commitments to a country that never lived up to the treaties in the first place, which at this point in history, doesn't even exist.

Yeah, sure. Well, I guess it's to be expacted from these traitorous leftists. They're still looking out for the best interest of the Soviet Union, just as they did during the Cold War.

[_JS]

International law is not as cut and dry as you think. It really depends upon the treaty and the parties involved. These are very complex issues and they don't simply dissolve when boundaries change.

[Richpo64]

Actually what it depends on is the parties involved. If a treaty is no longer working, for any reason, any country involved can claim it invalid.

Simple as that.

[_JS]

Actually what it depends on is the parties involved. If a treaty is no longer working, for any reason, any country involved can claim it invalid.

Simple as that.

They don't do that though. Why? Because to renege, even on a token treaty at the international level, puts one's credibility at stake. It may look perfectly reasonable from a pragmatic or Machiavellian point of view. Yet, a nation that makes it a habit becomes a nation that loses trust, for both major and minor treaties.

Dimplomacy is not for the bull in the china shop.

[Michael Tee]

<<Actually what it depends on is the parties involved. If a treaty is no longer working, for any reason, any country involved can claim it invalid.

<<Simple as that.>>

There you have it.  The Richpo64 Theory of International Treaty Obligations.  (And THIS is the guy who is calling ME "stupid.")

ROTFLMFAO.

[Plane]

I believe it is Putin that wants to renege on a treaty right now , but does it matter?

The strength of the Soviet Union was frittered away on Economic foolishness and it isn't really back yet at the rate Russia is improving.

Lets just not fritter away our own stringth is a like manner.

[Richpo64]

>>They don't do that though. Why? Because to renege, even on a token treaty at the international level, puts one's credibility at stake. <<

Throughout the history of nations on this Earth treaties have come and gone. A treaty is never permanently binding. There are procedures used to notify any party involved in the treaty to let them know you are withdrawing from said treaty. Also, if any of the parties involved in the treaty are found to be in violation of the grounds of the treaty it can be temporarily suspended or terminated. If a nation no longer exists, suspension or termination would certainly be in order.