US formally withdraws from Open Skies Treaty that bolstered European security

[ZiprHead]

https://www.cnn.com/2020/11/22/politics/us-withdrawal-open-skies/index.html

The US on Sunday formally exited the decades-old Open Skies Treaty, some six months after President Donald Trump first announced the decision, according to the State Department.

The 1992 treaty allows the 34 member countries to conduct short notice, unarmed, reconnaissance flights over the other countries to collect data on their military forces and activities.

The Trump administration has cited Russian restrictions on Open Skies flights as the reason why it sought to exit the treaty, accusing Moscow of imposing limits on flights near its exclave of Kaliningrad, an area between Poland and Lithuania where the Russian military maintains a robust presence.
The US has also accused Russia of denying flights within 6.2 miles of the Georgia-Russia border, and denying a previously approved flight over a major Russian military exercise.

'We will pull out'

"Russia didn't adhere to the treaty, so until they adhere, we will pull out," Trump told reporters outside the White House in May.

Trump administration to reportedly dispose of Open Skies treaty planes

The Trump administration is preparing to get rid of Air Force planes used for surveillance after exiting the Open Skies treaty with Russia, complicating President-elect Joe Biden’s options if he seeks to rejoin the accord, according to a report.

Secretary of State Mike Pompeo on Sunday announced the withdrawal from the decades-old treaty that allowed nations to conduct unarmed surveillance flights over each other’s territories.

Now the Trump administration is moving to jettison the specially equipped OC-135B planes used in the Open Skies flights, the Wall Street Journal reported.

The planes have been designated as “excess defense articles,” meaning they can be given or sold at steep discounts to allies, the report said, citing a senior US official.

“We’ve started liquidating the equipment,” the official said. “Other countries can come purchase or just take the airframes. They are really old and cost-prohibitive for us to maintain. We don’t have a use for them anymore.”

This does nothing but help Putin.

 

[Politesse]

I agree with this decision. (a.) There's no point in pretending you have a treaty that allows for "open skies" if the member states still want to enforce no fly zones over any part of their territory they don't want others to see for whatever reason. So the treaty was already broken, and (b.) we shouldn't throw be throwing millions after outdated means of espionage anyway. We're talking about two planes here, let's be clear, and both of them 25 years old. The program was more ceremonial than practical, a relic of the mid 90's ethos about what was at the time a very different Russia. We're not going to lose any war because we sold off a rickety old Boeing with Cold War tech inside.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Shush! You'll let trump know this isn't a scorched-earth tactic! He might trip over actual damage.

I wonder if one of his advisors has stock in spy satellites? "Yes, sirreee, this'll really put his nose out of joint, sir."

Or if it's the Pentagon? "Pleeeeeeeease don't let us lapse on those maintenance contracts, sir! We'd have to close that base, and that flight school, and that airlplane mechanic school, and retask that refueling plane... shift the funds to replace the floppy-disks in the silo targeting computers..."

 

[Alcoholic Actuary]

Apparently old man russia doesn't want us walking on his lawn either:

us russian navy involved in brief confrontation at sea

aa

 

[TV and credit cards]

Boy, this isn’t how old Rachel Maddow framed it last night. She made it sound like we had a fleet of these things checking under Putin’s scrotum on a regular basis. I’ve got to quit that MSNBC. It’s worse than recreational drugs. (he said with Katie Turr in his ear).

 

[ZiprHead]

I agree with this decision. (a.) There's no point in pretending you have a treaty that allows for "open skies" if the member states still want to enforce no fly zones over any part of their territory they don't want others to see for whatever reason. So the treaty was already broken, and (b.) we shouldn't throw be throwing millions after outdated means of espionage anyway. We're talking about two planes here, let's be clear, and both of them 25 years old. The program was more ceremonial than practical, a relic of the mid 90's ethos about what was at the time a very different Russia. We're not going to lose any war because we sold off a rickety old Boeing with Cold War tech inside.

Ah, but because one member doesn't comply doesn't mean you just drop the entire treaty. There's negotiation, sanctions and other punishments that can be imposed for non-compliance.

 

[Politesse]

I agree with this decision. (a.) There's no point in pretending you have a treaty that allows for "open skies" if the member states still want to enforce no fly zones over any part of their territory they don't want others to see for whatever reason. So the treaty was already broken, and (b.) we shouldn't throw be throwing millions after outdated means of espionage anyway. We're talking about two planes here, let's be clear, and both of them 25 years old. The program was more ceremonial than practical, a relic of the mid 90's ethos about what was at the time a very different Russia. We're not going to lose any war because we sold off a rickety old Boeing with Cold War tech inside.

Ah, but because one member doesn't comply doesn't mean you just drop the entire treaty. There's negotiation, sanctions and other punishments that can be imposed for non-compliance.

Well, there's that. But does Mr. Putin care about those either?

 

[ZiprHead]

I agree with this decision. (a.) There's no point in pretending you have a treaty that allows for "open skies" if the member states still want to enforce no fly zones over any part of their territory they don't want others to see for whatever reason. So the treaty was already broken, and (b.) we shouldn't throw be throwing millions after outdated means of espionage anyway. We're talking about two planes here, let's be clear, and both of them 25 years old. The program was more ceremonial than practical, a relic of the mid 90's ethos about what was at the time a very different Russia. We're not going to lose any war because we sold off a rickety old Boeing with Cold War tech inside.

Ah, but because one member doesn't comply doesn't mean you just drop the entire treaty. There's negotiation, sanctions and other punishments that can be imposed for non-compliance.

Well, there's that. But does Mr. Putin care about those either?

I would think it would depend on the sanctions.

 

[Politesse]

Well, there's that. But does Mr. Putin care about those either?

I would think it would depend on the sanctions.

And is this tiny, out-dated program worth bringing out the big guns for?

 

[ZiprHead]

Well, there's that. But does Mr. Putin care about those either?

I would think it would depend on the sanctions.

And is this tiny, out-dated program worth bringing out the big guns for?

Is it out-dated?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I agree with this decision. (a.) There's no point in pretending you have a treaty that allows for "open skies" if the member states still want to enforce no fly zones over any part of their territory they don't want others to see for whatever reason. So the treaty was already broken, and (b.) we shouldn't throw be throwing millions after outdated means of espionage anyway. We're talking about two planes here, let's be clear, and both of them 25 years old. The program was more ceremonial than practical, a relic of the mid 90's ethos about what was at the time a very different Russia. We're not going to lose any war because we sold off a rickety old Boeing with Cold War tech inside.

Ah, but because one member doesn't comply doesn't mean you just drop the entire treaty. There's negotiation, sanctions and other punishments that can be imposed for non-compliance.

If Russia isn't complying what's the point of the treaty?

 

[ZiprHead]

Listening to Malcolm Nance, he says Trump probably didn't know the first thing about the Open Skies Treaty. So who put the bug in his ear about it? And who is saying Russia isn't in compliance?

 

[barbos]

It's all started when Russia upgraded their plane and US realized that upgrade will make them see much better. "Russia is not complying" is an excuse. First, US complains Russia is flying over Trump properties, as if they can't fly wherever they want (they can). Second, they complain US can't fly wherever they want. It does not compute.

Observation flights may only be restricted for reasons of flight safety and not for reasons of national security

I am pretty sure both sides could make it look like it's flight safety and not the security.

In any case, the reason for US exit is that they feel that Russia gets more out of this treaty than US.
And US expects remaining countries which are all US allies will share their data with them, which, by the way, is forbidden by the treaty, but we all know that there is no way for them not to share.
Bottom line, Russia lose a lot, whereas US lose nothing from this withdrawal.

 

[barbos]

And is this tiny, out-dated program worth bringing out the big guns for?

Is it out-dated?

Yes, US spy satellites have better resolution than sensors this treaty allows.

 

[barbos]

Listening to Malcolm Nance, he says Trump probably didn't know the first thing about the Open Skies Treaty. So who put the bug in his ear about it? And who is saying Russia isn't in compliance?

Pompeo, obviously.

 

[fromderinside]

Oh goody. Another piece of shit Biden has to clean up by declanging the clangor STBXPOTUS code name Orange clanged. What a waste of trees.

 

[Swammerdami]

Is this a good thread for discussing Trump's treasons more generally?

Doug Wise, a former CIA officer and Trump critic, argued this week in a piece on the Just Security web site that Trump has long posed a national security danger, and that affording him access to secrets after he leaves the White House would compound that danger .

Trump's large debts, he wrote, present "obvious and alarming counterintelligence risks" to the United States.

Russian President Vladimir Putin, for one, would have a great incentive to pay Trump to act on Russia's behalf, Wise wrote.

"Assuming President Joe Biden follows custom, Trump would continue to have access to sensitive information that the Russians would consider valuable," he wrote. "As horrifying as it would seem, could a financially leveraged former president be pressured or blackmailed into providing Moscow sensitive information in exchange for financial relief and future Russian business considerations?"

It was not impossible to envision Trump paid millions on retainer by Gulf Arab states or other foreign governments, Harvard professor Goldsmith said, "in the course of which he starts blabbing and disclosing lots of secrets. It wouldn't be an express quid pro quo, but people would pay for access to and time with him, knowing that he will not be discreet."

Former CIA Director John Brennan, a frequent Trump critic who was denied access to his own classified file by the president, said the Biden administration should carefully weigh the question of Trump's access to future secrets.

I find it absurd to imagine that Biden — or any patriotic American — would give briefings on secret matters to the soon-to-be-ex-Pres. The only question is whether to further humiliate the crook by asking him if he wants to apply for security clearance.

A bigger worry is the secrets he already has, which he may have shared with other crooks like Jared Kushner or Steve Bannon. But I guess this is all what the American people wanted. Democracy! Yay!!

 

[Loren Pechtel]

It's all started when Russia upgraded their plane and US realized that upgrade will make them see much better. "Russia is not complying" is an excuse. First, US complains Russia is flying over Trump properties, as if they can't fly wherever they want (they can). Second, they complain US can't fly wherever they want. It does not compute.

Observation flights may only be restricted for reasons of flight safety and not for reasons of national security

I am pretty sure both sides could make it look like it's flight safety and not the security.

In any case, the reason for US exit is that they feel that Russia gets more out of this treaty than US.
And US expects remaining countries which are all US allies will share their data with them, which, by the way, is forbidden by the treaty, but we all know that there is no way for them not to share.
Bottom line, Russia lose a lot, whereas US lose nothing from this withdrawal.

My understanding is that Russia wasn't allowing flights looking at their border wars.

 

[ZiprHead]

It's all started when Russia upgraded their plane and US realized that upgrade will make them see much better. "Russia is not complying" is an excuse. First, US complains Russia is flying over Trump properties, as if they can't fly wherever they want (they can). Second, they complain US can't fly wherever they want. It does not compute.

Observation flights may only be restricted for reasons of flight safety and not for reasons of national security

I am pretty sure both sides could make it look like it's flight safety and not the security.

In any case, the reason for US exit is that they feel that Russia gets more out of this treaty than US.
And US expects remaining countries which are all US allies will share their data with them, which, by the way, is forbidden by the treaty, but we all know that there is no way for them not to share.
Bottom line, Russia lose a lot, whereas US lose nothing from this withdrawal.

My understanding is that Russia wasn't allowing flights looking at their border wars.

Was it the Trump administration that told you this?

 

[Keith&Co.]

I find it absurd to imagine that Biden — or any patriotic American — would give briefings on secret matters to the soon-to-be-ex-Pres. The only question is whether to further humiliate the crook by asking him if he wants to apply for security clearance.

It's onpy custom to give him access, and that's mainly for continuity on projects he initiated or negotiated. I don't think anyone really cares to ensure that continuity.

Plus, the only security clearance he has is that he sits in the big chair. When someone else sits in the big chair, then either he has go apply for a clearance, or Biden would have to grant him one despite the red flags in his background check.
Biden won't touch that with a twenty foot pole.
He's not going to see classified data again until, at best, he starts the transition in 2024.