The graphic is a direct reproduction of Russia’s claim. Do you think a graphic designer arrived at that by chance? In any case, Sputnik’s exact relationship to the state is irrelevant. It does nothing to the validity of the technical argument. Perhaps it’s time to engage with that instead.
I'm positive the designer took the length from the briefing and made up the details. Also, the US said the violating missile is larger. It's okay to do an analysis but it must be connected to the reality. This one just puts together some numbers to support the argument that you believe already.
Spurious diagrams aside, your position is still that, yes, Russia violated the treaty, but the US is ultimately at fault for not giving Russia another chance to comply, yes? This is a fair representation of your argument, yes?
"at fault" is a wrong concept here. It's not like the US promised to keep the treaty no matter what. My point is that the US and Europe are worse off security-wise w/o the treaty. And the nature of the violation did not preclude resolving the problem.
100% agree. I agree with that statement, in itself. Unqualified. I think I understand its intent. I agree that if the US was truly committed to reduction, it not only could have, but it absolutely would have found a path back. Rather, the US welcomed any excuse, because China. All very sad.