this thread is pretty unbecoming of many posters in my opinion. disappointing. trolling nonsense abounds from too many good posters on #bothsides for a fairly serious topic. this is the kind of shit i expect from people like brad, icono, gr, d.d., and other morons.
if we move past the petulant internet scoring of points, airing of grievances, and petty inter-poster rivalries (which i love by the way, don't misinterpret), what is missing from this discussion (with the exception of smokey's post above which drew a strawman from anastasis) is the fact that this decision was not a bilateral negotiation in which the united states was considering it exclusively through the lens of a u.s.-russia diplomatic dynamic, but from a u.s.-central europe (germany) perspective. there are significant, multi-lateral diplomacy implications to this decision and this was something that germany, austria, and the rest of central europe had vehemently stated they wanted...including publicly criticizing the u.s.'s policy of sanctions on ns2 developers. it was also something that, as biden characterized, aimed at easing tensions with germany and from a practical perspective, the u.s. was really left with no other option as it was already effectively completed regardless of u.s. policy. moreover, it likely represented decent political capital to negotiate with europe on in which we don't know all the possible quid pro quos achieved (hypothetically, something like subsidies for plane manufacturers).
is it a win for putin? i think it would be fairly silly to say it is not. does it lead to putin's wholesale ability to hold europe hostage given the efforts to diversify its energy supply over the last decade? not at all. is ukraine pissed that it is being bypassed? of course. is there some realpolitik going on here? i suspect so on a few levels.
additionally, it is also important that this does not really undermine the severity of the numerous far-reaching sanctions that were imposed by biden's administration in april which seemingly have been somewhat effective to date.
as to anastasis's drumbeat, there is a completely legitimate question present there. would i have been more circumspect in allowing for such a nuanced and deferential assessment in my approach to the situation had trump been president at the time and instead echoed some pithy comments of trump being putin's puppet? i doubt it as i'd like to give myself more credit than that. but that said, i will acknowledge that trump's factual and problematic behavior and rhetoric vis-a-vis russia and nato's role early on in his presidency and during his campaign, as well as his behavior in helsinki - along with knowing how transactional trump is in all aspects of his existence and his general lack of integrity or faithfulness to anything that doesn't serve a self-aggrandizing purpose, it would have likely raised the specter of skepticism regarding motivations a bit more. and frankly, i am fine with that given my evaluation of trump relative to biden. that isn't some wholesale endorsement of biden or his motivations, just an opinion that trump is genuinely the worst kind of horrible human being in virtually every way i can imagine.
that said, facts matter and here is a brookings listing of 52 policy actions summarized in bite sizes taken by the trump administration from 2017 - 2019. some feckless and deferential, some severe.
https://www.brookings.edu/blog/order-from-chaos/2018/09/25/on-the-record-the-u-s-administrations-actions-on-russia/