Calling out Russia: But weakly
The Obama administration finally is calling out Russia for violating 1987's Intermediate-range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty. Yet this White House, too deferential toward Moscow for too long in pursuit of further strategic nuclear arms reductions, is more focused on preserving that treaty than on punishing this violation — or on safeguarding America and its allies.
The New York Times reports Russian tests of a ground-launched cruise missile whose range violates an INF Treaty ban began as early as 2008 and were cited by the State Department as violating the treaty in May 2013. But only now has President Barack Obama told Russian President Vladimir Putin, via a letter, that the testing violated the treaty.
About a year ago, the administration could have called out Russia for hiding another INF Treaty violation by dishonestly classifying a new road-mobile missile. But that opportunity was lost to the same deferentialism that's led this White House to gut U.S. missile defense in Europe — and Mr. Obama to emphasize “interest in high-level dialogue with Moscow with the aim of preserving the 1987 treaty” in his letter to Mr. Putin, according to The Times.
That's another deferential response, another appeasement, from an administration still more interested in possible further warhead cuts than in holding Russia accountable — or in neutralizing a clear threat to U.S. and allied security.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- The climate ruse: A warped dimension
- Elsie Hillman, 1925-2015
- Merging health insurers: Suffering ahead?
- Greensburg Tuesday takes
- Pittsburgh Tuesday takes
- Regional growth
- Kittanning Laurels & Lances
- Yes, the IRS targeted conservatives
- The Box
- The Connellsville Redevelopment Authority: Facts & findings
- U.N. Watch: Follow China’s lead?