nuclear arms treaty – USA Gov Policy

During his tenure in office, President Obama has, in the words made popular in the John Lennon song, “give peace a chance.”

He slashed military spending even as potential adversaries raised theirs.
He advocates for a unilateral American reduction in nuclear weapons.
He signed an arms control treaty that left Washington at a distinct disadvantage.
He withdrew American troops from Iraq and announced a withdrawal date from Afghanistan.
He pulled back on purely defensive measures such as the anti-missile system.
He refused to allow energy drilling on federal lands that would have limited Moscow’s oil and gas-financed ability to finance its vast military buildup.
He withdrew all U.S. tanks from Europe.
He has pursued the closing of militarily vital industrial plants.
He refused to fulfill treaty obligations with the Philippines and Ukraine when they were assaulted by China and Russia.
He did not retaliate against Islamic fundamentalists for the assault on Benghazi.
He has not responded to the growth in Russian, Chinese, and Iranian military influence in Latin America.
He has weakened sanctions against Iran’s nuclear development program.
Where U.S. troops are deployed, he has made the rules of engagement so stringent that American troops are killed before they even get permission to fire back.
He advocates putting U.S. troops under the jurisdiction of the U.N. criminal court, a move guaranteed to handcuff and endanger them further.
During his re-election campaign, the votes of soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines stationed overseas were mysteriously delivered late.

Some men using PDE5-inhibitors may experience side effects such as flushing, itching and gastrointestinal upset). cheap levitra It helps to gain harder and bigger erection for pleasurable buying viagra on line coition. Chief constituents of Vital M-40 capsules are Balsamodendron Mukul, Terminalis Chebula, Saffron, Ferrum, Pongamia Glabra, Aril Myristica Fragrans, brand viagra from canada Onosma Bracteatum, Orchis Mascula, Strychnos Nux-Vomia, Asparagus Adscendens etc. Men who utilize this jelly have a tendency to do so as it has a speedier impact than purchase cialis online http://secretworldchronicle.com/tag/enrico-marconi/ and as it is in a jelly structure numerous men want to utilize it on the off chance that they battle to have the capacity to swallow tablets.
The end result has been a dramatically more dangerous world, with military activity in Europe and Asia on a scale not seen since the end of World War II, as well as the resurgence of al-Qaeda and the Taliban.

In response, a unique movement has been started by former and current members of the U.S. armed forces to get out the vote in 2014 in attempt to strengthen the legislative branch’s ability to halt Mr. Obama’s dangerous foreign policy missteps.

The movement is spearheaded by the founders of the organization, Special Operations Speaks, which was formed in the aftermath of the Benghazi debacle. According to the organization,

“Interestingly enough, when GWB was president you heard about the military deaths in Iraq and Afghanistan almost daily. With Obama in the White House, however, the mainstream media has been strangely quiet. More than 1,000 American soldiers have lost their lives in Afghanistan in the last 27 months. This is more than the combined total of the nine years before…The Commander in Chief is AWOL. There is a deep disgust, a fury, growing in the ranks of the military against the indifferent incompetence of this president…But there is now a movement afoot in the Armed Services to launch a massive get-out-the-vote drive against this President.”

As global events spin out of control, it is increasingly likely that not only those with military experience but also voters deeply concerned about the likelihood of a major war caused by the White House’s demonstrably unsuccessful foreign policies will make their concern felt at the ballot box.

Quick Analysis

Ukraine’s Frozen Conflict

As we approach winter in the northern hemisphere, the war in Ukraine is beginning to resemble a “frozen conflict” from many perspectives. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky recently told the media he hopes the war will end faster once President-elect Trump takes over in January. Opinions in Moscow, however, differ from that of the Ukrainian leader. Russian President Vladimir Putin argues that the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) needs to exclude Ukraine from joining in “exchange” for peace. If it does not, he says, then no end to the war is in sight. So far there is no Christmas solution. Several NATO countries, according to Vladimir Socor of the Jamestown Foundation, are tentatively considering “coalitions-of-the-willing” to provide security for Ukraine outside of the formal NATO framework. There is, however, no collective mechanism today under which such an arrangement is viable. According to the NATO Charter, while Ukraine is a NATO partner country, it may not join as a full member since it has not fulfilled the requirements for membership. That has not stopped NATO and allies from continuing “to provide Ukraine with unprecedented levels of support, helping to uphold its fundamental right to self-defence,” according to the organization. Socor says that keeping Ukraine out of NATO will not advance peace with Russia. Waiting for a peace settlement, he suggests, would only serve to encourage Moscow to continue the war indefinitely. Although the Biden Administration officially withdrew its support for Ukrainian membership in 2021, NATO maintains an “open door” policy toward membership-seeking countries. The current White House position led the way for European states to oppose Ukraine’s membership saying that a decision should be delayed until “conditions are met.” Biden pushed for changing “open door” to a “bridge” metaphor. It is not intended as an across-the-board NATO policy and has been implemented in the past on a case-by-case basis, says Socor. “The alliance’s open-door policy was not fully insulated from Russia’s non-statutory blocking power, and NATO-aspirant countries’ path toward membership was not always irreversible.” Russia has successfully blocked states like Georgia from joining, first in 2008 and again after the war in Ukraine began in 2014. Russia recognizes the value add of Ukraine to NATO is enormous and that Kyiv has a better case than some other nations. Putin’s invasion was, in part, intended to foreclose that option. By 2021, Moscow was pushing hard to maximize its war objectives, which included further annexations of Ukrainian territory. A main goal for Putin was, and is, to ensure there is no Ukraine left to join NATO. As President-elect Trump prepares to assume office in January, he is faced with the historical challenges presented by the war. Post-conflict security guarantees were the center of several proposals made during the 2023 military stalemate. The incoming Trump Administration has yet to outline how it intends to handle the Russia-Ukraine war. Analysts in Washington believe that the new Administration will expect its European allies to guarantee the majority of Ukraine’s security needs. As we approach 2025, several European nations have acknowledged that they do not view Ukraine as eligible for NATO membership as it would draw the organization into the middle of the conflict. Others want to wait until the war is over or pending a “peace” settlement before considering Ukrainian membership. Socor reports that some “influential voices” are suggesting that “Kyiv should join NATO after “freezing” the war along a stable armistice line, de facto accepting Ukraine’s partition, with NATO security guarantees applying de jure to the government-controlled territory only.” This would mean starting accession talks soon with the actual talks to commence only after a ceasefire is in place. Trump arrives in Washington at a time when Putin’s hybrid strategies of war in Ukraine have eviscerated commonly-held differences between war and peace. “Absent a political consensus in NATO over Ukrainian membership, certain European allies, including France’s President Emmanuel Macron, are holding informal consultations about post-conflict security guarantees to Kyiv by NATO members outside of NATO’s framework,” according to the Jamestown Foundation. The Biden Administration downplayed the discussions on possible forms of military assistance and defense industry cooperation by sending only an Assistant Secretary of State. For a European peace to hold the Trump Administration would need to formally extend the United States’ nuclear deterrence to Ukraine. Options under discussion in Europe include a “coalition of the resolute” to deploy forces to Ukraine as part of a possible armistice package, deterring further Russian attacks, says Secor. European officials are also debating, without any agreement, whether its military forces could perform non-combat logistical roles to free Ukrainian forces to fight. None of the possible courses of action has moved forward as all eyes are waiting on the incoming Trump Administration for clues about its intended level of support for a NATO framework and other non-NATO proposals. Daria Novak served in the U.S. State Dept.