> So if you believe that Russia is correct, please point me to where in the treaty itself that the US's actions violated the treaty. That is by now pretty mean

> So if you believe that Russia is correct, please point me to where in the treaty itself that the US's actions violated the treaty. That is by now pretty meaningless pedantry, the point is what impression that left on the Russian side when the US was complaining about Russian troops in Transdniestria, while at the same stationing increasingly more troops in Europe [0]. Particularly as it happened after the US quit the AMB Treaty, something Russia was never shy about signaling how its perceived as a threat [1]. Mind you; The US didn't quit the ABM Treaty over alleged violations by Russia, it simply did because it considered the treaty in the way of its foreign policy ambitions in the Middle East, which directly required ramping up US presence in Europe. Yet in that history of interactions, it's somehow Russia that's constantly framed as the not trustworthy party, when US foreign policy is dominated by such examples of the US just having it their way, with zero considerations to any other parties. [0] https://web.archive.org/web/20070927192504/http://www.tiraspoltimes.com/news/for_washington_5_500_u_s_troops_are_hardly_any_but_1_200_russian_troops_must_go.html https://web.archive.org/web/20070927192504/http://www.tirasp... [1] https://www.nato.int/nrc-website/en/articles/2007-04-26-nrc-statement-12/index.html https://www.nato.int/nrc-website/en/articles/2007-04-26-nrc-...