The World According to.....

* US President Donald Trump confirmed last week that the US planned to withdraw from the 1987 Intermediate-range Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF). Apparently one of the reasons for doing so was that the Russians have been in breach of the INF for years. According to Trump, previous US administrations failed to do something about it, so pulling out of the INF was inevitable and necessary.
* At the same time, the US plans to "develop those weapons" amidst a Chinese arms buildup in the Pacific. This was not the first time that the Trump administration had withdrawn from an international treaty, but the first on an arms- and security-related agreement. 
* The worldwide reaction was swift and to the point. The EU and its leaders warned of a new round of nuclear arms race if the withdrawal became fact. On the other hand, Moscow made it clear the planned US withdrawal from INF was "dangerous." In addition, some international security experts see the withdrawal as "a loser all around," particularly taking the blame for ending the INF and distancing allies in Europe and Asia.
* The domestic reaction in the US was mixed. While some Republican lawmakers cautioned the Trump administration that the withdrawal could unravel other disarmament agreements, others supported  the administration's position as "absolutely the right move." It remains unclear, however, if  the administration would actually follow through on last week's pledge to pull out of the INF. Things are expected to become clearer after US National Security Advisor John Bolton meets Russian President Vladimir Putin on 10/24.
* Though unexpected, more and more countries and leaders are no longer surprised by Trump administration's moves to "remedy past wrongs" and, again, put "America first." Though treaty violations are a concern in any international agreement, withdrawal may not be the only, or the preferred, option. Considering these moves are potentially destabilising to an international order that has been in place for decades, picking up the pieces and regroup afterwards may present challenges increasingly formidable in a multipolar--no longer unipolar--world.
* With mid-term elections in the US just two weeks away, some believe these planned moves are equally for, if not more, domestic consumption to show that the administration is "tough" on treaty violators and is not afraid to stand up for America. It may be China on trade and Russia on arms control, but the message is the same--the US will no longer be taken advantage of. With national interests first and foremost, the chipping away of American credibility and responsibility internationally does not appear to be a factor in top decision making circles in Washington.