> In 2007, the United States' plans to create bases in Romania and Bulgaria constituted, according to Russia, a breach of the treaty.

> NATO officials disputed this and stated that the US bases were not intended as permanent and thus could not be seen as a breach.

> However, it was then reported that the agreements signed with both Romania and Bulgaria in 2006 specifically allowed for permanent bases under direct US control and The Washington Times also had obtained the confirmation of a senior United States official that the facilities were intended to be permanent.

Are you also unable to see the chapter that follow, about the US alleging how countries like Russia, Ukraine, Belarus, Armenia and Azerbaijan were not in compliance?

Do you also consider that an excuse, or is it only an excuse when Russia points out non-compliance?

Particularly, considering how the US would complain about hundreds of former Soviets troops being somewhere where they had been since the Cold War, while at the same time the US was blatantly lying about permanently stationing thousands new troops increasingly closer to Russia in countries like Bulgaria and Romania.

Btw;

> Russia using US non-compliance with something it never agreed to

The US, just like all European NATO countries, are very much party to Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe.

What you seem to wanting to refer to, is how the US and NATO never ratified the Adapted CFE Treaty [0], which is not the same as the original CFE Treaty.

It's also quite the odd point trying to make; The US complaining about non-compliance of others, who have actually ratified it, while itself did not even ratify the treaty, is just blatantly hypocritical.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adapted_Conventional_Armed_For...

I then turned to read the text of the treaty itself, to find the exact text of the clause of the treaty it violated. The way the Wikipedia article is written, it sounds like there's a clause in the treaty that says "NATO cannot have any [permanent] bases in Romania and Bulgaria." There is no such clause.

If you read the Wikipedia text carefully, you'll notice that it doesn't say that US violated the treaty--it says that Russia alleges that the US violated the treaty. Now that's very arguably bias on the part of the Wikipedia editor, but the fact that there isn't any followup to actually show how Russia's interpretation can be backed up by the treaty itself.

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.tirasp...

[1] https://www.nato.int/nrc-website/en/articles/2007-04-26-nrc-...

It doesn't take all that much empathy to see it from a Russian POV - your main geopolitical rival abandons a treaty with you, and begins placing military assets near your borders? Sure, it's definitely threatening, especially if you don't trust them.

It's nothing to do with their war in Ukraine, but is nevertheless real.