The United States' decision to quit the Intermediate Nuclear Force Treaty will foment many countries' distrust towards Washington and undermine strategic stability, the chief of the European security section at the Institute of Europe under the Russian Academy of Sciences, MGIMO University professor Dmitry Danilov told TASS.

In his opinion this step "shakes loose the military-political situation in the most serious way."

"If the INF Treaty ceases to exist, there will emerge problems with finding alternative elements of maintaining the strategic balance, in the first place, nuclear one. In a situation like this it will be necessary to take steps that would enable Russia and other countries to compensate for the imbalances at the national level and neutralize the potential risks and challenges that will emerge," he said.

Danilov believes that the United States' pullout from the INF Treaty would be tantamount to utter collapse of arms control.

"Trust towards the United States' ability to act in a responsible way in the arms control space and to honor the existing international treaties will be hopelessly wasted. Washington's credibility as a partner will be considerably undermined. This is true not of only Russia-US or Russia-NATO relations, but of far wider problems related with the erosion of nuclear non-proliferation.

"The United States' unilateral actions and pullout from the treaty will reduce to a critical low other countries' certainty about the ability of great powers to maintain the nuclear and strategic balances, non-proliferation and arms control."

The United States' decision to sever the INF Treaty, Danilov believes, may cause the most negative effect on Euro-Atlantic relations.

Two US warships have reportedly passed through the Taiwan Strait, a move that will likely be viewed by Beijing as yet another escalation amid Washington's ongoing operation to impose freedom of navigation in the South China Sea.

The USS Antietam, a guided missile cruiser, and the USS Curtis Wilbur, a guided missile destroyer, traveled through the strait Monday, sailing from south to north, the US Navy said, confirming earlier reports from Taiwan's Defense Ministry.

The ships' passage through the strait demonstrates "the US commitment to a free and open Indo-Pacific," Cmdr. Nate Christensen, a spokesman for US Pacific Fleet, told CNN.

The last time US naval vessels passed through the strait was in July.

Last week it was reported that US officials were mulling an operation that would send warships through the waterway, as part of its ongoing efforts to impose free navigation in the South China Sea.

The DOJ Office of Inspector General released an interesting investigative summary report today following a review of a "senior FBI official" accepting tickets from a "television news corespondent" and lying to investigators about the events.

On Saturday, Donald Trump announced that the United States would withdraw from the nuclear arms control agreement with Russia, commonly referred to as the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF). Sputnik offers insight into what the treaty is about and what Russia's and America's takes are on it.

What's the Big Deal?

The INF deal was big, in fact, but we can realize its importance only if we take a look at the international situation in the mid-1970s. By that time, the two superpowers had roughly achieved strategic parity after three decades of the overwhelming dominance of the US in nuclear force.

While the Cold War between the United States and the Soviet Union was going through a period of détente, Washington began to modify its forward-based system in Europe with submarine-launched and intermediate-range ballistic missiles. This was seen as a cause for concern in Moscow, which responded by upgrading the aging missiles on its Western flank with state-of-the-art weapons, classified by NATO as SS-20 "Pioneer." These strategic nukes allowed the Soviet Union to place all major facilities in Western Europe in its crosshairs, thus obtaining a perceived military advantage in Europe.

Beijing has become the latest to oppose Donald Trump's decision to pull out of what it branded a "crucial" nuclear treaty with Russia, with its foreign minister warning it would have a "multilateral negative effect."

Tagging on to the ever-growing choir of opposing voices, foreign ministry spokeswoman Hua Chunying told a regular news briefing that Beijing does not support Trump's decision to pull out from the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF Treaty).

"The US unilateral withdrawal from the treaty [INF] will have a multilateral negative effect," the Chinese diplomat said, before adding the treaty is "a very important document on arms control. The treaty remains crucial in the modern era."

The murder of Saudi dissident journalist Jamal Khashoggi has come at time when the Trump administration is at its most dependent on Riyadh for the success of both its foreign and domestic policies.

Donald Trump has spoken repeatedly about US arms sales to Saudi Arabia, hugely overstating the actual figures. The president also benefits personally by Saudi royals and officials spending freely at his luxury hotel.

But he is reliant on Riyadh for more urgent and consequential reasons.

In three weeks' time, sweeping US sanctions go into effect on Iran, as the administration seeks to cut off the country's oil exports. Since walking out of an international nuclear deal with Iran in May, Trump has made crippling the Iranian economy a foreign policy priority, though his officials deny the aim is regime change.

Without a compensating increase in oil supply from other oil suppliers, Saudi Arabia foremost, the sanctions that go into effect on 4 November will produce a spike in oil prices just ahead of the finely balanced midterm elections.

There will not be a repeat of the 1973 oil embargo despite the crisis over the murder of journalist Jamal Khashoggi at the Saudi consulate in Istanbul, the Saudi energy minister reportedly said on Monday.

On Friday, Saudi Arabia admitted for the first time that Khashoggi - a critic of Saudi leaders and former Washington Post journalist - had been killed by Saudi agents. Over the weekend, the US increased pressure on Riyadh with talk of possible sanctions. Some have accused Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman of ordering the killing, a charge he has denied.

Speculation about possible sanctions against Riyadh have raised questions about the repeat of the 1973 oil crisis, when OPEC proclaimed an oil embargo against countries supporting Israel during the Yom Kippur War. The United States, Canada, the United Kingdom, Japan and the Netherlands were among the first sanctioned countries.

Russian and European officials from Germany to Italy have slammed President Trump's decision to withdraw from the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty, a 1987 arms control deal meant to reduce the risk of nuclear war. Speaking to Sputnik, strategic arms control specialist Dr. Peter Kuznick explained why Washington's move is so dangerous.

Sputnik: What is your reaction to the US move, and particularly the claims of Russian violations of the treaty?

Peter Kuznick: It's a very dangerous move on the part of the United States. It further erodes any effort to control the nuclear arms race. We've seen an escalation already, certainly in the rhetoric. Donald Trump said during the campaign that 'what's the point of having nuclear weapons if we can't use them' which to most people would mean let's get rid of the nuclear weapons, but to Trump means 'let's figure out a way to make them useable.' So the world has gotten much more dangerous.

We already had eroded the [strategic security] structure in 2002 when the United States pulled out of the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, and in President Putin's March 1 state of the nation address, he focused on the 2002 move by the United States as very destabilizing, and to use it in part to justify the fact that Russia now is developing five new nuclear weapons, all of which can evade US ballistic missile systems.

Chinese newspapers have slammed US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo after he told the media that "when China comes calling it's not always to the good of your citizens" and warning of the hidden risks of Chinese investment.

Pompeo was meeting heads of state in Panama and Mexico. It was during last week's Latin America tour that Pompeo lashed out at China, telling reporters in Mexico City that "when they [China] show up with deals that seem to be too good to be true it's often the case that they, in fact, are."

In Panama, Pompeo also said that China was engaging in "predatory economic activity" and that when dealing with Chinese investment, countries should have their "eyes wide open."

State-run paper China Daily took a swipe back at the secretary of state, saying in an editorial on Monday that his comments were "ignorant and malicious."

The United States military has disabled the Russian signaling devices for the "first time in Syria" Alexander Sitnikov, wrote in Svobodnaya Pressa, on a report explaining the ways to counter Putin's threats to the US military.

"The Pentagon prefers to keep the details of its confrontation with Russian means of electronic warfare secret. At times, some retired US generals are praising our electronic systems as the best in the world, even though they still consider the US military the strongest on the planet.

"What kind of American power can be spoken, if almost all of its weapons are connected to satellite communications, GPS, mobile Internet, and electronic warfare devices, and as is known these connections can be easily disabled. Yet Americans are confident in their power.

"It is quite natural that Syria, torn by the seven-year war, has become the main field of the indirect battle between new types of American and Russian weapons including electronic warfare."

The DARPA report, published recently by the Advanced Defense Research Projects Agency, on the implementation of a $ 9.6 million contract, received a special attention from military experts and journalists. Interestingly, the funds were allocated to provide US forces, in Syria and Iraq, with alternative communications systems capable of operating under strong electronic radio interference conditions.