"Modest but not completely trivial."
I'd been wondering why I wasn't hearing any career "progressive" triumphalism on Obama's nuclear deal with the Russians. Now I know why:
Q. Why is the treaty important?
A. Not because it dramatically shrinks nuclear dangers. Linton Brooks, a lead U.S. negotiator on the 1991 strategic arms treaty, on Wednesday described the weapons reductions as "modest but not completely trivial." Perhaps more important is the fact that the U.S. and Russian governments have established a bridge to potentially more substantial arms reductions and have demonstrated to the rest of the world that they are capable of giving up at least some of the weaponry they want others, like Iran, to forgo.
Then again, we've heard a lot about "potential." Performance, not so much. Except when it comes to funnelling trillions to the banksters or the insurance companies, of course. So there's that.