The threat of Moscow bombing Ukraine is virtually zero? but irresponsible actions by NATO could increase the nuclear threat to Europe
The director of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), William Burns, made headlines recently when he answered questions from reporters about the threat posed by Russian nuclear weapons in the context of the ongoing conflict in Ukraine. “Given the president’s potential desperation [Vladimir] “Putin and the Russian leadership, given the setbacks they have faced so far militarily, none of us can take lightly the threat from a potential approach to tactical nuclear weapons or low-yield nuclear weapons.” in Burns.
Burns’ statements stemmed from a set of facts published by Ukraine, the United States and Western media, which say that Russia has suffered severe setbacks in Ukraine and is desperate to save the military situation on the ground. Russia disputes this assessment, saying that the so-called “special military operation” in Ukraine is progressing according to plan, after moving on to its second phase, which focuses on the destruction of Ukrainian military forces in and around the Donbass region.
Burns himself could not provide any concrete evidence to support his claims about the possibility that Russia would use nuclear weapons in Ukraine. “Although we have seen some rhetorical stance on the part of the Kremlin to move to higher levels of nuclear preparedness, so far we have not seen much practical evidence of the type of deployments or military dispositions that would reinforce this concern.” in Burns. “But we are looking very closely at that, it is one of our most important responsibilities in the CIA.”
Burns’ exaggerated and unfounded concerns were put on the international stage by Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky when he answered a question from a CNN reporter about the potential for Russia to use nuclear weapons in Ukraine. “We should not wait until the moment when Russia decides to use nuclear weapons,” Zelensky replied. “We have to prepare for that.”
Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov rejected Zelensky’s analysis of Burns’ statements. “[Zelensky] says many things, “Lavrov said as he spoke to a reporter during his recent visit to India.” I can not comment [on] something that a not very adequate person says. “
Lavrov noted that during the June 2021 summit between US President Joe Biden and Russian President Vladimir Putin, the United States and Russia had reiterated the Cold War that “there could be no winners in a nuclear war”, a statement adopted by the five members of the Security Council (Russia, the United States, China, France and the United Kingdom) in January 2022. Lavrov emphasized the fact that this statement remained in full force, and that Russia would only use conventional weapons in Ukraine.
Burns and Zelensky’s statements, magnified as they have been by Western media who are more interested in making sensational headlines than understanding the reality of the situation regarding Russia’s nuclear weapons position, are part of an overall PR strategy designed to paint Russia, and its nuclear weapons, , which represents an existential threat to world peace.
Russia, and in particular its leader, Vladimir Putin, has left no doubt about the reality of Russia’s nuclear deterrence. Yes, Putin, when announces the start of the operation aroused the ghost of Russia’s nuclear power status when it warned the United States, NATO and the EU not to intervene directly in Ukraine. “Anyone who tries to disturb us, and even more, create threats to our country, to our people, should know that Russia’s response will be immediate and will lead you to such consequences that you have never experienced in your history.”
Putin followed up that statement with a more concrete response to what he called the “unfriendly” actions of “Western countries” in response to the Ukrainian operation. “Not only are Western countries taking unfriendly action against our country in the economic field, but top officials from leading NATO members have made aggressive statements about our country,” Putin said in a statement. Meeting with their highest officials. He then ordered that Russian Defense Minister Sergey Shoigu and the head of the military’s General Staff, Valery Gerasimov, place Russia’s nuclear deterrent forces in a “special combat regime”.
While anti-Russian pundits in the West jumped on Putin’s directive as an order to increase the operational readiness of Russia’s nuclear arsenal, the reality is completely different – Putin’s order most likely simply increased the communication capability of the various command and control functions related to Russia’s strategic nuclear forces, without any change in the operational readiness of any frontline nuclear power units.
The Western world’s ability to overreact to all the news about Russia’s nuclear arsenal shows a deep – rooted lack of understanding of what Russia’s stance is and under what circumstances its nuclear weapons can be used. “Although such uncertainty may have been understandable in the past, on June 2, 2022, for the first time in its 30-year history, Russia released a document to the public.”Basic principles of the Russian Federation’s state policy on nuclear deterrence“, which explains Russia’s nuclear war policy.
The Russian “basic principles” make it clear that nuclear weapons are seen “exclusively as a means of deterrence”, the use of which can only take place as “an extreme and forced action”. Russia’s strategic nuclear forces are organized in such a way that it is “the inevitable of retaliation” in the event of a nuclear attack on Russia and that these forces were designed to inflict “guaranteed unacceptable damage” on all potential adversaries – in short, any nation in the receiving the nation. the end of Russia’s nuclear arsenal would cease to exist as a modern state with a functioning society.
The nuclear weapons document describes Russia’s “launch on warning” stance, noting that Russia would fire its nuclear weapons if it received “reliable data on a launch of ballistic missiles attacking Russia and / or its allies.” Russia would also retaliate if nuclear weapons were used against Russia and / or its allies.
The document also outlined two non-nuclear scenarios in which Russia would retaliate with nuclear weapons. The first involves an attack by an opponent on critical state or military sites in Russia, the interruption of which would undermine the reactionary actions of nuclear power (ie, a so-called beheading strike against the political and military leadership). The second involves any aggression against Russia using conventional weapons when the very existence of the state is in danger.
As Sergey Lavrov pointed out in his statement to the Indian press, none of the conditions set out in the document “Basic Principles” apply to the current situation in Ukraine.
However, this does not mean that the Ukraine conflict has not resulted in a rise in the temperature of nuclear power in Europe – far from it. In Sweden, support is growing to join NATO and Finland can apply for membership within a few weeks. If the US-led bloc expands to these two countries, it could be a case for a potential military response from Russia – or at least a strengthened build-up of Russian forces. According to Dmitry Medvedeva former president and prime minister who is currently advising President Putin on national security issues, should either Sweden or Finland join NATO, “it will no longer be possible to talk about a nuclear-weapon-free status for the Baltic Sea – the balance must be restored.”
Medvedev noted that “Russia has not taken such measures and will not do so”, but added that “if our hand is forced, yes … note that we were not the ones proposing this.”
The talk of Sweden and / or Finland joining NATO comes on the heels of a concerted effort on the part of the bloc to deploy F-35A nuclear-capable fighter aircraft. “We are moving fast and furiously towards modernizing the F-35 and incorporating these into our planning and training and such when these capabilities come online,” Jessica Cox, head of NATO’s Nuclear Policy Directorate in Brussels, said recently. . “By the end of the decade, most, if not all, of our allies will have switched to the F-35,” Cox said.
F-35A was certified as a nuclear-capable aircraft in October 2021, after being tested with B-61 nuclear bombs. The United States has a stockpile of about 150 B-61 nuclear bombs at various depots throughout Europe. These weapons are intended for use by both the United States and so-called “non-nuclear” members of NATO. In fact, Cox had specifically noted that other NATO allies currently using the F-35, such as Poland, Denmark and Norway, may be called upon to support NATO’s nuclear weapons sharing missions in the future. Finland has recently announced its intention to buy 60 F-35A fighter jets, a move that can only be seen as worrying by Russia given Finland’s stated desire to join NATO.
The widespread use of the US F-35A and other NATO air force in support of the so-called “Baltic Air Police Operation” taking place across the skies of Latvia, Estonia and Lithuania is seen by Russia as a serious threat. , given that every F-35A in the air must be treated as a potential nuclear threat.
Jessica Cox and the other proponents of the F-35A fighter jet – including Finland – would be wise to reflect on the fact that the Russian “basic principles” list “the deployment of nuclear weapons and their delivery methods in the non-nuclear-weapon territories states” as one of the scenarios “to be neutralized by the implementation of nuclear deterrence.”
Russia may not be preparing to use nuclear weapons in Ukraine. However, NATO’s irresponsible position could lead to increased opportunities for Russian nuclear weapons to be used in Europe.
(RT.com)
Source: sn.dk