Illustrative Image
Distortions of pronouncements by Russian officials lead to discussion about the need for NATO to develop a “nuclear contingency” plan.
Written by Lucas Leiroz, researcher in Social Sciences at the Rural Federal University of Rio de Janeiro; geopolitical consultant.
As the conflict continues to intensify in Ukraine, the West seems interested in driving a new wave of international nuclearization. Washington announced that it will be organizing a nuclear contingency plan in order to face an eventual escalation of the crisis between Ukraine and Russia. The American arguments to “justify” this type of measure are based on distortions of previous pronouncements made by Moscow’s officials, which reveals that NATO is ready to do anything to make the current situation a pretext for global re-nuclearization.
American President Joe Biden is about to start his tour across Europe to attend meetings at the European Council and NATO, where the main topic to be discussed will certainly be Ukraine. In a recent statement, White House spokespersons said that among the issues on the agenda for discussion will be the potential use of nuclear weapons in the conflict, which is being treated with increasing attention by the US government – supposedly in response to an alleged “Russian nuclear threat”.
National security adviser Jake Sullivan commented on the case, stating: “President Putin in the early days of the conflict actually raised the spectre of the potential use of nuclear weapons. It is something that we do have to be concerned about. Based on our current analysis we have not changed our nuclear posture to date. But we are constantly monitoring for that potential contingency and of course we take it as seriously as one can possibly take it. We will be consulting with allies and partners on that potential contingency among a range of others and discussing what our potential responses are (…) [Joe Biden] will work with allies on longer-term adjustments to NATO force posture on the eastern flank. He will [also] announce joint action on enhancing European energy security and reducing Europe’s dependence on Russian gas at long last”.
When mentioning Putin, the American adviser refers to the episode in which the Russian president ordered the country’s nuclear forces to be placed on alert, in the last days of February. At the time, there was great tension and misinformation around the world, with pro-Western media outlets claiming that Putin was “threatening to use nuclear weapons”, which is absolutely false, considering that Putin’s order was just a punctual response to a previous controversial and bellicose speech by the British Foreign Secretary Liz Truss, in which the possibility of NATO involvement in the conflict was mentioned.
In addition, later Russian spokeswoman Maria Zakharova also had her words distorted by the Western media. Zakharova had commented during a press conference that a possible Third World War would be nuclear – leading Russia to avoid this scenario. At the time, Western agencies distorted the spokeswoman’s speech, also alleging some kind of threat (when, in practice, Zakharova has only said an obvious thing that everyone understands: that a new world war would be nuclear – which is precisely the reason why international society has been trying to avoid this situation since 1945).
On several occasions, Moscow officials have shown efforts to make even clearer the Russian position of trying to avoid, not provoke, the nuclear escalation of the conflict. For example, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov told CNN that his country would only use nuclear weapons if there was an existential threat to the existence of the Russian state: “We have a concept of domestic security, it is public, you can read all the reasons for [Russia’s] nuclear arms to be used (…) If it is an existential threat for our country, then it can be used in accordance with our concept”.
It is no secret that Washington has been trying to re-nuclearize international relations in recent years. In 2020, the US government began to discuss the possibility of resuming nuclear tests, for example. This type of attitude emerges as an extreme and reactive measure in the face of the process of geopolitical decentralization. In other words, in the midst of the rise of the multipolar world, Washington’s last resort to protect its global dominance is to drive a new nuclear wave.
The main problem, however, is trying to justify the re-nuclearization plan with distortions of Russian pronouncements. At no time was there any Russian position in favor of the nuclearization of the conflict in Ukraine. On the contrary, Moscow has been clear in its stance: nuclear weapons are out of the question unless there is an existential threat to Russia. The reason nuclear forces are on the alert is simply because of the escalation promoted by NATO itself, with some Western political leaders considering greater involvement of the alliance in the conflict. Obviously, an eventual NATO action in Ukraine could be interpreted as an existential threat, as the bloc accumulates the largest nuclear arsenal in the world. So, for there to be no risk of escalation and for the Russian alert to nuclear forces to be revoked, the first step to be taken is for NATO to abdicate any involvement in the conflict that could constitute an existential threat.
A re-nuclearization of the world is unlikely to mean any kind of bellicose use of such weapons. Neither side wins in a conflict where two nuclear powers face each other and a war between Russia and NATO would certainly be the end of the world. So, obviously, the American attitude would not be to use nuclear weapons against enemies, but only to drive a new wave of nuclearization, returning to the tensions of the Cold War era. It is possible that nuclear tests will be resumed, for example, and that the production of new weapons will be boosted, creating a new nuclear race.
Unfortunately, while a nuclear conflict is virtually impossible, some degree of nuclearization seems an inevitable side effect of the current situation.
Yes any country who has the economic and scientific capacity to do so should be allowed to pursue nuclear weapons. It is a travesty of international justice that nuclear armed states are imposing a non-proliferation stance on non nuclear armed states. Either everyone should be working towards disarmament or towards armaments. Then you have paranoid and insecure countries like Russia who want neighboring countries to fear them. Nobody fears Russia and nobody envies Russia but most certainly everyone hates and is disgusted with Russia. I’m not sure how vodka drinking Russian pensionaires who are angry warmongering fools and support Russia as an aggressor state are not disgusted with themselves. But it’s very common, drunkards are never disgusted with themselves. They disgust everyone around them.
It appears there is at least 1 mutant from the nuclear testing era.
Learn the history of nuclear proliferation.
The USA is the only country that has used nuclear weapons against another country and the USA and the British planned a nuclear war on the Soviet Union in 1946 at a time when the USA was the sole nuclear power.
There was a widely supported proposal in 1946 that the USA give up nuclear weapons and give control of all nuclear weapons to the UN but the USA refused.
It’s not “Russian insecurity” that led to the situation we are in in regards to nuclear weapons … it’s the US quest for military dominance over the world
Yes any country who has the economic and scientific capacity to do so should be allowed to pursue nuclear weapons. It is a travesty of international justice that nuclear armed states are imposing a non-proliferation stance on non nuclear armed states. Either everyone should be working towards disarmament or towards armaments. Then you have paranoid and insecure countries like USA whom want neighboring countries to fear them. Nobody fears the crumbling americant empire and nobody envies Banderistan but most certainly everyone hates and is disgusted with D.C.. I’m not sure how Whiskey drinking americant pensionaires who are angry warmongering fools and support USA as an aggressor state are not disgusted with themselves. But it’s very common, drunkards are never disgusted with themselves. They disgust everyone around them.
You are not allowed to pursue nuclear weaponry, you do it if you can. That’s the example of Israel, India, North Korea and Pakistan more recently and the five “classical” nuclear powers as well in the past.
Said that, proliferation is obviously very dangerous: the more “red buttons” the more likely that some mad man, mad woman or mad clique is tempted to do the unthinkable. Nuclear testing is not without issues either, even if we assume that nuclear war does not happen. Even “peaceful atom” (nuclear energy), which is a precondition for any nuclear arsenal, has been shown again and again to cause big trouble (Three Mile Islands, Chernobyl, Fukushima, etc.) and has not solved its major problems at all, notably “safe” waste storage and relative scarcity of mineral uranium.
Ukraine is too corrupt to be allowed to pursue nuclear weapons. The corruption levels are such that fission material likely be sold on black market to anyone with enough suitcases of cash. That means the adults in the room have decided you cannot have them.
USA has the only History of using Nukes on Civilians and even its own Military. That’s the Touchstone.
Does your logic imply that if one becomes a criminal, the other is allowed to become a criminal too? 🤷
This is the logic you lot use a lot. You use so called russian disinformation to justify censorship and autocratic rule here in the west. So why not? It takes one to recognize one, after all.
The logic is that if a criminal is armed with nukes and has already used ot twice on civs. You need the most powerful nuclear deterrence in order to keep the bully in check.
russia (10,000 nukes), china (4,000 nukes), north korea (2,000 nukes), india (400 nukes), iran (has nukes), etc vs us (8,000 nukes)?
pull those numbers out of your ass or someone elses?
It doesn’t matter if those figures are real or not (usually nuclear weaponry is measured in TNT-equivalent megatons not “nukes”, as not all nukes are equal), what matters is that both the USA and Russia have each the ability to destroy planet Earth many times and drive our whole species (and many others) extinct in a matter of hours. China also has a blurry capability to totally destroy the USA at the very least (apparently their logic is “why to destroy Earth many times when one is more than enough… and less costly?)
Also you forgot Israel (has nukes, unlike Iran, which so far doesn’t). You also forgot Pakistan and North Korea.
Can I have a few nukes? I want to be famous. Your most honest most patriotic most famous most excellent President ever 😈💯🍷
A Topol-M a day keeps CIAisis away 🤗
Slava Rossiye 🇷🇺
Joe Biden is a fucking retard. It would be great if someone blew a hole in his dementia riddled brain.
The vast majority of Americans want NOTHING to do with this war, as polls clearly show. It’s only the filthy Globalist Jews and their paid whores in DC who wish to prop up the faggot Zelensky.
You can take your chanse today in Brussels, Belgium. War criminal and mass murdrer Biden is in the NATO building in Evere. There are also 27 pupped murdrers (from 27 EU states)on the table. It will be a cure for humanity when they are eliminated at once. We thank you for the service.
the senile veg cannot discuss hair sniffing—the terrified uncivilized anglos cannot defeat taliban…”only in America do people act like machines, people are treated like machines and only in amerikanazistan are machine metaphors used to describe human behavior”. Geoffrey Gorer
Anyone with Dementia should NOT be discussing anything about nukes.
Biden’s plans in case of nuclear war: change diapers and run away in his bunker. Die anyway.
There is a simple solution that would solve this crisis; Russia nukes London and then contacts the US with the finger on the red button and tell Biden “make my day”. US will follow their natural characteristics by chickening out and run for the hills.
That’s the simple solution of Armaggedon, of Mutual Assured Destruction (MAD). It’s the solution of everybody dies, the end, coniec.
How many US Carriers would Russia sink with Hypersonic weapons if the BEAR is poked. Since the carrier battle group does not have a defense against these weapons the number sunk would be Putin’s choice.
A nuclear war is inevitable.
Russia would use nuclear weapons if its existence is threatened.
The evil empire and its NATO clown vassals consider using nuclear weapons to threaten the existence of Russia. They just lie about their intentions, as well as about everything else.
Alert Alert Alert. Mass murder and war criminal BIDEN is in Brussels today. NATO building in Evere. A hypersonnic missil can stop 90% off conflicts started by the yankees. Humanity will be safe for 10 years. In that meating there are 27 pupped criminals from the EU. So we will be verry happy if a missil exterminate them.