Illustrative Image
The aim of the measure would be to increase the sense of “security” of European allies which have adhered to American anti-Russian paranoia.
Written by Lucas Leiroz, researcher in Social Sciences at the Rural Federal University of Rio de Janeiro; geopolitical consultant.
According to recent reports in the American media, the US is planning to deploy new nuclear weapons in Europe. The decision would apparently be “justified” by the current emergence of new tensions on the continent, but such an action would undoubtedly undermine local security and escalate NATO-Russia friction to higher levels. However, Washington really seems resolute in insisting on an interventionist foreign policy and, unfortunately, European states are willing to collaborate with such plans.
On October 26, Politico reported, citing sources, that a B61-12 atomic bomb was being prepared by US forces to be transported to NATO bases in Europe. According to information, this modern version of the nuclear equipment was meant to be announced in the spring of 2023, however the American authorities speeded the project to December of this year. As evidence, the newspaper mentions telegrams that would have been sent by American officials to their European counterparts, as well as secret meetings.
The newspaper believes that the move to “quicken” the program is related to current events in Ukraine and the increasing use of nuclear rhetoric by the parties involved in the conflict. Pentagon’s sources interviewed by the journalists, however, are cautious in linking the two cases and claim that the American plans succeeded exactly as expected, with no “rush” or direct influence of the Russian-Ukrainian conflict in the situation.
For example, the Pentagon spokesman Brig. Gen. Patrick Ryder told Politico: “While we aren’t going to discuss details of our nuclear arsenal, modernization of US B61 nuclear weapons has been underway for years and plans to safely and responsibly swap out older weapons for the upgraded B61-12 versions is part of a long-planned and scheduled modernization effort. It is in no way linked to current events in Ukraine and was not sped up in any way”.
In fact, the plan to modernize the B61-12 weapons is not so recent. In December 2021, the Pentagon received reports from representatives of some companies linked to the US military-industrial complex with a number of technical proposals for the bomb upgrade and the procedures have been operated continuously since then. This bomb was initially developed in 1968 and has already undergone several upgrades. The objective now would be to make it capable of being launched by B2 and B21 strategic bombers, as well as F-15, F-16, F-35 and Tornado fighter jets, which would significantly boost the combat capability of this type of equipment.
However, the fact that the projects were already underway before the start of the Russian special military operation in Ukraine does not mean that the decision to send such weapons to Europe in a shorter period of time is not related in any way to the conflict. Some other sources claim that it is more likely that the American objective is really related to the Ukrainian crisis, but not in the sense of “deterring” Russia, but of helping the Europeans, who would be feeling “threatened” by Moscow.
For example, Tom Collina, director of policy at the disarmament group Ploughshares Fund, said: “My guess is it is aimed more towards NATO than Russia (…) There are [older] B61s already there. The Russians know that. They work just fine. The new ones will be newer, but it’s not really that much of a difference. But it may be a way to assure the allies when they are feeling particularly threatened by Russia”.
This assessment seems consistent with the facts. Europe is the part most affected by American anti-Russian paranoia and has taken extremely anti-strategic decisions to deal with the supposed “Russian threat”. European leaders have been irresponsibly encouraging the escalation of tensions against Moscow, pledging to increase NATO’s military strength in Eastern Europe and even promising to “annihilate the Russian army” if Moscow reacts to the Ukrainian nuclear provocations.
In this sense, it is very likely that European authorities have actually required “nuclear protection” from the US, leading Washington to accelerate the program in a few months and deploy recent weapons on the European continent. However, from a strategic point of view, this type of measure sounds absolutely irrational.
The more American nuclear weapons in Europe, the more NATO’s plans to “encircle” Russia will be met and, consequently, the more Moscow will seek to strengthen its defensive forces. The simplest way to guarantee European security is through the sovereignty of the European States, which must disassociate themselves from NATO’s war plans and seek friendly relations with Moscow instead of fomenting foreign interventionism on the continent.
We need the women of Greenham Common back quickly!
The only thing Russia respects is strength. Nukes are securing the peace, besides, Russia can’t even get diesel fuel to the front lines. The only nukes you have to worry about are the loose ones after Russia collapses.
Let’s not mix up what so called “Europe” wants and what Poland, the baltics, possibly Romania and former Czechoslovakia want. These weakling countries know that the fastest way to ensure their territorial integrity while renouncing sovereignty over it is to call in the Anglo Americans in in hope of some kind of dividend. By doing that, I suspect they will alienate anyone who is not them in the long run and this will change their relationship with the rest of Europe forever.
Romania WANTS PROSPERITY, nothing else!
Nobody in the streets there, not even drunks and retards, want war or being involved in such shit!
Well, if the bombs need planes for delivery, the weak link is now the shitty plane, regardless of new or old bomb variants, no run way, no plane, no capacity. I think it’s pretty obvious to Russia, to protect themselves against these nuclear attacks, they’ll need to wipe out all of the fighter jet and bomber bases compatible with those bombs, and or those bomb stock piles. This doesn’t make Europe safer, not even a little bit, because it may force the Russians to act pre-emptively with tactical strikes.
Tactical nukes have been in Europe for over 50 years and NATO hasn’t attacked Russia. Obviously Europe is safer since Russia hasn’t attacked yet. Maybe Ukraine wouldn’t have been invaded if they didn’t give up their nukes.
Ukraine wouldn’t be invaded if it would not KILL RUSSIANS FOR FUN AS THEY DID SINCE 2014!
This is USA way of making us deadly hot in the winter… and providing energy to the EU “partners” Victoria Nuland wants to “fuck”?!
No, thanks. Go back to your lands and die there, LGBT war mongers! We would rather make good business with good businessman like Putin.
After reading your posts on this subject I’ve come to some conclusions, but would need feed back to verify. Like has anyone ever hit you repeatedly in the head with a bat or similar object. We’re you ever underwater for a period of 7-10 minutes and then sadly (I mean miraculously) revived. Ever been shaken as a baby, or repeatedly dropped on your head. Maybe temperature of 107* for couple hours or so. Any yes to these would help explain why you’re a total fuckin I D 10 T. Also, you do know Russia invaded Ukraine in 2014, has been an occupying belligerent force since then so they shouldn’t cry about having insurgents angry with them.
Boom! One goes off on USAs largest European base. Wouldn’t that be f_ckin justice but would be used falseflag by Washington beltway.
Finland and Poland are jumping up and down. Me, me, me next, I want nuclear bombs!! Can’t make this shit up! 😒
Yet you actually are! These weapons, while positioned on EU soil still require US authority to use period, think Turkey would have some otherwise. The EU HAS THE 4TH largest number of NUKES, behind Russia, US, & China
‘American anti-Russian paranoia” WOW, guess Vlad slipped a couple bucks in your dirty little hands. The unprovoked military attack, the wanton killing, maybe genecide of Ukraine civilians. The violations of laws of warfare and crimes against humanity that Russia has undertaken for 9 months would argue against your writing seems to express a position that Russia is innocent of wrongdoing. As if the Russians were just doing regular training and ‘accidentally prepositioned 150K troops and worn equipment around Ukraine’ and then, I guess you’d say what “they gave orders that were then misunderstood by all of the 150K soldiers’. Those crazy ass Russians. THEN Russia says, we may use NUKES, if we decide to, and want to, and to hell with the rest of the world! So now what, the world should just ignore If they toss a few tactical NUKES, kill 4 to 500K people (mainly civilians) just because iPUTIN’s scared of losing power. Europe seems to still be terrified of Russia, the EU has 450M, Russia 145M. NATO, about 950M, so don’t piss you pants so fast, guiding PUTIN to HIS survival may not be as difficult as you think. Special military operation, that’s some funny shit. Guess Afghanistan was a “Special good ole ass whooping”