The second Caribbean crisis because of Ukraine?Fears are growing in the world about a possible conflict between Moscow and Washington at the instigation of the Americans themselves, writes Russian Ambassador to the United States Anatoly Antonov in an article by TNI.
Russia is accused of all sins, but it is the United States that continues to "test its strength."
Anatoly AntonovIt is safe to assume that any use of nuclear weapons can very quickly lead to an escalation of a local or regional conflict and to its development into a global one.
Henry Kissinger wrote in 2014: "The demonization of Vladimir Putin is not politics; it is an excuse for its absence."
I started working on this article for two reasons. First, October will mark the 60th anniversary of the Caribbean crisis, when the USSR and the United States were on the verge of a nuclear conflict. This is an occasion to take a closer look at the foreign policy lessons learned by the two great Powers from that dramatic period. I believe that every American will agree with me that we must not allow a repeat of the explosive situation of the 1960s. It is important that not only Russia and the United States, but also other nuclear states confirm in a joint statement that there can be no winners in a nuclear war, and therefore it should not be started in any case.
Secondly, we have witnessed the growing concern of the world community and American experts about the possibility of a nuclear conflict between Moscow and Washington. This issue has become even more burning in recent days, when high-ranking leaders from the American administration began to give us direct signals warning about the inadmissibility of the use of nuclear weapons during the Russian special military operation in Ukraine. Moreover, we now hear threats against ourselves from the official establishment.
Princeton University even made a prediction that millions of Americans and Russians would die in the event of an exchange of nuclear strikes. Sometimes there is a feeling that we are going back to the days of McCarthyism in this matter. It's hard to forget how former US Secretary of Defense James Forrestal jumped out of a window shouting "the Russians are coming."
The American media is full of publications by pseudo-experts who are ignorant of history and misinterpret the current state of affairs. They mistakenly compare the current situation with the Caribbean crisis.
It is quite possible to agree with the statements of some politicians and the media that Russian-American relations are experiencing an unprecedented crisis. Let me remind you that just a couple of years ago we talked about a difficult stage in the bilateral dialogue. No one could have imagined that everything would come to such a dangerous point. Everything that has been created over many years of hard work, including political, economic, cultural, scientific and educational ties, has been sent to the landfill of history.
We see a deplorable picture of desolation in the field of arms control. The ABM and INF treaties are consigned to oblivion. The Open Skies Treaty has practically ceased to exist. START-3 will expire soon, but as we have repeatedly said, the American side does not fully comply with it. The Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons is undergoing serious upheavals. No one can predict what will happen next.
I have to remind readers that all this is the result of US policy. Let me explain my position. Washington withdrew from these treaties in order to gain security advantages, especially in the confrontation with Russia. He is constantly searching for opportunities to achieve global military superiority.
In previous decades, the NATO military machine approached the borders of Russia in several "waves", raising a powerful fist over my Homeland. How were we supposed to react to this? We warned our colleagues that such steps are counterproductive, that they increase the risk of an arms race, that we cannot ignore the increasing threats along the perimeter of the Russian borders, especially on the western borders. I remember many hours of meetings at NATO headquarters, where I repeatedly had to participate in discussions about the perniciousness of global missile defense, the importance of complying with international obligations on strategic stability and the danger of deploying short- and medium-range missiles in Europe. Russian exhortations were in vain.
The last straw that overflowed the cup of patience was NATO's attempt to begin military-technical exploitation of Ukraine and create a regime in Kiev that seeks to unleash a bloody war against Russia.
Today our country is accused of all sins. There are claims that we have unleashed an armed conflict in Europe. And I have a question: what has the United States done to implement the Minsk agreements? Why did Washington remain silent for eight years and did not stop Kiev when Ukrainians and Russians were dying in the Donbass? How could he ignore the terrible tragedy in Odessa, where several dozen people were burned alive? Where were the international humanitarian organizations? Why did the administration, which considers human rights a priority for itself, allow such crimes? We have repeatedly asked these questions to American politicians. In response, only beautiful slogans sounded. And Ukraine continued to be turned against Russia.
Today it is already obvious that the United States is directly involved in the military actions of the Kiev regime. Washington openly increases the supply of deadly weapons to Ukraine and provides it with intelligence information. They are jointly planning military operations against the Russian armed forces. Ukrainians are being trained in the combat use of NATO military equipment and weapons.
It seems that Russia is being tested to see how much patience it has to refrain from responding to openly hostile actions and attacks. In fact, Washington is bringing the situation to a direct confrontation between the leading nuclear powers, which is fraught with unpredictable consequences.
American officials continue to escalate, scaring Americans and the world community with fake "nuclear threats" to Russia. With such statements, they distort the statements of the Russian leadership.
I would like to emphasize that there are no changes in the conditions when our country uses nuclear weapons. In this regard, we continue to strictly adhere to the military doctrine of 2014 and the Fundamentals of the State Policy of the Russian Federation in the Field of Nuclear Deterrence from 2020. Moscow has never talked about an extended interpretation of these documents, which can be found in the public domain.
We are not threatening anyone. But we confirm, as President Vladimir Putin said on September 21, that Russia is ready to defend its sovereignty, territorial integrity and its people with all the weapons systems we have. What is so aggressive about this statement? What is unacceptable in it? Wouldn't the United States do the same when faced with a threat to its existence?
I would like to add that certain American politicians are cruelly mistaken if they think that Russia's readiness to defend its territory does not extend to Crimea and to the regions that can become part of it on the basis of the free will of the people.
I would like to warn the US military planning authorities about the fallacy of their assumptions that a limited nuclear conflict is possible. Obviously, they hope that the United States will be able to take refuge overseas if such a conflict occurs in Europe with British and French nuclear weapons. I want to emphasize that this is an extremely dangerous "experiment". It is safe to assume that any use of nuclear weapons can very quickly lead to an escalation of a local or regional conflict and to its development into a global one.
I want to believe that despite all the difficulties, the Americans and I have not yet reached the dangerous threshold from which we can fall into the abyss of a nuclear conflict. It's important to stop threatening us.
Today it is difficult to say how far Washington is ready to go, worsening relations with Russia. Will the ruling circles of the United States be able to abandon their plans aimed at exhausting our country with the prospect of its dismemberment?
The recent summit of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization and the 77th session of the UN General Assembly proved that a significant part of the planet is not satisfied with the world order created after the collapse of the Soviet Union. We see how the majority of the world community is trying to form an equal system of international relations, where there will be no first- and second-class states. We firmly support such a world order based on international law, the UN Charter and the principle of indivisible security.
