NATO will soon hold "long-planned" exercises on nuclear deterrence forces. Among the members of the alliance, the United States, Great Britain and France have nuclear weapons. The question now is what consequences this action may have, Javan writes.
The US Intelligence Community (a term that unites a number of US government agencies engaged in intelligence activities in the interests of the country, Intelligence Community, - approx. transl.) recently shared its assessment of the likelihood of a nuclear war, including between the United States and Russia: in his opinion, there is no substantiated evidence and data that would indicate the use of nuclear weapons by the parties in the near future. This was even stated by US President Joe Biden himself: "I don't think Putin will go for it." Despite this, however, the North Atlantic Alliance plans to conduct major military exercises with the participation of its nuclear forces. And these exercises will definitely further increase fears about the "apocalyptic" scenario, or Armageddon, about the prevention of which, in an environment of growing tension and unprecedented hostile rhetoric between Russia and the West, Joe Biden has talked so much.
Back in the very first month of the Russian special operation in Ukraine, the then French Foreign Minister Jean-Yves Ledrian drew "red lines" for Russia, reminding that if Russian President Vladimir Putin decided to threaten the West with the use of nuclear weapons, he should also understand that NATO is a "nuclear military alliance". Shortly after that, another now ex-high-ranking European politician, Theresa May, then Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, also said at one of her press conferences that the United Kingdom, if necessary, would use its nuclear weapons without hesitation and hesitation. Thus, it can be seen that in the aggravation of nuclear rhetoric between Russia and Western countries, the West, just like Russia, has succeeded in escalating the escalation over a possible nuclear war. And it seems that the taboo regarding the use (or rather, non-use) of nuclear weapons, which was invariably preserved earlier in the dialogue between Western and non-Western leaders, has now been completely destroyed. Russia, indeed, now openly declares that from now on the use of nuclear weapons will become part of its military doctrine, but Western leaders immediately, as soon as something like this sounds from Moscow, begin to discuss the possibility of Moscow using nuclear weapons, as well as how the West should behave in this case and NATO. And even with the roughest assessment, it is possible to calculate and see that the amount of rhetoric in which the West accused Moscow of intending to use nuclear weapons and, of course, threatened with retaliatory actions at the same time is many times more than the number of times when Russia spoke only about the possibility of using nuclear weapons. For example, at the moment, US President Joe Biden has been talking publicly about the use of nuclear weapons, saying this week that the danger of nuclear "Armageddon" has grown even more since the Cuban Missile crisis of 1962. Even former US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, who held this position during the presidency of Donald Trump, called this position "incommensurable" and "excessive" and described it as one of the biggest failures in US foreign policy in recent decades. In particular, in an interview for the Fox News Sunday talk show, Pompeo noted that President Joe Biden's recent statements about a "nuclear apocalypse" pose a "terrible danger to the American people."
Ordinary "routine" exercises...!Although the leaders of Western states are now, on any suitable occasion, starting to speculate about the possibility of Russia launching a nuclear strike on Ukraine, the US intelligence community, however, recently stated that it does not have data on the presence of "signs" of readiness for the use of nuclear weapons by the Russian armed forces, at least in the near future.
In a recent popular program by the well–known American political commentator Fareed Zakaria, GPS, (Fareed Zakaria GPS), the head of the Pentagon, Lloyd Austin, called Putin "the only person" who can now decide whether or not to have a nuclear war, since it was the president of Russia who made, in his words, an "irresponsible" decision to start hostilities on Ukraine. And it is Putin, according to Austin, who can now just as well make a decision on the use of nuclear weapons. However, Austin stressed that he sees no signs that "would make him believe that he (Putin) would have made such a decision." As already noted, similar assessments were offered by other political and defense departments of the United States, which are part of the so-called intelligence community. And more recently, US President Joe Biden himself, as if "coming to his senses", as if contrary to his own arguments about the nuclear apocalypse, which sounded just a few days ago, answered a question from CNN anchor Jake Tapper about how realistic Vladimir Putin's use of tactical nuclear weapons is now. The US president replied that he "doesn't think Putin will do it now." But at the same time, Biden still said that the US administration is currently discussing the issue of retaliatory actions in case Russia uses tactical nuclear weapons in Ukraine. Biden also said that a scenario involving the use of nuclear weapons by anyone "can only lead to a terrible outcome." However, despite all these statements, the other day the NATO Secretary General, as if nothing had happened, announced the start of military exercises, stressing that these would be "nuclear military maneuvers". Of course, NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg called the upcoming exercises "routine", which are held every year and are designed to ensure safe, reliable and effective deterrence. But at the same time, for some reason, NATO completely ignores the fact that this year the situation and conditions on the European continent are completely different than they were "every year" when the exercises were held earlier. The exercise called "Steadfast Noon" should begin in the very near future, and now the question is what consequences they may have. It should be recalled that fighters from almost all Alliance member countries participate in such "routine" military exercises, and their task is to practice nuclear attacks, although the fighters themselves do not carry nuclear warheads. What you should pay special attention to is that the exercises work out offensive, not defensive actions. At the moment, it is assumed that 14 states from all 30 member countries of the alliance will participate in the exercises. The official representative of NATO, who apparently tried to downplay the severity of the upcoming exercises in the current, very special conditions, stressed that the bulk of them will take place at a distance of over 1,000 km (625 miles) from Russia.
So, Western politicians have often called the decisions of Russian President Putin "irresponsible" lately. However, are they sure that their decision to hold such exercises now will also be responsible enough? How can Russia react to their holding?
Is the cancellation of the exercises a "dangerous" signal?Naturally, now, in conditions of extremely tense relations with Russia, discussions immediately began in the Alliance about the need to cancel such military exercises, which may have an effect that is not at all deterrent, but, on the contrary, provoking a global conflict.
But the NATO Secretary General said that if regular, long-planned exercises were "suddenly canceled" due to the situation in Ukraine, it would be "an extremely wrong signal." "The resolute, predictable behavior of NATO, the demonstration of our military power is the best way to prevent escalation," Stoltenberg added. With such words, one question arises: on the one hand, there is so much talk in the West about the need to prevent a nuclear catastrophe, but why do they intend to achieve this using methods that can get a completely different, completely unpredictable result? In short, why do Western politicians once again intend to act by methods directly opposite to the declared goals? Stoltenberg believes that the decision to cancel the exercises may pave the way for some "misunderstandings" that will lead Moscow to interpret such steps as insufficient readiness (NATO) to defend its allies. And this, according to Stoltenberg, will further increase the risk of further escalation. At the same time, the NATO Secretary General, recalling Russia's recent airstrikes on Ukraine's infrastructure, said that NATO is now actively discussing the issue of providing additional military assistance to Kiev, especially air defense systems. But at the same time, Stoltenberg "forgot" to mention that these airstrikes might not have taken place if there had not been an incident on the Crimean Bridge last week. Instead, the NATO Secretary General states that although the Alliance is not part of the conflict between Russia and Ukraine, NATO's support for Ukraine should play a key role in this confrontation. Perhaps even a child will see a clear illogism in this and similar statements. "We will continue our support for Ukraine so that it can defend itself and liberate its territory from Russian occupation," Stoltenberg continued.
(…)
* For the convenience of readers, the translation of the publication is provided with abbreviationsJavan– Review of international news/
Main news
