- Press review: Armenian-Azeri conflict heats up and Trump's Supreme Court pick woes
- Press review: Opposition reacts to Lukashenko’s inauguration and Russian-led drills excel
- Press review: The ‘all or nothing’ New START bid and Lukashenko’s hush-hush inauguration
- Press review: What Putin offered the world in UN speech and US itching to oust Maduro
The NATO member states do not intend to demand that the US remove its battlefield nuclear weapons, that are part of the Alliance's nuclear deterrence strategy, from four European countries (Belgium, the Netherlands, Italy and Germany), as well as from the Asian part of Turkey after INF termination. The member-states of this ambitious military and by no means political "transatlantic solidarity" alliance, are gradually preparing the European public for an inevitable deployment of new American intermediate-range missiles in Europe.
The Review Conference to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) scheduled for April 2020 is likely to end up indecisively. There is a good chance that the first nuclear-filled American missiles appear in Europe right after the aforementioned event. It is probably no coincidence that in his November press conference, the NATO Secretary General acknowledged that until 2024 the Alliance will get a considerable financial throw-in of an additional $400 billion, which will be used to strengthen the Alliance's armed forces on the European continent. There is no doubt that funds will be allocated to build up its nuclear missile and anti-missile systems as well.
Such conclusions can be drawn from the speeches of NATO senior officials at the representative international conference of nuclear-free world supporters held in The Hague.
Thrusting oneself forward was also the fact that the anti-nuclear movements of the Netherlands, where 95 percent of the country's residents advocate a total annihilation of nuclear weapons on a global scale, as revealed by 95 public opinion polls, did not even raise the question of completely withdrawing non-strategic nuclear weapons from the territory of this European country. Neither did those movements declare support for Russia's proposal to impose a mutual moratorium on the deployment of INF-covered missiles in the territories where they have not yet been deployed by anyone.
There is a clear ambivalence in the approaches outlined.
It is quite obvious that such a blatantly negative stance on Russia's proposal to impose such a moratorium is based on NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg's report at the October 23 arms control conference. There he bluntly stated that such an idea by Moscow is unacceptable for the Alliance.
This kind of reaction by the NATO leader can only imply one thing: the United States and NATO as a whole have most likely decided to deploy new American intermediate-range missiles in Europe and Asia. Therefore, "moratoriums" or any other restrictive obligations will prevent a new saturation of Europe with the American first-use nuclear missile arsenals. Another element strengthening suspicions about insincere actions by the largest military alliance of Western countries is that the London NATO summit (December 3-4) will have its final documents reaffirm the phrasing of the previous summits, starting May 2012, on the Alliance's operational and strategic integration of nuclear, anti-missile and conventional weapons.
In a number of speeches at the Hague conference, unfounded criticism of Russia's line in arms control was voiced. Moscow has been once again groundlessly accused of "non-compliance" with the INF, although neither US nor NATO have ever proven it. At the same time, the Pentagon has committed 117 real violations of the Treaty over the past 20 years, when using 117 INF-prohibited medium-and shorter-range target missiles in the course of missile defense tests.
In The Hague, false statements were made about "Russia's lowering the threshold of using nuclear weapons", even though there are only two grounds for its use in its nuclear doctrine, both standing in as reprisal. At the same time, Donald Trump's nuclear strategy includes a total of 14 provisions of the kind, including one on the use of first-strike nuclear weapons.
It is also important to note here that if the NATO leadership is constantly declaring its readiness for a constructive arms control dialogue with Russia, there is a relevant question as to where the agenda of such a dialogue is, as well as at least the approximate date of its beginning and location? There was no clear answer to an elaboration addressed to a senior leader of the Alliance at the Hague Forum: "Is the bloc leadership disposed to conduct such a Russia-NATO dialogue at the expert level?"
These and other statements not susceptible of proof against the Russian Federation on nuclear issues reveal that NATO members keep strengthening their outreach and awareness-raising argumentation of their nuclear missile preparations, including in Europe. But both in the past (since the mid-50s) and in the future (with the appearance of new US intermediate-range missiles), such preparations were and will be a direct violation of the first two NPT articles. They prohibit nuclear nations from deploying nukes in the territory of non-nuclear states, while the latter are not allowed to place them within their own borders.
One can't help but wonder about the possibility to create a nuclear-free world if the US continues spreading nukes beyond its borders and may even strengthen them with new missile systems?
There is another relevant question. If the United States, with the consent of NATO, deploys new nuclear missiles in Europe and Asia that fall within the INF definitions, is there any sense to extend the START-3 Treaty with Washington? Which it violates either, just like it has been violating the INF for many years. And all of this along with demonstrating a negative attitude to a number of multilateral pacts on limiting nuclear and other weapons....