Russian President may have achieved another first. Along with convincing Finns and Swedes, NATO was joined by them. Also, they lost the largest warship in enemy action since World War II.
Weeks – 7
Victories – 0
Sanctions – ♾️
Finland & Sweden – Joining NATO
Capital Ships – 1 fewer
Goddaughter’s dad – POW
War crimes – Guilty
Zelensky – Trolling 😤My status as a master strategist is not diminished.
— Darth Putin (@DarthPutinKGB) April 14, 2022
He convinced many anti-nuke Europeans to believe that the country requires nuclear weapons. This is from the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, the nutters who have plagued us with the “Doomsday Clock” for decades, and an article titled Poll: Russia’s nuclear saber-rattling is rattling neighbors’ nerves.
On March 26, former Russian President Dmitry Medvedev laid out the country’s conditions for a nuclear launch: a nuclear attack on Russia or its allies, an attack on critical infrastructure that “will have paralyzed [Russian] nuclear deterrent forces,” or any “act of aggression committed against Russia and its allies, which jeopardized the existence of the country itself, even without the use of nuclear weapons.”
Moscow emphasized its right to use nuclear weapons in response to non-nuclear “existential” threats. Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov recently warned that Moscow “can use and we will actually use nuclear weapons to eliminate the threat for the existence of our country.”
…
Between 77 percent and 93 per cent of the respondents in Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia distrust Russian nuclear decisions-making. In all of these countries except Latvia, a majority “strongly distrust” Russia’s nuclear stewardship. These findings suggest that Eastern Europeans worry—or at least they did in mid-March—that Putin’s nuclear threats could be more than just talk. This dread is accompanied by wider anti-Russian views. Almost nine out of 10 people described their view of Russia as “unfavorable.”
…
Nuclear proliferation looked least desirable in Lithuania and Latvia—only 38 percent and 40 percent favored them, respectively. Public opinion in Estonia and Romania were split at 45% and 51%, respectively. Two-thirds (or almost) of Poles support a national nuclear weapons programme, despite having the highest military and economic outputs among the states surveyed.
It is remarkable to see the shift in attitudes. In 2018, when the question was asked to Poles, 83.6% supported abolishing nuclear weapons. However, the newfound realization that a non-nuclear country can be rather helpless in a confrontation with a nuclear-armed enemy has led Poland to request the US to base nuclear weapons in Poland; see Poland Says That if the U.S. Has Some Spare Nukes They’d Be Happy to Take Care of Them.
With that as a backdrop, let’s look at the problem.
Ukraine once had nuclear weapons. The 1994 Budapest Memorandum required that Ukraine give up its nuclear weapons and sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. In return, Russia, USA, UK and Russia promised that they would respect Ukraine’s sovereignty and independence within their borders. They also agreed not to threaten or use force against Ukraine. Russia has violated this agreement constantly since 2014, and even earlier, if you include placing the Putin stooge, Yanukovych, in Ukraine’s presidency. Every state that borders Russia knows Russia won’t keep its promises and is willing to resort to force to enforce its will. Through their experience of being subjugated by Russia, they have learned that the Russians consider them inferior peoples…UntermenschenThey are what the German philosopher called them.
Russia seems to be able to make nuclear threats part of its foreign policy. Last week, Finland and Sweden received a barely disguised nuke threat when it became clear they were joining NATO. They have proved effective. People often say Putin should have control over Ukraine’s affairs because he is armed with nukes. When you think about it, he’s always going to have nukes, and if you are scared because he has them and refuse to defend friends and allies out of that fear, then you’ve lost the right to be called a free citizen of a free country. Your lack of courage, and Vladimir Putin are your slaves.
Putin is likely to use nuclear weapons threats even if Russia wins the war against Ukraine. Putin will believe his possession of such weapons will stop NATO taking any action as required by Article 5.
The strategic question is how do we live in a world in which the collapsing Third World kleptocracy that is Russia possesses nuclear weapons but can’t use them to bully other nations or drag us into a nuclear conflict.
There are only two choices, as I see it.
First, tactical nuclear weapons can be provided by us. We also have the ability to provide delivery systems and weaponry of the same type as before we signed the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty. These include the Pershing II, the cruise missile (GLCM), and the land-launched cruise ballistic missile (GLCM). The weapons could be used by the Baltic States and Poland to target Russian population centers. With nuclear blackmail, they could be used to meet the demands of nuclear blackmail.
We can also provide delivery systems to interested countries while keeping custody of warheads and security for maintenance. This would reprise the fiction we used during the Cold War when West Germany couldn’t own nukes. My college best friend and college roommate were each assigned to a West German Nike Hercules and an 8-inch German howitzer battalion.
Each commanded their own small custodial détachment, which guarded nuclear weapons the US Amry would hand over to Germany in case of war.
It should not be complicated. Not only do we provide every interested country with one or two nukes, but also a number of weapons to ensure that they are able to resist any possible preemptive attack and decimate Moscow or St. Petersburg. Russia must be informed by its host countries that any nuclear attack will not occur if radioactive fallout or EMP touches the soil of one of their neighbours. We tell the Russians, “not my monkey, not my circus.” Would Putin really be willing to risk losing a half-dozen Russian cities in a nuclear exchange with Lithuania? I think the answer is no.
Russian cities are at greatest risk. This is the only way to end our fear-based cycle where we cringe in terror every time Putin makes bad Borscht or threatens anyone with nukes. This can be done by either abandoning the non-proliferation system that limits the ownership of nukes or providing allies with capable delivery systems that allow for nuclear weaponization. The weapons will then be held until the nation asks. It’s not a wonderful thought to contemplate, but it is better than endless wars in Eastern Europe brought on by Russia’s ability to threaten nuclear attack unless appeased.
About Post Author
