risk of nuclear war has never been greater and it is partly because
of NATO rearmament of European countries bordering on Russia.
However, these countries will also be targeted if Putin decides to
strike back. Thus write three Swedish doctors in an article in
Göteborgsposten on Friday August 12.
the Cuban missile crisis, President Kennedy discussed with his
advisors the various options available. One involved a limited
attack on Soviet missile bases. Moscow was supposed to accept such a
response rather than fight back in a way that would result in the
devastation of both the U.S. and the Soviet Union.
there was a doctrine
national security policy
known as MAD (mutual assured destruction). MAD means
if a great
will always be possible for the
The ability to strike back served as a sufficient deterrent.
relative security that the MAD doctrine created no longer exists.
and Russia now mutually
each other openly of
"existential threat". The military-strategic balance is
nuclear rearmament and NATO's
encirclement of Russia have
a highly insecure
and dangerous world situation. The advantages
harder to resist. With the support of NATO, Romania and Poland are
installing a new American "defense" robot
called "Aegis Ashore". President Putin has warned the two
in case of a military
now become the
Russia's concern for a disarming first attack
appears to be genuine. Whether the concern is well-founded, we can
not know. What
to our security are
actual thoughts and plans of
risk has never been greater
US Defense Secretary William Perry has warned that the risk of a
nuclear war is now greater than ever. The reasons are, among other
things, the following:
breaking of the agreement after the dissolution of the Soviet Union
(1990) not to expand NATO. The number of NATO nations has since
increased from 13 to 28.
illegal intervention in Yugoslavia (1999) with the separation of
termination of the ABM Treaty (Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty) in
establishment of anti-missile bases in Romania and Poland (see
above) – bases that can easily be reprogrammed to serve for attack
upgrading of the US nuclear weapons system at a cost of a trillion
(12 zeros) dollars.
illegal US-backed coup (2014) in Ukraine.
strategic military superiority in terms of ability to strike first.
demonization of Putin, including comparisons to Hitler. (A "Hitler"
is not someone you can negotiate with – but someone who has to be
American security analysts such as VIPS (Veteran Intelligence
Professionals for Sanity) consider NATO war games in Russia's
neighborhood as extremely provocative and dangerous. More and more
European politicians are publicly distancing themselves from NATO's
aggressive policies – such as the Greek Prime Minister Tsipras, the
German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier and French President
is strong globally. Compared to Russia, NATO spends ten times more
money on weapons. Many countries assume that becoming a member of
NATO provides protection. But when there is an asymmetric military
balance, the logical consequence will be the opposite. Should US/NATO strike from bases bordering on Russia, the Russian military
leaders will not have time to react.
has made it clear that such a situation will not be tolerated.
Therefore, Russia currently applies a nuclear doctrine that allows
for a nuclear strike with restrictions ("The Concept of
intention of this doctrine is
that with a limited first attack, the strike will make continued
warfare less likely. By not fighting back, the U.S. will avoid the
risk of an extension of the conflict to its own territory. Would an
American president be willing to devastate his own country in order
to retaliate against a Russian strike on bases in Europe?
military-strategic situation is thus extremely unstable. Countries
bordering on Russia that have allowed the installation of NATO bases
are at an increasingly greater risk of becoming prime objectives. The
outcome of the US presidential election brings no relief – whatever
will be the outcome.
Western politicians do not distinguish between "cause and
effect", provocation and reaction, the consequences can be
devastating. Russia now faces three choices, in terms of dealing with
up, and accepting the role of an American vassal
for NATO to strike first and thus be neutralized
first with tactical nuclear weapons against European missile bases
which constitute a direct threat and expect the U.S. not to
retaliate, risking a counter-attack on its own territory. (Donald
Trump has already implied that the United States will not
unconditionally retaliate militarily to protect its NATO allies.)
Putin has indicated that it is the third military scenario that
Russia is now considering. The only question is when. The loser, in
whichever case, will be Europe.
rapprochement to NATO has increased the risk of our country being
drawn into a war. Therefore, it is particularly important to Sweden
and other European countries to support all initiatives aimed at
détente and disarmament – and thus create a public opinion that
will distance us from NATO.
active in the peace movement
Elinder, Anders Romelsjö, Martin Gelin
First posted in Göteborgsposten in Swedish, translated by Siv O'Neall.
Title in Swedish: "Vi måste fjärma oss från Nato om vi vill slippa krig"
We have their full permission to re-publish in English.
Siv O'Neall is an
Axis of Logic columnist, based in France. Her insightful essays are
republished and read worldwide. She can be reached at
© Copyright 2016 by AxisofLogic.com
This material is available for republication as long as reprints
include verbatim copy of the article in its entirety, respecting its
integrity. Reprints must cite the author and Axis of Logic as the
original source including a "live link" to the article. Thank you!