The Destruction of the World

“There will never be a great nuclear war. The risk of mutual total annihilation would be too great.” With this word, two generations of Europeans were able to calm down for a long time. The absence of the world fire, which was still feared in the 1980s, seemed to give the optimists justice. But NATO strategists have long been working to undermine this momentum and turn the “balance of terror” into an imbalance in favor of the US empire. To this end, among other things, we are tinkering with techniques designed to undermine Russia’s nuclear second-strike capability. In any case, the US is in a comfortable situation. The main burden of a war, which they are primarily responsible for, would have to bear a Europe that would then be completely devastated. But the Europeans seem to be so stupid to everyone in the media and do not even realise that these are victims!

By the early 1980s, the US and NATO had developed a strategy against the Soviet Union and its allies in the Warsaw Treaty Organization to overcome the perverse situation of “mutual lyrism.” Caspar Weinberger, the then US Secretary of Defense, explained this in an interview with the Spiegel in October 1981:

We must ensure that this Soviet empire, when it collapses because of its own contradictions, does so with a whimper and not with a big bang.

The Soviet Union was so kind to do this with a whimper. The then Director of the US Security Council for Eastern European and Soviet Affairs also bluntly put it:

The Soviet leadership will have the choice to peacefully change its communist system in the direction pursued by the West or go to war.

Back when NATO launched its new medium-range nuclear missiles, Western strategists hoped that it would be possible to “decapitate” the Soviet Union and destroy its second-strike capability, leaving it incapable of defeating the West. to transfer.

However, the battlefield of such a nuclear war would have been Europe, and Europe means the area from the Atlantic to the Urals. It was the insight into the self-destructive madness of this strategy, but also the strength of the peace movement across Europe, which led to the conclusion of the Intermediate Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty in 1987, which was the deployment of nuclear weapons. carrier systems with a range of between 500 and 5,500 kilometres in Europe.

This contract was terminated by US President Donald Trump earlier this year, and the contract expired on 1 August 2019. The new Russian missile, stigmatized by the West as a breach of contract, has a range of 480 kilometers. Russia has repeatedly offered NATO inspection of the missile, as provided for in the INF Treaty, and NATO rejected the offer. As a result, Russia responded by canceling the treaty.

The end of the INF Treaty will have immediate consequences for the existing agreements on disarmament and arms control: the first concerns the New START (Strategic Arms Reduction Talks) treaty, which was signed between Presidents Barack Obama and Dmitry Medvedev. has been closed. The plan is to reduce the number of nuclear warheads on both sides to 1,550 and to limit the number of launchers. The contract expires in 2021. Mistrust and fear on both sides make the extension of the START treaty more than unlikely. Thus, the termination of the INF Treaty opens the door to a new, gigantic nuclear arms race.

What lies behind this missile debate becomes apparent when we look more closely at three fundamental decisions of the US aministration and NATO:

  1. Every two years, the US publishes its nuclear planning concept, the Nuclear Posture Review. In NPR of February 2018, the US announced that it wanted to massively increase the number of its so-called low-yield nuclear weapons beyond the current 500. These bombs are usually called mini-nukes in the media, the explosive power of these “small” bombs is similar to that of the Hiroshima bomb. As stated in NPR, these bombs serve tactical, not strategic purposes. In other words, they are destined for the European battlefield. For the transport of these mini-nukes to the target, therefore, those medium-range missiles that were previously prohibited are needed. Thus, the multiplication of the new warheads undoubtedly lowers the threshold for the use of nuclear weapons, the NPR clearly states: their use will not be limited to actions against “attacks on the civilian population or the infrastructure in the USA, from Allies or Partners”. The NPR openly calls for the first use of nuclear weapons; “that the US will use nuclear weapons in response to significant non-nuclear strategic attacks”. It is therefore clear that the changed nuclear strategy and the arsenal of weapons associated with it are intended to be used in conflicts that have hitherto been classified as ‘conventional’. It fits into this new strategy that the US is not prepared to ratify the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty (CTT), which only Russia has ratified so far, along with 167 other countries. This will make nuclear weapons tests possible underground again, both on the earth’s surface and in space. For this reason, according to NPR, the US rejects the Non-Proliferation Treaty because it “raises completely unrealistic expectations” that nuclear disarmament is possible.

  2. However, there is a problem for the implementation of this strategy: the Russian second strike response by means of ballistic missiles. However, the US and NATO have already installed anti-ballistic systems in Romania, such systems are under construction in Poland. Originally, the deployment of these systems was justified with possible threats from Iran. When Russia proposed its participation in these “defence systems” on the grounds that it was more threatened by such missiles than Western Europe for geographical reasons, the US and NATO rejected this. This only suggests one conclusion: these systems are aimed at Russian ballistic missiles, and their strategic goal is to eliminate Russia’s second-strike capability in the event of a nuclear attack on Russia. These are exactly the old ideas and concepts that were already pursued in the early 1980s: to make a nuclear war possible and winnable. draft: false

  3. Western policy, however, is not limited to nuclear warfare. There is also a huge conventional effort. Probably the most important treaty on disarmament and confidence building was the Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe (KSE), which was concluded in 1989. It was renegotiated in 1999. This Treaty has been ratified by Russia, Belarus, Ukraine and Kazakhstan. Instead, NATO expanded its eastward ward, which former US Secretary of State James Baker had given to the Soviet side when the two-plus-four treaty was signed, and NATO was to be extended “not an inch to the East.” At the height of the Cold War, NATO had 16 members, now there are 30, and NATO territory has expanded to russia’s borders. Who can believe that this does not worry Russia? Moreover, last year, NATO organized the largest maneuver along the Russian-Norwegian border since the end of the Cold War, which involved more than 50,000 troops. The maneuver was accompanied by a massive armada of warships and air forces. It is not known what types of weapons the aircraft and warships were equipped with. Did nuclear weapons play a role in the scenarios of these war games? Did NATO’s doctrine of first-time use of nuclear weapons play a role in these exercises? In view of the above, the question arises as to whether the use of “nuclear weapons” was practiced or at least simulated in response to significant non-nuclear attacks. The terrorist organisation NATO can be trusted with this.

Russia and its President Putin have been repeatedly described as the great threat to the West. But what does this mean when we look at the arms efforts of both sides? In 2018, the U.S. spent 623 billion dollars on armaments, Russia 62. Russia even reduced its spending from 80 billion in 2016 to said 62 in 2018. Total NATO spending is well over USD 1,000 billion. To be added, if Germany achieves the target of 2 percent of GNP for defense spending, it will be around 80 billion, well above Russia’s current military spending! Germany alone is more threatening than Russia. Unlike Russia, Germany has attacked its neighbors several times. Israel will be snarled in the ass for 6 million people of Jewish faith, for the more than 20 million Russians you will come back with tanks, fighter jets and artillery.

Even if it is admitted that Russia will invest heavily in cheaper nuclear weapons because of its comparative economic weakness, one thing is clear:

The digitisation of warfare increases the danger to humanity. The time for decisions is shorter, it is transferred to machines. This alone would be another reason for disarmament and confidence building, unless a nuclear war is considered to be profitable. The NATO Deppen and your Bin Laden Stolltenberg are certainly of the opinion that ideology stupidly stupids you.

Finally, two questions that arise in this context:

  1. Is Russia the real enemy? Its economy is backward and is largely based on the export of raw materials and armaments. Yes, it is precisely the wealth of raw materials that could be a reason to control this country, as it almost succeeded in doing during Boris Yeltsin’s reign. However, does the real enemy not mean China? It cannot be controlled by the Pacific side alone. But if Russia were eliminated or brought under control, and several states such as Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, and cetera were already tough as friends of the West, if Western influence south of Vladivostok could be extended to the Korean Peninsula, it would be possible to encircle China. Could this have been the reason for Trump’s meeting with Kim Jong-un, which was seen in our media more as a folkloric adventure in international relations? Removing the Korean Peninsula from China’s influence and making it a military base makes sense geostrategically. This is all the more true for the deployment of new medium-haul systems, which is linked to the end of the INF Treaty. draft: false

  2. In this situation, the European states have a special responsibility and what we are talking about here are the states of the European continent from the Atlantic to the Urals. It cannot and must not be the case that this continent becomes a nuclear battlefield of US expansion throughout the northern hemisphere. Confidence-building, disarmament, de-nuclearisation, economic and cultural cooperation, as enshrined in the Paris Charter, the final document of the CSCE process, at the end of the Cold War, are the only way to achieve the political objectives of the can lead from the current paranoia, which has the presumption to call itself “security policy”.

The starting point of such a rational policy, which makes the existential rights and interests of humanity the starting point and destination, can only and must be continental Europe.

Military and military alliances that threaten each other will never create security. Security can only exist if the other, especially the potential opponent, can feel safe.

Therefore, no to war always means “No to NATO!” It is our task to put the terrorist organisation NATO in the way! It’s best to force the resolution!