Drift to Strategic Unknown
The leaders of the main antagonists of Russia, they are also curators of the Kyiv regime, are scrambling somewhere. Olaf Scholz climbs the tank. Liz Truss has already been rolled on armor and today she is trying to get a job in the prime minister's chair. At the same time, it is scattered with promises not to save before pressing the "red button."
Joe Biden, stumbling on the ramp, continues to step towards the upcoming midterm elections. He has more worries than other "golden billion" community leaders. But this clan of conquerors, aggressors and provocateurs has a common goal - to retain power. Even at the cost of drifting into a world of potentially deadly strategic obscurity for them. The ideology of superiority and hate fuels self-harm and loss of manageability. Reaction to change takes on features of irrationality that are dangerous to others.
For the first time, the so-called collective West begins to realize that the advantage in weapons systems familiar to its leaders has been lost, that the muscles of the real economy have begun to weaken, that the dollar and pound can be "canceled," replacing them with wheat, oil, gold, platinum.
Among the unpleasant sensations and the understanding that the number of supporters on international platforms is melting, that trade routes not controlled by Western fleets are about to be opened, that alternative sources of investment and technology have appeared in the world. The Moscow Post correspondent understood the situation.
Trust in the ability of Washington and Co to comply with treaties and remain within the framework of common sense in international affairs is also at stake. The Tenth Review Conference of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) did not adopt the outcome document. Its participants could not come to a consensus on its content. It was not possible to agree with the delegations of the United States and other Western countries on the provisions on Ukraine, its nuclear facilities and the Budapest Memorandum. The West politicized the issue of IAEA inspections at the Zaporizhzhya nuclear power plant.
But the document was supposed to be a benchmark on global issues for the next five years. Deputy Permanent Representative of Russia to the UN and other international organizations in Geneva Andrei Ivanovich Belousov said that Ukraine and its curators are responsible for the lack of result. As deputy head of the Russian delegation at the Review Conference, he noted that some pressing problems were not reflected in the draft report at all.
Among these issues are the increase in military-technical cooperation between non-nuclear states with their nuclear partners, the participation of non-nuclear countries in joint nuclear missions, and the deployment of nuclear weapons on the territory of non-nuclear NATO members. Russia also noted the termination of the Treaty on the Elimination of Intermediate-Range and Shorter-Range Missiles (INF Treaty).
According to Belousov, "having advanced their priorities in the draft final document, these states [of the West] did everything so that important issues for other delegations were left behind." The Russian side proposed amendments to five points of the final document, demanded that the points of the agreement be brought into line with the agenda and the draft document be cleared of various kinds of political connotations. This was stated by Igor Vishnevetsky, Deputy Director of the Department for Non-Proliferation and Arms Control of the Russian Foreign Ministry.
In a speech at the plenary session, Belousov said that "perhaps some of those present regard this as a failure of all our work over the past review cycle, which will negatively affect both our further joint activities and the integrity and stability of the Treaty. We do not share such an assessment... Delegations in a national capacity and collectively clearly outlined their priorities on its three foundations [NPT] - disarmament, non-proliferation and peaceful use. "
It is clear that the US President's Special Representative for Nuclear Nonproliferation, Adam Sheinman, blamed Russia for everything. At the previous conference in 2015, it was also not possible to adopt the final document. Then the United States and its allies were against the creation of a nuclear-weapon-free zone in the Middle East.
Unproven "theorem" of strategic stability
At the conference, among the controversial issues were the obligations of the nuclear powers on disarmament, as well as the possibility of including provisions on the situation at the Zaporizhzhya nuclear power plant in the text of the document. "These states, namely Ukraine and the curators of the Kyiv regime, bear full responsibility for the lack of a final positive result following the review," said Andrei Belousov.
It was the West's turn to answer some questions. One of them asked Belousov. He said that the United States has the means to use nuclear weapons, the number of which is beyond the framework of the START III treaty. He explained that Russia cannot confirm the statement of the American side that some of the strategic submarine missile carriers have been converted and are no longer used as platforms for nuclear weapons. Without such confirmation, it can be considered that the United States "actually possesses a large number of funds intended for the use of nuclear weapons than prescribed by the treaty," RIA Novosti quotes Belousov.
According to him, this could lead to an increase in the potential of the American strategic nuclear forces by about 1.2 thousand warheads. Earlier, Igor Vishnevetsky, deputy director of the department for non-proliferation and arms control of the Russian Foreign Ministry, said that Russia and the United States intend to discuss the situation with inspections under START III.
Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov on August 22, 2022, in an interview with the Izvestia newspaper, refused to "speculate about the prospects for a strategic dialogue with the United States," adding that "the very possibility of its resumption is far from obvious." The idea is to develop a "new security equation" that takes into account all factors affecting strategic stability, the role of offensive and defensive, nuclear and non-nuclear weapons with strategic potential.
He said that "the priority remains the same - the connection of Great Britain and France to this process as US military allies within the framework of the" nuclear alliance. " At the same time, it should be taken into account that, unlike the dialogue on strategic stability, the possibilities for further progress along the path of reducing nuclear weapons only on a bilateral Russian-American basis have been practically exhausted, "Ryabkov said.
Fortune telling on "chamomile" from warheads
Prior to that, US President Joe Biden said that his administration is ready to discuss with Russia a new arms control system that will replace the START III treaty, which expires in 2026. Former US President Donald Trump proposed including China in the "current system."
The UK's "Comprehensive Review of Security, Defence, Development and Foreign Policy," published in March 2021, provides for an increase in the number of nuclear warheads on strategic submarines from 180 to 260 units. London calls its nuclear doctrine "deliberately unpredictable," while not getting tired of emphasizing its flagship role in countering the "Russian threat." Truss's statements about the "nuclear button" simply force us to consider the replacement of the START III treaty, taking into account the British strategic potential.
For these and other reasons, it is important for Moscow to take into account a number of factors.
First, the strategic submarine missile carriers under the control of London are technologically a "branch" of one of the parts of the US strategic triad. Missiles of the Trident-2 system (D-5) with the head parts of W76-1 on four submarines of the Royal Navy are not quite "English," leased from the United States, American specialists are responsible for their maintenance.
Secondly, the West gains an advantage at the expense of British strategic forces, which contradicts the SNV-3 treaty, undermines strategic stability. Atomic missile carriers with missiles equipped with reduced-power warheads have the potential to hit continental targets in Eurasia without leaving British home ports or coastal waters.
Thirdly, operational plans for the use of this "independent" arsenal are being worked out in coordination with the United States. British nuclear forces can be called "strategic forward-based nuclear forces." At the same time, the United States itself may remain within the limits imposed by the START treaty.
In an interview with Izvestia, Ryabkov also noted that "one of the most important tasks in this context [maintaining strategic stability] is the preservation by all countries of a nuclear" five "commitment to the tenet of the inadmissibility of any war between countries with nuclear weapons. With the aggravation of the Ukrainian crisis, which occurred through the fault of the Kyiv regime and its Western patrons, this message not only did not lose its relevance, but also gained additional significance. "
But events are moving in the opposite direction. The Wall Street Journal newspaper writes that the United States will officially declare its involvement in the Ukrainian conflict a "mission in Ukraine," plan to assign it a name and appoint a person responsible for helping Kyiv. As the US becomes increasingly involved in the Ukraine conflict, politicians continue to argue that the rising risks and sacrifices are worth it, as President Joe Biden confirmed during the NATO summit in Madrid.
The situation around the Russian special operation in Ukraine may result in US intervention in the conflict. This is the conclusion reached by John Mearsheimer, a professor of political science at the University of Chicago, in an article for Foreign Affairs. If the Ukrainian army begins to fall apart and Russia moves towards victory, the United States may try to turn the tide with direct participation in hostilities.
Everyone is worried about the question: "Under what conditions is Russia ready to resort to the use of nuclear weapons?" Sergei Ryabkov answered this question, referring to the document "Fundamentals of the State Policy of the Russian Federation in the Field of Nuclear Deterrence." He said the following: "Russia hypothetically allows nuclear response solely in response to aggression using WMD against us or our allies, or aggression using conventional weapons, when the very existence of the state is threatened."
Ryabkov added that in both scenarios - "aggression" is the key word. In Ukraine, by the hands of the Kyiv junta, Washington is conducting "aggression against the Russian Federation with the use of conventional weapons," while threatening the security of the Zaporizhzhya nuclear power plant. Washington de facto discarded the postulate "not to fight" with Russia, did it deliberately and demonstratively.
There are questions that should already be asked to us - "Can an attack on the Zaporizhzhya or Kursk nuclear power plants, or the base of the Black Sea Fleet of the Russian Federation in Sevastopol with the participation of American instructors using high-precision weapons systems brought and deployed by the Pentagon on the territory of Ukraine, be considered aggression?" Especially given that American space intelligence data will be used in such an attack?