Not Cloud Technology Hovered Over Asia
Northeast Asia faces confrontation if the United States, NATO, AUKUS, Japan or South Korea decide to settle scores with North Korea.
From a change in the place of the stage "theater" does not change
Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said recently that NATO "planners" are paying attention to the East, they say, the minister said, that NATO's mission should extend to the Indo-Pacific region. For NATO's Euro-members, trying to play a global role is new, requires thoroughness and discretion. Puppet theater when moving to a new stage does not cease to be a puppet theater. This was shown by Afghanistan, the correspondent of The Moscow Post reports.
Recently, US NATO allies persuaded Trump to maintain SNV-3. Then they welcomed the "agreements on the extension of the START treaty," supported the idea of arms control. At the end of October, members of this club of "democracies" said they supported a completely different policy, namely, the policy of the first nuclear strike on Russia. The Financial Times reported that London, Paris, Berlin, Tokyo, Canberra filed a vote against the revision of the concept of "preventive strike," which is adopted by the United States. It is noteworthy that the choir was headed by the Minister of Defense of Germany!
London's decisions to increase the strike capabilities of its strategic nuclear submarines can be considered contrary to the spirit of the NPT. This also includes the formation of AUKUS, which involves the transfer of military nuclear technologies to a non-nuclear country. Recall that all these countries are parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT). The review conference on this most important international agreement will be held in January 2022.
In the current US nuclear doctrine, updated in 2018, it was proposed to deter Russia using the combined capabilities of the nuclear forces of all NATO members. How can this provision be broadcast to East Asia? Will North Korea, China, the Russian strategic nuclear base in Kamchatka be on the list of NATO targets in East Asia? It is this part of the Indo-Pacific region that is of major interest to the puppeteer.
Answering a question from The Moscow Post correspondent about the attitude of the Russian Foreign Ministry to these plans, department spokeswoman Maria Zakharova cited evidence of these intentions, said that Brussels is trying to impose "its security architecture" on regional powers. In September, on the sidelines of the 76th session of the UNGA, Stoltenberg said that "new challenges and threats require closer coordination of the alliance with Japan, the Republic of Korea, Australia and New Zealand."
Maria Zakharova: Brussels is trying to impose "its security architecture" on regional powers
Unattended visitors announced their intentions at the APR, speaking in April at a conference in India. The same Stoltenberg, not shy, called China an object for counter-actions of the Euro-Atlantists in connection with... with the growing influence of the PRC! "As if a sovereign state does not have the right to increase influence if it is within the legal framework," the spokeswoman added. NATO's attempts to impose its vision on the region's security architecture are destructive and threaten to seriously destabilize the situation in APR.
Sources of tension in this part of the world include North Korea's nuclear missile program. This creates risks not only for the Korean Peninsula, but also affects the policies of nuclear powers - China, Russia and the United States. Washington's "virtually dimensionless" approach to the possibility of using nuclear weapons in the event of "extraordinary circumstances" is a concern. Moreover, the circumstances "are not limited to military scenarios."
Speaking about the nuclear problem of the Korean Peninsula, Zakharova said: "We should expect that the nuclear problem of the Korean Peninsula will be discussed during the upcoming review conference in January on the non-proliferation treaty, Pyongyang's steps... are a serious challenge to the non-proliferation regime, "she said.
Nine cases - one response
Commenting on the tasks of reducing tension on the Korean Peninsula, Maria Zakharova said that "we proceed from the fact that the settlement of the problems of the Korean Peninsula and Northeast Asia should be carried out exclusively politically and diplomatically and be comprehensive and multilateral," said Maria Zakharova.
The Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK) announced its withdrawal from the NPT in 2003. The DPRK has been part of the treaty since 1985. In February 2005, Pyongyang declared the presence of nuclear weapons, "exclusively for self-defense and deterrence." The UN opened a case against North Korea on October 9, 2006, when Pyongyang detonated its first nuclear charge. The first restrictions were announced by UN Security Council resolution 1718 of October 14, 2006. There were nine more resolutions, including the last of 22 December 2017. As a result, there is a severe sanctions regime. UN Security Council resolution 2397 limited the supply of oil and petroleum products, imposed other sanctions.
Sanctions did not help, but caused humanitarian woes. In April 2017, the DPRK announced the testing of a hydrogen warhead. In January 2021, Kim Jong-un mentioned hypersonic weapons. In October, Pyongyang tested a submarine ballistic missile, and also created a "railway mobile missile regiment." There was a problem of determining the DPRK's place in the international security system, now nuclear and not necessarily only regional.
In September 2017, Russian President Vladimir Putin, in talks with South Korean President Moon Jae-in, said that Moscow did not recognize the nuclear status of the DPRK. In December 2017, at a press conference, he repeated this. He added that the DPRK was pushed by the United States, sort of warning at the same time that "the consequences of using nuclear weapons against the DPRK can be catastrophic."
Following this, during a press conference on April 25, 2019, held following the results of the Russian-North Korean negotiations, the Russian president recalled the key role of international law in solving the problem of "denuclearization," which he called "disarmament, to a certain extent." He called for "restoring the strength of international law," providing the DPRK with security guarantees and preserving its sovereignty, noted the role of steps to "increase confidence," said that... "there is no alternative to the peaceful resolution of nuclear and other problems of the region and there can be no."
Finally, speaking on June 4, 2021 at a meeting with the heads of news agencies on the sidelines of the SPIEF, the president said: "We are categorically against the spread of weapons of mass destruction on the planet. Everyone knows this, including our friends in North Korea. But at the same time, I would like to draw attention to the fact that the solution to this problem should not be built in the way of "strangling" North Korea or further sanctions against this country, but rather in the way of creating conditions that would guarantee the security of the North Koreans. "
"Strangulation" is American
Former US Secretary of Defense James Mattis, in response to a question why before Trump, the United States somehow recognized Pakistan or India as nuclear powers, but the Trump administration "took an irreconcilable position against the DPRK," replied that North Korea "is not a place in which the international community can allow the appearance of nuclear weapons." They said they tried in their own way, but allowed.
As the New York Times reported in early July 2019, after the third summit of the leaders of the United States and the DPRK, the White House considered the idea of a "nuclear freeze." She assumed that the DPRK would not build up a nuclear arsenal, but would retain ready-made nuclear charges. Russia and China also offered the option of "freezing," but only "double." It included Pyongyang's refusal of nuclear and missile tests, and the US refusal of actions that aggravate the situation in the region.
In October of this year, the State Department reiterated that the goal of the United States is a complete "nuclear cleanup" of the Korean Peninsula. But Washington, as it was stated, "does not harbor hostile intentions" towards North Korea, is ready for negotiations without preconditions for "serious and sustainable diplomacy." The spokesman "respectfully" cited the official name of the country - the DPRK!
But in 2017, policy options in relation to the DPRK were actively discussed in Washington. The White House and the Pentagon warned that "there are all options on the table," including a "preventive" strike. A North Korean diplomat at the UN at a meeting of the First Committee of the UN General Assembly on October 12 said that Pyongyang would not use nuclear weapons without a threat from the outside, would not abuse its nuclear weapons. "The DPRK, being a responsible nuclear power, will not abuse its nuclear weapons unless aggressive or hostile forces try to resort to their nuclear weapons," he said.
As the press secretary of the Russian Foreign Ministry noted, the draft resolution of the UN Security Council proposed by Moscow and Beijing in November calls for "practical steps to reduce military tension on the Korean Peninsula and prevent any military confrontation by all possible measures, including concluding agreements between military departments, adopting a formal declaration or peace treaty on the end of the Korean War."
Sinuses and cosines of nuclear "geometry"
North Korea's nuclear missile program prompted political scientists to introduce the term "nuclear geometry of Asia." This design includes Pakistan, India, China, the USA, Russia, and now we have to reckon with North Korea. If London and Paris with their nuclear forces come to the region as part of NATO forces... Strategic ambitions even appeared in the United States and a prosperous Australia! In the strategic neighborhood of China, the DPRK and the Far Eastern region of the Russian Federation, the AUKUS quasi-nuclear block design appeared.
Recently, according to the nuclear war scenario, the NATO alliance conducted exercises "Persistent Noon." The exercises involve the military of 14 countries, including non-nuclear ones. In the context of NATO's growing interest in Asia, Japan's participation in such events, at least "de facto," cannot be ruled out in the future.
The practice of so-called "joint nuclear missions," in which non-nuclear countries participate in planning the use of American nuclear weapons and are involved in training on their handling, is also a violation of the NPT.
This is the conversation
Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov said, speaking during the Fort Ross Dialogue forum, that Russia and the United States are working to raise the threshold for the use of nuclear weapons. He emphasized his readiness to discuss the possibility of negotiations on this issue as part of the strategic dialogue between the Russian Federation and the United States. "We are concerned that in recent years the United States has deliberately introduced additional ambiguity in the question of under what circumstances the use of nuclear weapons would be possible. We need more clarity on this, "Ryabkov said.
Abandoning the concept of the first strike could contribute to detente on the Korean peninsula.
Maria Zakharova said that Russia and China submitted a draft resolution to the UN Security Council, which calls for easing sanctions against the DPRK to improve the humanitarian situation in the country. The document refers to "the continuation of the dialogue between the United States and the DPRK at all levels." Moscow and Beijing propose "calling for the early resumption of the six-party talks or the restart of multilateral consultations in any other similar format in order to achieve a reduction in tension on the Korean Peninsula through dialogue."
Will Pyongyang, Beijing and Moscow be able to establish relations with American negotiators on the basis of mutual trust? We don't know that yet. The main thing is that the White House is thinking of abandoning the strategy of delivering a nuclear strike first. If the United States abandons previous approaches, will it be possible to believe new ones? Especially if you live in Pyongyang, or somewhere nearby.