On Monday, January 3, five countries that possess nuclear weapons, namely France, the United States, Great Britain, China and the Russian Federation , – made a statement on the inadmissibility of nuclear war.
In a statement, states noted that they consider preventing war between countries that have nuclear weapons as their primary responsibility.
– We affirm that there can be no winners in a nuclear war, and it should never be unleashed. Since the use of nuclear weapons would have far-reaching consequences, we also reaffirm that nuclear weapons – as long as they continue to exist – must serve defense purposes, deter aggression and prevent war. We strongly believe in the need to prevent further proliferation of such weapons, the countries said in a statement.
The world media called the general message of the five nuclear states, which are, among other things, permanent members of the UN Security Council, “a rare phenomenon”.
The Russian Foreign Ministry, meanwhile, assures that it was Moscow that initiated this statement. They claim that this topic was raised in a recent telephone conversation between the presidents of the United States and Russia – Joe Biden and Vladimir Putin.
– President Biden stressed several times during the conversation that a nuclear war cannot be started, nor can it be won, – said the aide to the Russian President Yuri Ushakov.
Ushakov's statement, like the document adopted by the five countries, sounded against the background of an international geopolitical crisis, which was provoked by the threat of a new Russian invasion of Ukraine, as well as on the eve of a number of important international meetings on the concentration of Russian troops on the border of Ukraine. And also – the Kremlin's foreign policy ultimatums.
So, in Geneva next week, on January 10, bilateral talks between representatives of the United States and Russia (without the participation of the US and Russian presidents) will take place, and on January 12, a meeting of the NATO-RF Council is to take place. In addition, an OSCE-Russian meeting is scheduled for January 13.
Western media, meanwhile, are analyzing whether the message about the inadmissibility of a nuclear war could become evidence of a decrease in international tension.
The AP noted that the reason for the statement by the nuclear powers may be that they are trying to reduce tensions after the exposure of China's expanding nuclear forces.
– We do not want a new nuclear arms race with any of the countries, and the only way to prevent this is diplomacy. We must remember the main lesson we learned from the Cold War with Russia: the only way to win the arms race is not to flee, says Tom Collin, policy director at the Plowshares Fund and proponent of nuclear disarmament.
He stressed that troubled Russia and China have complicated Biden's nuclear review policy. At the same time, he said, they should not stop the United States from taking action to reduce the nuclear threat.
CNN writes that the statement about the risks of nuclear war was preceded by the fact that tensions between world leaders and top powers reached & # 8220; almost unseen in recent decades & # 8221; level.
– In Europe, Russia is concentrating troops along the border with Ukraine, provoking anxiety in Washington, London and Paris. And in Asia, the increased military activity of China around the self-governing island of Taiwan has exacerbated tensions between Beijing and Washington, as well as its Pacific allies, the newspaper claims.
nuclear war is identical to the wording that the presidents of the United States and Russia used at the June summit in Switzerland.
This is also similar to the speeches used after the 1985 summit in Geneva by then US President Ronald Reagan and Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev .
CNN cites data from the Arms Control Association.
According to them, the world's largest stockpile of nuclear warheads is in Russia – 6255.
It is immediately followed by the United States – 5550.
China (350), France (290), Great Britain (225) close the top five.
Pakistan also has nuclear weapons – 165, India – 156, Israel – 90. Presumably, it does and North Korea (estimated to have around 40-50 warheads).
The executive director of the International Campaign to Eliminate Nuclear Weapons (ICAN), Beatrice Fin, told the publication that the statement by the five countries was not consistent with their actions.
– They write this & # 8220; beautiful & # 8221; statement, but in reality they do exactly the opposite. They are in the nuclear arms race, expanding nuclear arsenals, spending billions on upgrades, and are constantly on the verge of starting a nuclear war, ”Fin said.
In the meantime, DW has drawn particular attention to the fact that the nuclear declaration precedes the expected new revision of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT), which entered into force in 1970.
In January 2022, the next review conference of the parties to the treaty was to be held in New York, which was already postponed due to the coronavirus, and was recently postponed again.
They promise that the revision of obligations in the field of disarmament for each signatory country (191 states) will be held until the end of 2022.
DW agrees with other world agencies and also reports that the statement was made against the backdrop of exacerbation due to the escalation of the Russian Federation on the border with Ukraine.
Meanwhile, The Atlantic magazine published an article by journalist and history writer Anne Applebaum. She linked the lingering risk of a Kremlin attack to “naive” the attitude of the United States to the Russian Federation, and stressed that Ukraine “ cannot afford this ''.
Applebaum, a Pulitzer Prize winner and author of books about the Gulag, the Holodomor and the life of the countries of Eastern Europe behind the Iron Curtain, noted a serious gap in how Washington and Kiev are perceived threats coming from Russia.
– To Ukrainians both in the government and in the opposition, it is easy to understand that their conflict with Russia will involve the use of force, since this is already happening. Meanwhile, Americans and Europeans desperately want to find a solution that would involve only diplomacy and sanctions, – said the journalist.
She added that Biden & # 8220; at a certain level seems to understand that this might not be possible & # 8221 ;.
She recalled the words of Foreign Minister Dmitry Kuleba that if Washington considers the threat to the Russian Federation imminent, then the best time to provide Ukraine with more military assistance to strengthen its armed forces is now, and not after the start of the invasion. According to her, Ukraine should have received such assistance eight years ago, or at least three years ago, and then the threat of an invasion of the Russian Federation would be less, or it would not exist at all, since Vladimir Putin would have assessed the risks differently.
– But the Americans did not intervene as President Barack Obama never took Russia seriously, as Trump was on Putin's side in the global autocracy versus democracy, and as Democrats and Republicans have had something to do since Biden took office as president, the journalist believes.
According to her, the United States began to forget the most important strategic lesson of the Cold War that deterrence does not work.
– The idea that you invest in weapons for the sake of peace has always sounded paradoxical, but decades of stability in Europe – thanks to the creation of NATO in the 1950s and the expansion of the Alliance in the 1990s – confirm this. If you share territory with a bully, make sure you are well armed to keep him at a safe distance, ”Anne Applebaum emphasized.
She added that no matter how different Vladimir Putin's methods may differ, the long-term goals of the head of the Russian Federation have long been known: they are strengthening autocracy, undermining democracy around the world and maximizing the political influence of the Russian Federation,
– Splitting NATO … Destroy the European Union. To get rid of American influence in Europe and elsewhere – forever, – she listed.
The journalist argues that instead of being surprised by this list of goals, you need to create your own list.
In it, she mentions helping Ukraine become a prosperous, successful and Western-oriented democracy, which is the kind of Ukraine that Putin fears.
“A successful, prosperous, Western-oriented democratic Ukraine will indeed pose an extreme ideological threat to Russia, as well as to Belarus and other autocracies in the region and around the world. This would prove to the inhabitants of other autocracies that they can break free from the influence of their greedy and cruel leaders. The loss of Ukraine, on the contrary, would strengthen the dictators in Moscow, Minsk and even Beijing, Applebaum predicts.
Analyzing the mood in Ukraine regarding the threat of an attack by the Russian Federation, she stressed that they consider such a scenario at the same time and terrifying, and unsurprising. And this gives rise to a feeling of “unreality of what is happening”.
Applebaum clarified that if some Ukrainians consider the concentration of Russian troops a bluff, then the second popular opinion in Ukraine is that Moscow has carefully planned & # 8220; saber rattling & # 8221; since Putin decided to realize his old dream – to wipe Ukraine off the world map .
– Just as the independence of Ukraine once seemed to Stalin a terrible threat to his Bolshevik regime, so a successful modern Ukraine would pose too much of a challenge to Putin's autocratic, kleptocratic and increasingly brutal political system , – summed up Applebaum.
British historian, author of a number of books on the events of world history, Neil Ferguson, in his column on Bloomberg, bluntly stated: & # 8220; war is coming & # 8221 ;.
He urged not to harbor illusions about Biden's conversations with Putin and the Kremlin pledges to continue negotiations in January.
– When one side is seeking war, this type of diplomatic activity often continues just hours before hostilities begin. We must not deceive ourselves: Putin wants a war against Ukraine, Ferguson writes.
He associates the demands for non-expansion of NATO put forward by the Russian Federation with the Yalta Agreement of 1945.
The historian believes that the former Soviet republics in Eastern Europe, if NATO agrees to such conditions, will finally fall into the sphere of influence of Russia.
In this case, the security of the Warsaw Pact countries will be undermined.
– Such demands would be worth discussing only if Russia offered something serious in return – for example, the withdrawal of all its forces from the territory of Ukraine. But Putin is not going to make concessions. He is preparing a casus belli (a formal reason for starting a war. – Ed.), – Ferguson emphasized.
The historian is convinced that the Russian president seeks to revive not the USSR, but the Russian Empire during the time of Peter I. He reminded Bloomberg readers of the events of the Battle of Poltava in 1709, and noted that this story “inspires today's“ Tsar Vladimir ”. much more than the dark chapters of the Stalinist terror & # 8221 ;.
– This is a story that reminds us of how decisive the victory in the territory of modern Ukraine was for the establishment of Russia as a great power. She also recalls that at the beginning of the XVIII century, this territory was contested no less than today, – the British historian drew parallels.
Ferguson also predicted how the military actions of the Russian Federation on the territory of Ukraine .
He believes that it is not necessary to fight in the style of 1939, when tank columns rumbled across the Ukrainian fields, since a full-scale invasion on land is only one of the options.
According to the historian, Russia may land amphibious forces on the Black seas in Ukraine, conduct bombing and missile attacks on important ground targets, or seize additional territory in the east, adding weapons to the militants in Donbass.
In addition, the Russian Federation may launch large-scale cyberattacks that will damage Ukrainian communications and infrastructure .
– Russia's recent wars – not only in Ukraine since 2014, but also in Syria since 2015 – have been characterized by constant, gradual escalation rather than sudden large-scale incursions, the historian said.
He stressed that he had no doubts about the readiness of Ukrainians to defend their land. But at the same time, he expressed the opinion that & # 8220; without outside help there is little chance & # 8221 ;.
The Russian troops, according to him, are capable of overcoming the defense of Ukraine.
The historian predicts that the price for tough financial sanctions against Moscow, which the West will respond to such a scenario, will be higher for Europeans than for Americans. And at the same time – insufficient to contain the Russian Federation and Putin.
– In short, it is difficult to imagine more favorable circumstances for the most decisive blow of the “Tsar” Vladimir. A few more weeks of diplomatic chatter will not change this … I'm afraid the war is approaching, – concluded Neil Ferguson.
