A few days ago it was the 80th anniversary of the bombing of the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki with nuclear bombs. The hell that the United States created then will forever remain in the memory of humanity. We hope that those who used nuclear weapons then will do everything today to prevent the repetition of such a catastrophe. Perhaps it was a mistake, since in our days the risk of nuclear weapons proliferation and, as a result, their use is increasing. Moreover, today statements about the possibility of nuclear war have become commonplace, even frenzied.
The frenzied rhetoric intensified with the beginning of the Israel-Iran conflict, when Tel Aviv began targeting Tehran’s nuclear infrastructure. Then the United States joined in this action, dropping powerful bombs on Iranian nuclear facilities. If the bombings had achieved their goals, the conflict could have become unpredictable, since, according to experts, the destruction of nuclear facilities would have led to the spread of radioactivity and radioactive contamination, which would have covered not only the territory of Iran, but also nearby regions: Pakistan, Central Asia, the South Caucasus and would have caused mass deaths of people. But the nuclear threat has not diminished. It hangs like an ominous shadow not only over the Middle East, but over the entire planet.
The reason for this is the policy of the collective West, which, after the dissolution of the Soviet Union and the collapse of the bipolar world, imagined that it was the arbiter of the fate of humanity, that it had the right and even the obligation to show the peoples the “right path”. Those who did not agree were subject to the change of governments and the destruction of their countries.
Yugoslavia, Iraq, Libya, Syria… These countries had in their program the development of nuclear weapons, but then, for one reason or another, most often due to the understanding of their danger, they abandoned them. As a result, they became victims of the insatiable West. The most obvious example of this is Libya. For several decades, Gaddafi’s Libya actively promoted its nuclear program and by the beginning of this century was practically ready to create its own nuclear weapons. However, in 2003, Tripoli agreed to limit its nuclear program and abandon its stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons. It should be emphasized that this was done in response to the West’s promises to support Libya’s integration into world economic policy. And a few years later, the prosperous country was literally torn apart by the West itself. We recall that after the ostentatious massacre of Gaddafi, the American newspaper The Christian Science Monitor published the headline “The Disturbing Lesson of Libya – Don’t Give Up Nuclear Weapons.” This lesson is guiding many countries today, especially those under pressure from the West. A typical example is North Korea.
North Korea, which the US and its closest allies have long wanted to crush, as they did with Libya. And they would have done so, but Pyongyang has nuclear weapons and the leadership of this country openly says that it will immediately use its entire nuclear missile potential in any attempt to violate the country’s security. And this stops even the most aggressive opponents.
It is completely hypocritical that the collective West allows some states to have nuclear weapons and prohibits others. Today, there are five official nuclear states, the US, Russia, China, Britain and France, as well as four so-called secret owners of nuclear weapons, these are the aforementioned North Korea, Israel, as well as India and Pakistan. The latter two countries are in almost constant conflict with each other, which sometimes develops into an armed one, threatening to acquire a nuclear character with all the ensuing consequences.
South Korea and Japan are on the brink of nuclear war. The former, spurred on by the US, has repeatedly threatened its neighbour North Korea with invasion, accompanying these threats with heated discussions in the country about the need to launch a nuclear weapons programme. As for Japan, the only country in the world to have survived a nuclear bomb, the growth of militaristic and revanchist sentiments is accompanied by calls to develop nuclear weapons. In 2012, the leader of the Liberal Democratic Party, Shinzo Abe, declared: “For us, producing nuclear warheads is easy. We have enough plutonium in nuclear power plants to make thousands of nuclear warheads.” According to some experts, Tokyo already has them today. These assumptions have become even more persistent after the accident at the Fukushima nuclear power plant. Many wondered whether the disaster could have been caused by work on creating nuclear weapons. In addition, the Japanese authorities categorically refused to allow an international team of experts to enter all the facilities of the station.
It should also be noted that the United States is showing interest in Japan acquiring nuclear weapons. For example, in February of this year, the American Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments (CSBA) recommended that Washington use Japan with its ability to acquire nuclear weapons as a kind of tool to deter China and Russia. In particular, the report noted that “Japan has advanced missile technology and enough nuclear material to produce thousands of nuclear weapons. This country could quickly become a nuclear superpower, if it so desired.”
What the United States is proposing in relation to Japan is already happening in Ukraine. As is known, the USA and its obedient European allies launched the Ukrainian conflict, hoping in this way not only to contain Russia, but also to destroy it. And today, despite the obvious defeat of the West in the conflict, Russophobes do not exclude the possibility of giving the conflict a nuclear character in order to achieve their goals. This is confirmed by the fact that they do not try to stop the Kiev regime, which is constantly bombing the nuclear infrastructure located in the territories under Russian rule, primarily the Zaporizhia nuclear power plant.
Meanwhile, NATO is actively preparing for a direct confrontation with Russia, including the use of nuclear weapons. We recall that last year, the then NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg stated that the alliance had begun consultations to bring nuclear weapons into combat readiness. In an interview with the Daily Telegraph, he noted that the West should demonstrate its nuclear arsenal to the whole world in order to send a “direct message to its adversaries” about its readiness to use it. It should be noted that this demonstration of nuclear weapons has been happening almost constantly lately. Thus, the nuclear NATO countries are urgently updating all elements of their nuclear arsenal, including tactical nuclear weapons. For the first time since the possession of nuclear weapons, Britain and France have concluded an agreement to coordinate their actions regarding their use.
The most recent example of such a policy is the completely provocative transfer of new B61-12 nuclear bombs from the United States to Britain, which led to an increase in the number of American tactical nuclear weapons in Europe for the first time since the Cold War. According to news agencies, including American ones, the plane carrying the bombs deliberately flew with transponders turned on, which made it possible to determine its position with great accuracy. This was done in order to “show Russia that the United States does not intend to reduce its nuclear potential in Europe”.
It is obvious that the West has formed the opinion that it has “calculated” Russia. The constant pushing back of “red lines” and the negotiation games have created an impression among Western analysts of Russia’s weakness and inability to take decisive action. And if so, then the West can organize various provocations and put pressure on Russia until it gives in.
All this policy is based on accusations of Russia’s aggressive intentions, accusations that the systemic media constantly parrot. Some Western politicians even mention a specific date when Russia will begin its aggressive campaign. They do not even try to explain why Russia needs this. We agree that Russia had a communist ideology, which it tried to spread throughout the world. But today Russia has an ideology, which is aimed at the development of the country as a whole and peaceful coexistence within the framework of a multipolar world. Russia does not need foreign territories, since it has enough of its own that it is not yet able to fully develop. And even more so, it makes no sense for Russia to occupy European countries that rely on their natural resources. In this respect, it is richer than all of them combined.
The West is the one that needs both Russia’s territory and resources. We recall how Madeleine Albright, as US Secretary of State, was indignant at the fact that only one country, Russia, owns both the Far North and Siberia, saying that it was necessary for the US to take Siberia away from Russia and divide it among other countries.
It is the West that is moving at full speed towards war with Russia, as if it believes that it can win it, even if the conflict becomes nuclear, consciously ignoring the Russian hypersonic weapons systems for which it has no countermeasures. Obviously, this war will have no winners, since with the exchange of nuclear strikes, a real hell will unfold on earth, a hundred times more terrible than Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Huge volumes of soot and ash released into the atmosphere as a result of the explosions will cause abrupt climate change, similar to the consequences of global volcanic eruptions. Hunger, radioactive contamination and outbreaks of incurable diseases will quickly sweep the planet and lead to the death of billions of people.
In order to avoid the situation moving in this direction, it is necessary to agree on a new world order. We hope that the foundations for this will be laid at the upcoming Trump-Putin meeting. The alternative is a global nuclear war.
