Russia’s President Vladimir Putin (L) takes part in a video conference call with Prime Minister Mikhail Mishustin at the Novo-Ogaryovo state residence outside Moscow, Russia, on June 2, 2020. (Photo via Reuters)
Russian President Vladimir Putin has endorsed a strategy document outlining the country’s nuclear deterrent policy, amid rising tensions with the United States over a nuclear arms control accord.
The document allows Moscow to use nuclear weapons in response to a conventional strike targeting the country’s critical government and military infrastructure, Russia’s RIA news agency reported on Tuesday.
The new document appears to send a warning signal to the United States by including a non-nuclear attack as a possible trigger for Russian nuclear retaliation.
It also reflects Moscow’s concerns over the development of prospective US weapons, including space-based ones, labeling the creation and deployment of anti-missile and strike weapons in space as one of the main military threats to Russia.
The document offers detailed descriptions of situations that could trigger the use of nuclear arms, including attacks that “threaten the very existence” of Russia.
The document states that Russia could use its nuclear arsenal if it gets “reliable information” about the launch of ballistic missiles targeting its territory or its allies.
The United States has unilaterally pulled out of one nuclear arms treaty with Russia — the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty — and is flirting with the idea of not renewing another.
President Putin has previously warned that yet another arms race would be inevitable if Washington did not renew the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START).
The New START accord is the last major nuclear arms control treaty between Moscow and Washington that puts a limit on the development and deployment of strategic nuclear warheads of the two countries. It can be extended for another five years, beyond its expiry date in February 2021, by mutual agreement.
Under the New START, signed in April 2010, the US and Russia agreed to halve the number of their strategic nuclear missiles and restrict the number of deployed strategic nuclear warheads to 1,550.
Russia has also repeatedly voiced concern about the installment of US Patriot missiles and the deployment of American ground troops in the Baltic countries, as well as NATO drills near the country’s borders.
The buildup of conventional forces near Russia’s borders and the deployment of missile defense assets are among the threats identified in the new document.
Press TV’s website can also be accessed at the following alternate addresses:
Moon of Alabama has already published a solid breakdown of all this, outlining the absence of evidence for the Trump administration’s justifications of its treaty withdrawals and explaining why China has nothing whatsoever to gain by signing on to a trilateral New START Treaty. I have nothing to add to this, other than to ask a simple question.
The question I want to ask is, do you consent to this?
Do you consent to having a bunch of unseen military personnel rolling the dice every day on the gamble that we won’t wipe ourselves off the face of this earth in the confusion and chaos of rising hostilities due to miscommunication or technical malfunction, as nearly happened many times during the last cold war?
Do you consent to a slow-motion third world war where an oligarch-led alliance of powerful nations works tirelessly to absorb new nations into its imperial blob by any means necessary?
Do you consent to a world where weapons of armageddon are brandished about by imbeciles with inadequacy issues?
Do you consent to a world ruled by people who are so sociopathic that they are willing to inflict endless mass military slaughter and risk a nuclear holocaust just to have more control over the world population?
Do you consent to a world where we risk literally everything because a few overeducated, under-mothered think-tankers were able to market an idea called “unipolarity” at key points of interest after the fall of the Soviet Union?
Do you consent to a world where powerful governments team up like a bunch of bitchy mean girls against weaker nations that aren’t in their clique?
Do you consent to governments spending lives, resources, and treasure on bloodbaths around the globe and treating terrestrial life itself like some trivial plaything instead of ensuring the thriving of their own populations?
Does this seem like health to you?
Does this seem like sanity to you?
Is any of this something you want? Something you consent to?
Of course not. These questions are all redundant. Nobody with a healthy mind and a clear picture of what’s going on would consent to this madness, no matter what nation they live in.
This whole insane model was rolled out without your consent. You were never asked if you consented because the answer would have been no.
Nobody gives their conscious and informed consent to this. The new cold war is as consensual as sex after a Rohypnol-spiked drink, and the illusion of consent is just as nefariously and artificially manufactured. People are roofied into sedation by mass media propaganda and endless diversion from reality, and then power has its way with us.
If people were actually given informed consent about what is done in their name, none of this would be happening. Weapons of war would have been destroyed long ago and we’d all be working together in healthy collaboration with each other and with our ecosystem to ensure a healthy, happy world for our children and our grandchildren.
There is no reason we cannot have such a world. We are the many, they are the few. They manufacture our consent because they absolutely require that consent. A population which will not be propagandized is a population which cannot be ruled.
All we have to do is inform each other about what’s really going on. Then informed consent can exist. And be withdrawn.
US authorities considered whether to carry out a “rapid” nuclear test – the first for almost three decades – to use as a bargaining chip in dealing with Russia and China, according to media reports.
The proposal to cause a controlled nuclear explosion is “very much an ongoing conversation,” a high-ranked official within the administration of Donald Trump told the Washington Post on Saturday.
It was assumed that a “rapid test” could prove useful in making Moscow and Beijing negotiate a nuclear-weapons-related trilateral deal with Washington, the paper’s sources said.
The rationale behind the United States holding its first test of this kind since 1992 involves a convenient allegation that Russia and China have resumed testing low-yield nuclear munitions. So far, however, there is no publicly available evidence substantiating the claims, the Post itself noted.
The plan was apparently floated on May 15, but it was ultimately decided to shelve the resumption of nuclear testing for now.
“There are still some professionals in the room who told them this is a terrible idea, thank God,” an unnamed congressional aide told the Guardian. The scheme, dismissed as “unworkable and dumb,” received critical acclaim from the National Nuclear Security Administration and State Department, which refused to come “on board.”
Putting nuclear devices on trial is generally prohibited under the 1996 Nuclear Testing and Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, signed by 184 nations. Russia ratified the accord four years later. The US didn’t do so but chose to adhere to its moratorium on nuclear tests, which is still in force for the time being.
Washington has already rid itself of two vital arms control agreements in recent years. In 2019, the Trump administration quit the 1987 Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty with Russia, which banned short- and medium-range ballistic missiles. The US cited alleged violations by Moscow, a claim that Kremlin denied, pointing out that ditching the landmark accord was a pre-planned action by the US administration.
This week, Trump announced that the US will pull out of the Open Skies Treaty, which allows its 35 signatories, among them Russia and NATO members, to conduct surveillance flights of each other’s territories.
The last major arms control pact still standing is the 2010 New START agreement, which was aimed at halving US and Russian missile launchers. Set to expire in February next year, it is now in jeopardy, with Washington threatening to “spend Russia into oblivion” if an arms race breaks out, while also unwilling to extend the pact without bringing China into the negotiations.
Understanding the sinister agenda being forced upon us