The risk ofnuclear war has never been so high, an it is connected with NATO's building-up weapons in the territories of European countries, which border with Russia, doctors and peace activists Leif Elinder, Anders Romelsjö, and Martin Gelin wrote.
The experts believe that these countries will be the main target, if Putin decides to respond. Capability to carry out a responsive strike used to be a persuasive deterrent. But there is no relative security of nuclear parity any more. Russia and the US openly accuse each other of creating existential threat.
And the US' building-up of nuclear weapons and surrounding Russia lead to utterly dangerous and unstable situation. To oppose advantage of the first strike becomes harder and harder, the analysts note.
The authors note that former US Defence Secretary William Perry warned of the nuclear war risk being higher as ever today, because of NATO's violating agreement of non-enlargement to the east, which was signed after collapse of the USSR in 1990. The number of members have increased from 13 to 28 since then.
The NATO forces also illegitimately invaded Yugoslavia in 1999 and separated Kosovo from it. Beside that, the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty was terminated in 2001.
And anti-missile bases occurred in Romania and Poland, which can easily be re-equipped to use offensive weapons. For the latest years the American nuclear weapons system has been modernized, which cost 1 trillion dollars.
Some years ago the US supported illegitimate military coup in Ukraine. The Alliance secured itself military strategic advantage, regarding capability to carry out the first strike.
In comparison with Russia, NATO spends tenfold funds. Many countries believe that they will get security if join the NATO. But given asymmetrical military strategic balance, there will be the opposite effect. In case the US or NATO delivers a strike from one of the bases near Russia's border, the Russian Command will have no time to react.
That is, NATO offers Russia three options.
1. To surrender and agree upon the role of vassal state of the US.
2. To expect when NATO delivers first strike and as a result, be deprived of possibility to defend oneself.
3. To deliver the first strike, using tactical weapon against missiles and NATO bases in Europe, which represent a direct threat, and hope that the US wouldn't like to revenge, risking counter-attack in its own territory (Donald Trump has already hinted that the US has no intention to unconditionally stand up for its NATO partners).
President Putin made it clear that Russia considers the third scenario. The question is when. In any case, Europe will be a looser.