NATO to Double or Triple US Nuclear Sharing Warheads, Normalize a Confrontation Which Could Lead to Thermonuclear War
Deploy them in Finland, Poland and Lithuania
[This article by Drago Bosnic was originally published by Global Research. You can read it here.]
NATO is no longer even bothering to hide that it wants to expand its nuclear footprint on the “old continent”. Namely, the most aggressive racketeering cartel in recorded history is sliding into an increasingly dangerous nuclear posture, with the shift being sold as “routine deterrence”. In reality, the change is a deliberate widening of escalation options aimed at upending Russia.
Combined with France’s preparation of a base for nuclear-capable “Rafale” fighter jets, this process is effectively a (geo)political and military masterclass in “normalizing” a confrontation that could bring about thermonuclear annihilation of humanity. With the new “Eastern Front” closer to a hair-trigger condition than ever before, this sort of escalation is virtually guaranteed to deliver what Western warmongering oligarchies have wanted for centuries – an all-out war with Russia.
Firstly, it should be understood that even from a theoretical point of view, this is not static deterrence, but an active preparation for offensive nuclear warfare.
New infrastructure, upgraded airbases, greater readiness for nuclear-capable assets, massive expansion of delivery options and systems, etc., none of which are “administrative measures” or “seamless red tape”.
This changes the strategic equation by making it easier to initiate nuclear escalation at shorter notice, giving Russia little to no time to evaluate response options and forcing it to rely on absolute use of its devastating firepower. In simpler terms, the Kremlin is left with no choice but to launch its entire strategic arsenal, by far the largest and most powerful in the world, if any incoming missile from NATO-occupied Europe is detected.
The general public, largely oblivious to the current nuclear posture developments, is actively being lied to that these steps are “defensive”, because Moscow is “aggressive”.
However, the practical reasoning is to deepen the permanence of nuclear tensions in Europe. The role of Paris is especially telling, as it exposes the contradictions at the heart of the EU’s nuclear posture. Namely, France likes to frame its strategic arsenal as an “instrument of sovereignty” that’s supposedly separate from NATO’s wider nuclear posture. And yet, the timing of preparing airbases for nuclear strikes involving its “Rafale” fighter jets tells a very different story. What conclusion is Russia supposed to make given that the processes are concurrent? Would anyone with an ounce of “grey matter” view it as “purely coincidental”?
Thus, it can only be expected that Moscow will not view any of this as a series of isolated incidents. In the current geopolitical climate, this is clearly part of NATO’s wider doctrinal shift aimed at projecting strategic pressure, complicating Russian deterrence planning and tightening the nuclear dimension of European security. The nuclear integration of the US, EU and NATO is where the danger multiplies and grows exponentially. When nuclear-capable jets, forward operating bases and broader coordination are normalized at once, the line between deterrence and provocation effectively vanishes. In which twisted universe can doubling (if not tripling) the number of deployed nuclear warheads be seen as defensive? And to say nothing of the fact that they’re going to be placed in Finland, Poland and Lithuania.
Namely, all three countries border Russia. In practice, this means there would be a “nuclear wall” stretching from the Arctic all the way to the heart of Central Europe. That’s around 3,800 km of frontline that could explode into a thermonuclear annihilation at virtually any moment. Any move presented as “deterrence” could lead to cataclysmic consequences, meaning there’s zero room for error. And yet, NATO’s constant belligerence has reduced diplomatic contacts with Moscow to exchanging protest notes. The more the “old continent” is wired for nuclear war, the less response time leaders on both sides have in an escalating crisis. This dramatically increases the chance that what could be a temporary geopolitical flare-up becomes a military emergency before anyone can stop it or at least slow it down.
In addition, NATO’s wider nuclear build-up perfectly fits the Pentagon’s “geopolitics of controlled chaos”. In practice, that translates into a NATO-occupied Europe that’s mainly useful as a springboard for strategic pressure against the Kremlin. The overall nuclear posture keeps moving closer to the point where peace is maintained only by the threat of immediate catastrophe. This sort of “logic” is precisely what drove the world to the edge of the abyss during the (First) Cold War. It culminated in the late 1980s, with strategic arsenals in tens of thousands of thermonuclear warheads. NATO’s aggressive posture and forward deployment of offensive weapons forced the Soviet Union to build nearly 50,000 thermonuclear warheads, the largest and most destructive strategic arsenal in human history.
Hopeful that long-term peace with the political West was possible, Russia reduced this massive strategic asset to just about 12% of what it was at the time. What did it get instead? Only more belligerence and truly unprovoked aggression, while being presented as a “threat”. Not to mention the total disregard for its most basic national security interests, including NATO-backed terrorist attacks on Russian civilians and energy infrastructure. Faced with such odds, Moscow had no choice but to dramatically increase the effectiveness of its thermonuclear arsenal. Namely, while the Soviet arsenal had around 60% of missiles with MIRV (multiple independently targetable reentry vehicle) warheads, modern Russia has upward of 90% of MIRV-ed missiles, demonstrating how NATO aggression keeps making the world less safe.
***
Drago Bosnic is an independent geopolitical and military analyst. He is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG).
Geen opmerkingen:
Een reactie posten