Avoiding nuclear war in question: the United States caught in a double game

Yuri Zhdanov: “Americans still think in terms of the Gorbachev-Yeltsin years”

Recently, five states possessing atomic weapons issued a statement on the prevention of nuclear war. But has the question of the survival of mankind been finally removed? How many such agreements and the same “withdrawals” were there? President of the Russian section of the International Police Association, Lieutenant General, Doctor of Law, Professor, Honored Lawyer of Russia Yuri Zhdanov spoke about many meanings and underpinnings of modern American politics.

Photo: pixabay.com

– Leaders of Russia, Britain, the United States, China and France, the five countries that officially possess nuclear weapons, issued a joint statement on January 3 to prevent nuclear war and an arms race … “We declare that there can be no winners in a nuclear war and it should never be unleashed,” the statement reads.

I clap at this statement. And I really hope that all the postulates written here will be sacredly observed for at least ten years. God willing – and further. For example, states that possess nuclear weapons are obliged to prevent their use. And their commitment to the ultimate goal of building a world free of nuclear weapons. The nuclear powers have also pledged to prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons and to work within the framework of international agreements and conventions. Let me remind you that the document was adopted at the initiative of Russia. This was stated by the representative of the Russian Foreign Ministry Maria Zakharova. She said that he was preparing for the opening of the conference on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons in New York, scheduled for January 4. Although the start of the conference was postponed, the leaders of the five powers decided to publish the text.

– Confused by the double play on the part of some partners. Undoubtedly, the agreement to prevent nuclear war in the modern world is an outstanding achievement. But, alas, this does not mean the victory of the new “policy of detente”. Global contradictions between the great powers in the modern world, a high level of conflict, confrontation, up to the military, not only have not gone anywhere, but are becoming a permanent attribute of international relations in the XXI century.

– Everything is old, only the scenery changes. Judge for yourself. Almost simultaneously with the preparation of this landmark announcement, the US Congressional Research Service report “Renewing Great Power Competition: Implications for Defense” was being prepared. It was presented shortly before the general announcement of the five official nuclear powers – December 21, 2021. And there are no peacemaking thoughts at all.

– Yes, and at the same time, their forced love of peace is not at all based on universal love for mankind, but exclusively on the geopolitical situation that is problematic for them. And this is understandable. Last year, the logic of the United States once again emerged: we are afraid of everyone, but we do not want to fight, and indeed we cannot and do not know how – remember the flight from Afghanistan. But at the same time we do not trust anyone, not even the so-called allies. However, I still really want to be in charge in the whole world, to skim the cream off the world economy, and at the same time not be very badly beaten, because it hurts and ashamed.

– The fact of the matter is that only in a democratic one. I would like to be in charge of everything. Therefore, the report says that renewed competition among the great powers has led to renewed emphasis on nuclear weapons and nuclear deterrence in discussions on US defense. At the same time, it is emphasized that Russia's confirmation of its status as a major world power included, among other things, repeated references by Russian officials to Russia's nuclear potential and Russia's status as a major nuclear power. This is a shame!

Americans still think in terms of the Gorbachev-Yeltsin years. And they cannot believe and accept that we woke up after the perestroika fainting. But now they have a new headache – China. They state that at present, China's nuclear capabilities are still much more modest than those of Russia. But China is reportedly improving and rapidly building up its nuclear forces as part of an overall effort to modernize its military.

The heightened focus in US defense and security discussions on nuclear weapons and nuclear deterrence is taking place at a time. when the US Department of Defense is just beginning to develop a multi-year plan for how to spend tens of billions of dollars to modernize the US strategic nuclear deterrent.

– I believe that the signing of the document by the United States on January 3, 2022 is largely due to this very factor – there is nowhere to go, they are losing at a pace for several moves.

– Yes, the Americans are very puzzled. For example, there are currently plans for the United States to acquire a new class of ballistic missile submarines and the next generation long-range bomber.

The Trump administration also invited China to become the third participant, along with the United States and Russia, in negotiations on future nuclear arms restrictions. Beijing reportedly refused to join such negotiations unless the United States agrees to reduce its nuclear forces to a much lower level in China.

China has never been overly gullible and naive. Let me remind you that on November 16 last year, after a virtual meeting between Chinese President Xi Jinping and President Biden, White House national security adviser Jake Sullivan said that “the leaders of the two countries agreed that we will strive to continue discussing strategic issues.” A November 17, 2021 press release said: “The United States and China will seek arms control negotiations, not formal negotiations.” China has forced itself to be respected.

Now American analysts believe that the era of international relations after the Cold War has given way to a fundamentally different situation of competition between the great powers with China and Russia.

The Biden Administration's Interim National Security Strategy Guidelines say – this is March 2021 – that “we face a world of growing nationalism, receding democracy, growing rivalry.”

“The report to Congress noted that“ Beijing and Moscow have invested heavily in efforts to test US forces and prevent us from defending our interests and allies around the world. Regional players such as Iran and North Korea continue to exploit game-changing capabilities and technologies while threatening US allies and partners and challenging regional stability. We also face challenges within countries with fragile governance, as well as influential non-state actors that have the potential to violate America's interests. Terrorism and violent extremism, both domestically and internationally, remain serious threats. ”

Here are more quotes from the report to the Congress:

“Defending America means setting clear priorities for our defense budget. Above all, we will continue to invest in the people who serve in our volunteer forces and their families. We will maintain combat readiness and ensure that the US military remains the most trained and equipped force in the world.

In the face of strategic challenges from an increasingly assertive China and a destabilizing Russia, we will assess the appropriate structure, capabilities and size of forces, and, working with Congress, shift the focus from unnecessary legacy platforms and weapons systems to freeing up resources for investment in advanced technology and capabilities. that will determine our military and national security advantages in the future. We streamline the development, testing, acquisition, deployment, and protection of these technologies.

We will ensure that we have a skilled workforce to acquire, integrate and operate them. And we will establish an ethical and regulatory framework to ensure that these technologies are used responsibly.

We will retain Special Operations Forces qualifications to focus on crisis response and priority counterterrorism and unconventional warfare missions. And we will develop capabilities to better compete and contain gray zone activities.

We will prioritize defense investments in climate resilience and clean energy. ”

– Yes, but at the same time we do not climb to other continents. But in the report to Congress, the dominant motive is the military policy towards Eurasia: “From the point of view of the general strategy and geopolitics of the United States, it can be noted that most of the people, resources and economic activity in the world are located not in the Western Hemisphere, but in the other hemisphere, especially in Eurasia. In response to this basic feature of geography, US policymakers over the past several decades have chosen to pursue the goal of preventing the emergence of regional hegemons in Eurasia as a key element of the US national strategy.

The goal of preventing the emergence of regional hegemons in Eurasia is the main reason why the US military is structured using force elements that allow it to deploy from the United States, traverse vast expanses of ocean and airspace, and then conduct sustained, large-scale military operations upon arrival in Eurasia. or through the waters and airspace surrounding Eurasia.

Force elements associated with this objective include, among others, the Air Force with a significant number of long-range bombers, long-range observation aircraft, long-range air transport aircraft, tanker tankers, and a fleet with a significant number of nuclear-powered aircraft carriers. ”

– The new US operational concepts are focused on the more complete integration of military capabilities in several areas. For example, land, air, sea, space, electromagnetic field, information and cyberspace. Of course, with the use of the US armed forces. Many US Department of Defense detection programs, exercises, and warfare experiments have been initiated, accelerated, scaled up, given higher priority, or justified by the renewed emphasis on high-tech warfare.

Weapon acquisition programs that may be associated with training for high-level warfare include procurement programs for advanced aircraft such as the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter and next-generation long-range bomber, high-performance combat ships such as the ” Virginia and the DDG-51 class destroyer Aegis, long-range ground attack and anti-ship weapons, new types of weapons such as lasers, new C4ISR (command, control, communications, computers, reconnaissance, surveillance and reconnaissance) capabilities, military space capabilities, capabilities electronic warfare, military cyber capabilities, hypersonic weapons, as well as the military use of robotics and autonomous unmanned vehicles, quantum technologies and artificial intelligence.

– This is the essence of the new unfolding arms race. There are enough smart heads everywhere, it is important who will be the first to put ideas into practice. Rather, when it comes to weapons, death. One cannot but agree with American analysts that “success no longer belongs to the country that is the first to develop a new technology, but rather to the one that better integrates it and adapts it into its own way of struggle.”

– Tellingly, the sanctions and the Russian import substitution strategy have demonstrated this very well. Therefore, American analysts are now grappling with many issues of vital importance to them. To what extent are Chinese or Russian components, subcomponents, materials, or software included in the equipment of the United States Department of Defense? How well does the Pentagon understand this problem? What consequences can this problem have for the reliability and maintainability of the US military systems, especially during the war? What actions is the US Department of Defense taking or planning to take to ensure the security of the supply chain, especially with regard to Chinese or Russian components and materials?

– The authors of the report to the US Congress conclude that the currently fashionable term “Cold War 2.0” is quite acceptable to indicate the situation that characterizes the modern world order. We have to admit that we live in a situation where, proclaiming the impossibility of a nuclear war, we continue to build up all types of weapons and increase mobilization readiness for this war.

In addition, until now, in the military doctrines of all leading nuclear powers contains the principle of the admissibility of the first use of nuclear weapons in the presence of a threat of military attack. This means that Article 4 of the UN Charter on the non-use of not only force, but also the threat of force does not work …

Источник www.mk.ru

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.