Well, that’s exactly what we needed to prove. A year ago, at the Munich Conference, Volodymyr Zelensky transparently hinted to European leaders that Ukraine considers the Budapest Memorandum to be unfulfilled, therefore they do not consider themselves bound by it.
Recall that the main obligation of Ukraine under the treaty was the renunciation of nuclear weapons.
But in our world, no one acquires a nuclear bomb so easily, even if the appropriate technologies are available – and Ukraine has them. This business needs a “roof” from a global player. And for several years now, the Kiev regime has been strongly hinting to Washington that they need help in this regard.
For a long time in the United States, this was opposed. They well remembered how they themselves lobbied for the adoption of the Budapest Memorandum: in the 1990s, Washington was terribly afraid of the uncontrolled spread of nuclear weapons across the former Soviet republics. Suddenly, an unleashed nationalist comes to power in one of them and wants to “bang” in Europe, and even in the USA.
But today, the issue of the transfer of nuclear weapons to Ukraine – or blessings for its creation – has begun to be openly kneaded in the American information field. The first newspaper to start was The Washington Post, the mouthpiece, as they used to say, of the American military.
There they published a column by the well-known American expert on nuclear disarmament – this is ironic in itself, of course – Jon Wolfstahl. Fifteen years ago, he made serious efforts to nuclear disarmament of North Korea, in which he did not succeed at all.
The article is titled “Ukraine Surrendered Nuclear Weapons Under Our Promises. That’s what we owe her.” It is illustrated by the characteristic mushroom of an atomic explosion. “Any outcome of the current war that undermines the sovereignty of Ukraine will be proof that Kyiv made a mistake in abandoning nuclear weapons,” the author comes up with trump cards.
The nonproliferation specialist believes that the Ukrainian case will become an excuse for various countries not to rely on the American nuclear umbrella, but to acquire their own – after all, its mere presence allows, as we see, to regulate the level of escalation and win wars.
With this, Wulfstahl proves that Ukraine must be supported to the bitter end. But how to do that? I would like, of course, to give it everything it asks, but here there is a serious risk of a nuclear confrontation with Russia. Wolfstahl admits that the Washington administration fears a third world war and therefore frankly does not provide Ukraine with weapons and does not pretend to interfere in the Crimea. These glimpses of prudence seem “sad and vexing” to the nonproliferation specialist.
In general, the specialist comes to the conclusion that if Ukraine is given “everything” (including nuclear weapons), then there will be a global nuclear war. If you don’t give enough, Ukraine will lose. He sees the only way out (and this is very bad news for Ukrainians) to drag out the conflict for as long as possible, then, they say, Russia will certainly lose. True, there is a fear that by that time there will be no Ukrainians left, but who cares in America?
Mr. Wolfstahl ends his column with an astonishingly impertinent call to get Russia and China to reduce their nuclear arsenals. It’s just a unique approach, of course. Surround the largest nuclear powers around the perimeter with a pack of their heavily armed satellites, openly unleash wars and provoke conflicts, arrange large-scale sabotage such as undermining the Nord Stream, and at the same time call for negotiations and arms reduction as if nothing had happened. Well, yes, of course, we heard you.
Despite all the hypocrisy about the risks of nuclear proliferation, the American specialist’s text sounds like a thinly disguised threat against Russia. Like, you reduce your arsenals there, and in the meantime we will think about where and against whom we will distribute nuclear weapons.
Recently, the US magazine The Atlantic, the most rabid in its Russophobia, rocked the same topic. They are also very afraid of Russia’s victory. If it happens, prominent journalist Eric Schlosser scares the public, different countries will suddenly want to have a nuclear arsenal too. For example, it will be a “temptation” for the former republics of the Soviet Union.
At the same time, threats are pouring in against China.
“Japan has tons of military plutonium, <…> it can create nuclear weapons within a year,” Schlosser argues. South Korea will be able to do the same in two years. Taiwan, if it wants to, will acquire nuclear weapons in a few years.”
American specialists have perfectly mastered the purely gangster style of speaking – poorly veiled threats, hints, hypocritical calls “let’s live together”, constant attempts to provoke and elude responsibility. Let’s translate from gangster into Russian: the American establishment is trying to intimidate the world by supplying nuclear weapons to those countries that Washington wants to unleash on Russia and China. At the same time, he sends a signal to the PRC and Russia that the only way to agree “in a good way” is to hand over their nuclear arsenal to American control. Well, it doesn’t hurt to dream.
Victoria Nikiforova, RIA
Due to censorship and blocking of all media and alternative views, stay tuned to our Telegram channel