nuclear world
Last Friday, the US president, Donald Trump surprised the world once initiated. This time, he offered not only to reduce defense spending or force the European Union to pay for his safety, and in general to give up nuclear weapons. true, not all - of its initiative concerns only the US itself, as well as Russia and China. Apparently, nuclear potential of other nuclear powers the current American president believes is so negligible, that about him even to speak it is not necessary.
How to relate to this initiative, still not clear. And start, probably, need from the, it is largely a tracing of an earlier initiative of Barack Obama. For which he, ie Barak, even he won the Nobel Peace Prize. maybe, Donald Trump also wants to award? But this is unlikely: from the mouth of Obama it sounded fresh, and now, Alas, on a dried up the chaff even scholars from Stockholm does not hold.
It should also be borne in mind, that the Treaty banning nuclear weapons (Diao) It was developed by the initiative group of several states and even to submit for consideration by the UN General Assembly. Then vote for it 122 state, but none of the permanent members of the Security Council, and less status members of the "nuclear club" like Pakistan and India did not vote for him. true, this project was a significant difference of, that offers Trump: if adopted in the framework of the UN, he would become binding on all states - members of the organization. Trump is also, as it appears, He has initiated the signing of a tripartite agreement between the United States, Russia and China, that a few changes of the international legal status of a possible agreement.
Many were quick to somehow express their attitude to such informational gift of Trump. Dmitry Peskov,, press secretary of our president, and he did not refrain from rejoicing. "The idea of a great!"- he said. true, then he added, that it is not enough specifics. But for the "great idea" it is not so important, agree: today voiced its, and tomorrow can be filled with concrete actions.
That's just for, to fill it with a little bit of this most concrete actions, and written this article. And indeed, What we are facing a nuclear-free world? Or is he a priori as good, it is not necessary even to think? Well, let's try to think ...
Over the past week there was a lot of expert evaluations, dedicated to, How many nuclear warheads has US and Russian, that we gain in terms of nuclear safety, etc.. All this in itself is quite interesting, but in this context it is not so important.
The important thing: what we are left? And why the most cautious experts world without nuclear weapons is called a prelude to World War III?
Here we have it just try to talk to ...
Back in 2015, th
In order not to get caught up in a very abstract reasoning and comparisons, let us think back to the very specific situation 2014 year and the beginning of "Russian Spring" in Ukraine. remember, how it was, but with one assumption: supposing, that nuclear weapons in the US, their allies, Russia and China, there is simply no. As would have happened in this case,?
First of all, let us note, that our assumption is not so incredible. let us say, Gorbachev would have remained in power for another five years, I have signed a couple of agreements on disarmament, to which he was a big whale, and we might be in a situation, when we have not only nuclear weapons, but also in its production capacity. That is, we can not respond to the threat of a counter threat of nuclear annihilation of the aggressor, and even more than that: in the event of a crisis the deployment of nuclear production and capacity-building will take at least ten years. I.e, as the saying goes, "not an option"…
The journalists spoke about the reasons for the shelling of the Russian base "Hmeymim" in Idlib
so, "Square", "Revolution gidnosti", Crimea, Donbass. Everything is going well, like going, but the reaction to this is the United States is somewhat different. In response to the emergence of "polite people" active transfer of American airborne divisions begins in the Crimea to Kiev, Odessa, Kharkov, etc.. Rhetoric escalates dramatically in the media and on international markets: West craves punishment for Russian "aggression". The rapid response forces in the Ukraine tightened forwarding of the different purposes, begin to catch up with US allies.
Russia does not have an adequate response to the escalation of tensions and the threat of force. Considering the total supremacy of NATO in aviation, marine carriers of cruise missiles (themselves and cruise missiles), in personnel and even more total dominance of the West in the economy, get involved in a suicidal war for Russia. Therefore, the first and most likely scenario: to apologize, return Crimea, again apologize, pay compensation to Kiev, again apologize, Ukraine issue of small arms and other volunteers. Again, pay compensation. And so on to infinity ...
The problem with this scenario is, that, if implemented, Ukraine would have been instantly under American occupation. Well, so our recent partners accepted: not that they are introduced somewhere troops, then to their output. And in relation to such tidbits, as Ukraine, this is true even more so: deal is unlikely to be limited to a military base, and the US military presence would be noticeable everywhere, from the Carpathians to Sevastopol.
Scenario without discounts
Because it is absolutely unacceptable for Moscow, not excluded, that she decided to stretch. In this case, the situation would have developed in a much more hard scenario ...
After fixing the Americans would turn to come to Ukraine for tougher action. Likely, We would start with sanctions and international blockade of the Russian Federation. Moreover, there is no right of veto in the UN would not have saved us - the US Navy is able to block the approaches to Russian ports and inspect any vessel, following in their direction. Without the war began that the blockade does not remove, but, that the saddest, and starting it, we are unlikely to have guaranteed freedom of navigation in the seas surrounding us.
The result of the blockade at the time about the middle 2015 year would be sad: we were very dependent on many parameters, including drugs, electronics, components for the automotive industry, seeds for major crops, etc.. That is, it passes on many industrial products, and possibly, and ration cards.
The concentration of NATO forces from the western borders of Russia would probably have continued. But, what is even more alarming, The United States would try to enlist the support of the Central Asian states, in particular, Kazakhstan. this, given the extent of the total (and completely naked) the southern border, crucial for Russia. Exit Americans with this trend in almost complete control of the Trans-Siberian over thousands of kilometers would make the situation for Russia completely hopeless. In the case of Russia beginning of the conflict it would be doomed to war without the rear, compared to which even the losses of the first months of the Great Patriotic would seem childish prank. Losses, of course, not so much human, how industrial, military and logistical, but the result and the population would be disastrous.
That is, the Kremlin would have no choice: Kazakhstan would have had to borrow, as far as possible to push the line of air attacks on our "soft underbelly". And it is quite clear pretext for war, that we have no use of nuclear weapons can not win just.
As for the war, here, probably, there is no point kidding ourselves: without nuclear weapons, we will lose it. although this, probably, for many is not a question of the mind, as a matter of faith. Surely there are many commentators, who will argue, that we and all without nuclear weapons will tear. Argue with that useless, as well as give figures on the number of weapons and the amount of staff. After all, for a very large layer of one old Russian Su-27 is worth an entire regiment of the F-16, Well, the Su-35 a couple of NATO air armies shut up for the belt ...
Therefore, just stating: in the current system of forces, nuclear disarmament is beneficial only to the United States. Such a development would enable them to eliminate from the world stage all alternative centers of power within a couple of decades,, and, they love it, even not really risking their own territory.
SAD army pulls additional forces to repel terrorist attack on Hama
The result for Russia would be very disappointing, and with it, probably, better not to argue. Further disintegration of the country, continuation and deepening (and very significant) the economic crisis, poverty, and bezvlastye, Consequently, rampant crime, addiction, epidemics etc. After the NATO bombing even nineties seem to us a paradise period, and the consequences will be the, that at times Yeltsin will only yearn and cry.
probably, It is well aware of, and in the Kremlin. Anyway, Statement of the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, followed exactly one week after Trump's initiative, clearly showed it. clear, that the wording in this statement relaxed, and the main reason is called the, that the Treaty banning nuclear weapons could undermine the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, which is long acting and a positive contribution to global security still makes. But we are well aware, the reality is a little rougher and nastier: Alas, nuclear weapons and the threat of its use have become a major factor in world politics, able to restrain uncontrolled "leader".
And if so, simply rejoice adequacy Russian authorities.
After all, could the Kremlin would be “peacemaker” like Gorbachev. And however little we did not seem ...
Victor Kuzovkov
