Small cabinet nuclear strike from the Pentagon

How to make millions on the scarecrow of the war with Russia

A new round of anti-Russian hysteria began in the West: this time, the Americans accused Moscow of allegedly conducting “small nuclear charges”, which they allegedly secretly conducted on Novaya Zemlya. Surely this in Washington will be followed by demands of lobbyists to increase defense budgets: European politicians who regularly frighten the population with the threat of a “war with Russia” took up such tactics for armament.

 

Double standards of American generals.

It all started with a statement by Lieutenant General Robert Ashley, who heads the intelligence department of the US Department of Defense. On May 29, during a speech at the Hudson Institute, he directly accused Russia of conducting tests of low-power nuclear weapons – and this is supposedly a direct violation of the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT). Russia ratified this treaty in 2000, but America flatly refused to do so.

 

Meanwhile, General Ashley believes, our country is capable of producing up to thousands of new nuclear warheads annually. Here to test their performance, believes the chief military intelligence officer of the Pentagon, secret tests and need insidious Russian.

 

Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, who was visiting Tokyo, immediately reacted to Ashley’s accusations, calling them delusional. The statement of the Russian minister was fully voiced:

 

– Regarding the statements that Russia allegedly conducts certain nuclear tests. Well, the delusional nature of these speculations has already been designated by representatives of the Organization for the Prohibition of Nuclear Testing and respected authoritative experts in the United States themselves, – Lavrov told reporters in Tokyo.

 

None of the 300 monitoring stations located in different parts of the world, designed to detect such incidents, recorded anything. Nevertheless, the exaggerated sensation from General Ashley was picked up by many influential American publications. At the same time, let’s say, military observer Kyle Mizokami notes: the general did not provide any actual evidence of his words – so the specific way in which Russia allegedly violates the CTBT bans is unclear.

 

Perhaps Ashley talked about the so-called “hydronuclear” tests, in which an incomplete chain reaction occurs (plutonium or enriched uranium in explosive devices is replaced with inert materials). But the Americans themselves do not consider “hydronuclear” (in professional slang they are called “subcrites”) tests of violation of the CTBT and they are regularly conducted. For example, at the Los Alamos National Nuclear Laboratory, they are considered to be the most effective way to maintain the combat readiness of the entire US nuclear arsenal.

 

It is not the first time when the US military has accused Russians of “secret” nuclear tests. So, in 1997, the CIA considered that a nuclear explosion was carried out at the test site on Novaya Zemlya: this statement was refuted by seismological data, which indicated that “nuclear testing” was in fact an earthquake at sea.

 

This time, Robert Ashley’s words are also refuted by the CTBT control organization: its executive director Lassina Zerbo stated that the seismological monitoring did not record any nuclear tests (and these tests are so accurate that they allow an explosion of a charge of only 100 tons in the TNT equivalent).

 

According to Zerbo, Western journalists simply exaggerated General Ashley’s statement: “It was not about Russia carrying out any tests, but that Russia has the ability to do this.”

 

He criticized the scandalous statement of Lieutenant-General and Executive Director of the Association for Arms Control (Washington) Daryl Kimball. In his opinion, the Americans themselves are engaged in building up an arsenal of low-power nuclear weapons in Europe. This is done ostensibly to deter Russian aggression.

 

Instead, Kimball is sure, the Americans should deal with completely different issues: negotiate with Russia on the renewal of the Treaty on the further reduction and limitation of strategic offensive arms. Recall that the current treaty START-3 was signed by Dmitry Medvedev and Barack Obama eight years ago. Already in 2021, the agreement expires.

If a new treaty of this kind is not signed, it will untie the hands of both the American and other “hawks” to further build up the deadly arsenal in their countries. Perhaps the constant accusations against Russia by the US military leadership are needed simply to explain to the voter the need for a constant increase in the military budget.

 

Guerrillas against warheads.

 

Like the American military, the respectable European press and no less respectable politicians regularly “frighten” the ordinary citizen with the threat of war with Russia. Most often, such statements are heard from the leaders of the countries of the former Warsaw bloc: for example, the heads of the Baltic states constantly declare the threat of a military invasion from Russia. In particular, last year, the Lithuanian leader Dalia Grybauskaite said in an interview with the German site Spiegel Online that the danger of Russia’s military invasion of Lithuania “is very great if we do not constantly defend ourselves.”

 

According to Gribuyskayte, “Russian troops on the border with the Baltic and Poland are ten times stronger than NATO … and we must be ready to defend ourselves – mentally, politically, technologically, with heart and soul.”

 

The April study, released by the American Center RAND Corporation, made a lot of noise. Its experts figured out how much the Baltic countries would cost the confrontation of the Russian military threat. It turned out – at least $ 125 million. Only such very impressive money, according to experts of the RAND Corporation, can be enough for the Balts to create a small partisan army. Well-trained and equipped with night vision devices, safe mobile communications, computers, all-terrain vehicles and small arms.

 

And indeed: in recent years there has been a boom in the formation of paramilitary groups in the Baltic countries (their members are seriously preparing to repel Russian aggression). For example, in Lithuania, the Union of Rifles numbers over eight thousand members in its ranks. And in Estonia, almost 15 thousand people have already entered the Defense League (Kaizeliit) (for comparison: only 6.5 thousand professional soldiers serve in the Estonian army itself).

 

Something similar is observed even in Poland, where the Speaker of the Parliament Radek Sikorski recently called on his fellow deputies to set a personal example for young Poles and actively engage in military gatherings.

 

Extremely painful reaction in the countries of Eastern Europe and the Russian military exercises. At the same time, the approval ratings of NATO are growing, indicating a high degree of militarization of the mass consciousness. At the same time, the NATO armored brigades have been deployed in the Baltic countries since 2017, and in May 2018 the largest maneuvers were held in Estonia since independence (15,000 troops were involved), the population looks calm.

It is beneficial, of course, first of all to the politicians themselves. For example, in Lithuania, a large-scale program worth almost $ 400 million was financed for the purchase of Unimog military trucks, Boxer armored vehicles and PzH 200 self-propelled artillery guns in Lithuania.

 

And in March of this year, Czech Defense Minister Lubomir Metnar in an interview with the largest Czech news agency Česká tisková kancelář (CTK) reminded that he considers global terrorism, cyber attacks … and Russia to be the main threats to NATO.

 

Incidentally, this happened on the eve of the visit of the Czech Prime Minister Andrei Babish to the United States. At the subsequent negotiations there was a discussion of financial guarantees from the States of the modernization of the Czech Armed Forces. The cost of the program is $ 4.5 billion. Agree, when such sums are at stake, it is possible for the average person to “scare” the coming war.

 

  • Compared even to neighboring countries, the militarization of public consciousness in Russia is at an extremely low level, – said Alexander Seravin, president of the Association of E-electoral Policy.

– I will cite the example of the United States, where more than 75% of the population own weapons – that is, it exists in almost every family. In European countries, this figure is on average from 10 to 40%. The same is in Latin America. And in Russia, this percentage is several times lower. And the support of militarism as such is also much lower here.

 

In the US, military spending, in fact, with the approval of the population is always growing, and already by orders of magnitude exceed the spending of any country. And in Russia there is no such trend. In my opinion, the entire NATO bloc vividly is illustrated by Napoleon Bonaparte’s statement that someone who does not feed his army feeds someone else s army— that is, he who does not prepare for war all the time will disappear from the history map.