[E-rundbrief] Info 1480 - IPPNW: Nuclear escalation - Ukraine conflict

[Matthias Reichl]

E-Rundbrief - Info 1480 - International Physicians for the Prevention 
of Nuclear War/ IPPNW: Nuclear escalation: The Conflict over Ukraine. 
New front-line of nuclear escalation in Europe.

Bad Ischl, 21.11.2015

Begegnungszentrum für aktive Gewaltlosigkeit

www.begegnungszentrum.at

================================================

Nuclear escalation: The Conflict over Ukraine

20.11.2015 - London, United Kingdom - International Physicians for the 
Prevention of Nuclear War

New front-line of nuclear escalation in Europe

The relationship between the US and Russia is at all-time low since 
end of Cold War, and tensions continue to escalate. The US and Russia 
are no longer negotiating any arms control agreements. The last one 
was New START in 2010. Communication between NATO and Russia has 
broken down. Many previous agreements have been neglected, suspended 
or are endangered. The conflict in Ukraine has led to this 
relationship deteriorating even further. Nevertheless, we believe that 
the conflict is a symptom of this relationship, rather than a cause. 
The front-line from the Cold War has shifted from a divided Germany to 
a divided Ukraine today.

Since the confrontation began over Ukraine, between NATO – led by the 
US – and Russia, there has been a series of nuclear threats and 
military exercises involving nuclear weapons. While these seem like 
tit-for-tat, it is as difficult to ascertain the beginning as the 
proverbial chicken and egg conundrum.

     Putin stated in an interview on Russian TV that he had sent a 
message to the West that he was ready to activate nuclear weapons 
during the annexation of Crimea. According to our sources, this was 
not just the usual high alert status that continues to exist and 
threaten us daily, but an actual threat that really rattled officials 
in NATO countries. Their attitude since this threat has changed 
measurably.
     NATO let it be known that nuclear weapons systems would be 
involved in BALTOPS and Sabre Strike manoeuvres (that took place in 
June 2015) in Baltic States and flew in B2 and B52 aeroplanes, both of 
which are known nuclear bombers. (Video of B52 over Poland)
     The Ukraine Parliament has begun clearing the way to join NATO, 
including passing amendments to the Law of Ukraine in June, which 
allows deployment of foreign troops, potentially with nuclear weapons 
or weapons of mass destruction(despite the fact that they are banned). 
Russia called this a breach of the NPT. So IPPNW really needs to talk 
about the humanitarian impact of nuclear weapons to people in Ukraine. 
We need an ICAN initiative in Ukraine!
     Russian exercises took place in September 2014 involving forces 
responsible for Russia’s strategic nuclear arsenal in and in another 
snap exercise in March 2015, the deployment of nuclear capabilities 
was simulated.
     Poland, Romania and Baltic States want the US to deploy missile 
defence in their countries. The question arises here as to why the US 
continue to plan any deployment of missile defence in Europe since the 
deal with Iran was sealed. It was always claimed, and Russia was 
repeatedly reassured, that US missile defence systems in Europe would 
only be built to protect from a potential Iranian missile attack. At a 
conference in Berlin on 10 September, however, Anita Friedt (Principal 
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Nuclear and Strategic Policy) insisted 
during Q&A that US missile defence plans for Europe would not be 
changed. In March 2015, Russia reacted strongly to Danish 
consideration of joining the US missile shield by threatening to 
target the country with nuclear weapons.
     In response to alleged INF-Treaty violations, a Pentagon official 
proposed to a US Congress in December 2014 on “Russian arms control 
cheating” that new mid-range nuclear weapons could be deployed in 
Europe. Russia has threatened on a number of occasions since 2007 to 
withdraw from the INF treaty. At the above-mentioned Congress hearing, 
Republican Congressmen also suggested that the US could withdraw. The 
latest Russian threat to withdraw from the treaty came as a response 
to the modernisation of US nuclear weapons in Europe.
     US Undersecretary of Defense Robert Scher (assistant secretary of 
defense for strategy, plans and capabilities) proposed in June 2015 
that the US could attack cruise missile bases in Russia.
     In January 2015 two US Congressmen sent a letter to US State 
Secretary Kerry and Defence Secretary Hagel proposing that the US 
deploy B61 nuclear bombs in Eastern Europe using aggressive language: 
“You don’t deal with a thug like Vladimir Putin by asking nicely. He 
breaks treaties, he invades countries and then stations his nuclear 
forces on their soil, and he cozies up to terrorist regimes like 
Assad’s, North Korea’s Kim Jong Un, and the mullahs in Tehran. What’s 
next? Who’s next?”
     Russia uses deployment threats on a regular basis. In June 2015 
Putin announced the deployment of 40 new IBCMs (actually ten less than 
his original deployment plan). Russia has so often threatened 
deployment of nuclear-capable Iskander missiles in Kaliningrad that 
one wonders when they might actually carry that threat out. Noone 
seems certain whether they are there or not. Russia has also claimed 
it has a right to deploy nuclear weapons in the Crimea.

Modernisation programmes

Despite all this brinkmanship and warmongering, current deployments of 
new nuclear weapons are in fact a result of modernisation programmes 
that have long been underway in all nuclear weapons states. This is 
what is planned:

Russia is not just overhauling its outdated nuclear stockpile – it is 
also planning on replacing 70% of the old Soviet navy by 2020. The 
army is also being completely revamped. Russia’s nuclear weapons 
budget is to be increased by more than half by 2016 and all Soviet-era 
missiles are due to be replaced by new ones. General Gerasimov stated 
that nuclear weapons would have the highest priority in 2016.

Similarly, the USA is also modernising its complete nuclear arsenal 
and infrastructure of its vast nuclear complex. Here are just two 
examples:

The Minuteman III ICBM will be updated so it can continue to function 
till at least 2030 under the innocuous euphemism “Life Extension 
Programme”. In fact, the whole missile, other than the casing, will be 
completely new. The modernisation of the B61 bomb will turn a simple 
gravity bomb into a smart guided precision bomb that can attack new 
targets. The new F35A Joint Strike Fighter is being developed to 
deliver this new bomb. The US claims this is also only “Life 
Extension” and the NATO host countries do not question this. 
Deployment is due to begin in 2020 and preparations at the bases in 
Europe are already underway. As in Russia, the cost of these 
modernisation programmes in the US is immense and expanding. Over next 
30 years, it is estimated that 1 trillion US$ will be spent on the 
nuclear weapons complex.

The US and Russia are not alone with their modernisation:

France is in the middle of upgrading its submarine launched ballistic 
missiles, with a new version of the missile (the M51.3) scheduled to 
be deployed in 2020.

UK warhead modernisation programs include new arming, fusing and 
firing systems as well as performance enhancements and refurbishments 
to extend the missile life until the 2040s.

China has an extensive modernisation programme and is the only nuclear 
weapon state that also plans to increase the numbers of nuclear systems.

Since the annexation of the Crimea, many have loudly claimed that 
Ukraine should not have given up the Soviet nuclear weapons on their 
territory when the Cold War ended, quoting the Budapest Memorandum. In 
our view it should be claimed, just as loudly, that if Ukraine were 
now in possession of nuclear weapons, we would likely have already 
seen their use and the ensuing catastrophic humanitarian consequences. 
Adding nuclear weapons directly into a confrontation of this intensity 
is very dangerous indeed, as can be seen in the conflict over Kashmir. 
We believe this is also a clumsy attempt at revising history. At the 
time of the signing of the Budapest Memorandum, Ukraine did not see 
Russia as a potential aggressor, but was worried about the US. 
Interestingly, “economic coercion” on Ukraine is also expressly 
forbidden by the Memorandum. Nevertheless, the Memorandum applies also 
to Russia and it has indeed been violated.

Ending the Cold War – the Front Line

Since the Cold War ended, the front-line has shifted from a divided 
Germany to dividing Ukraine. There has never been a real discussion 
about how to end the Cold War, and no real reconciliation efforts have 
taken place between the former Soviet republics and Russia. In another 
revision of history, countries that were liberated by their own civil 
societies have often been told that they had in fact been freed by 
NATO. This was stated by a NATO official in the Hungarian Parliament 
in 1997 prior to the first round of NATO expansion and many times since.

One by one East European countries have been subsumed into NATO 
instead of dealing with their past under the yoke of the Soviet Union. 
In Europe, faith in the UN died in Srebrenica, the OSCE was 
effectively marginalised in Kosovo and NATO reemerged like the phoenix 
from the Cold War ashes. The role that the wars in the Balkans played 
in beefing up NATO for this confrontation with Russia should not be 
underestimated. Before Kosovo, many were questioning the need for a 
defence alliance, since the Warsaw Pact had been disbanded.

During negotiations between US and the Soviet Union on the 2+4 Treaty 
(now 25 years old), the US promised not to expand NATO beyond 
Germany’s borders. Unfortunately, this promise was not written into 
the treaty, but people who were there insist it was given. NATO has 
since admitted 16 new members in last 25 years, expanding from 12 to 
28 members. Russia has constantly stated that it cannot tolerate NATO 
on its doorstep, no more than the US could tolerate Soviet missiles in 
Cuba. NATO has now expanded so far that Russian missiles are on NATO’s 
border, causing hysteria in the Baltic States and Poland.

Global nuclear threat

SIPRI says that although total number of nuclear weapons is sinking, 
the number of operational nuclear weapons is increasing again (4300 in 
2015, 3970 in 2014). There are estimated to be 1800 nuclear systems 
still on high alert, posing a major risk that a mistake could still 
lead to Armageddon.

During a time of conflict, a lack of communication and heightened 
distrust, such as we have now due to the conflict over Ukraine, 
increase the chances of use by accident or design.

We are often told we cannot discuss nuclear disarmament now because of 
tensions over Ukraine. BUT that is exactly why we need to talk about 
nuclear disarmament now – to prevent nuclear war.

That was the main lesson of the Cold War – all the main treaties were 
negotiated to decrease tension and increase trust. With tensions 
mounting, de-escalation between NATO and Russia is now needed.

One solution for to further nuclear de-escalation would be to commence 
negotiations on a nuclear ban treaty, focussing on the illegality of 
nuclear weapons regardless who possesses them. IPPNW’s message as a 
physician’s organisation is clear: Nuclear weapons cause death, 
suffering and displacement on a catastrophic scale, with irreversible 
damage to health and the environment, to socio-economic development, 
and to the social order.

The threat of nuclear war is taking place in the Ukraine – in the 
midst of Europe. The damage that nuclear weapons would cause knows no 
borders. Hundreds of thousands of deaths would stretch from Kiev over 
Amsterdam to London, Dublin and further, from Helsinki to Istanbul. 
This threat is real! So we need to raise our voices now, very loudly. 
So let us start with the first step. Let us start to build ICAN in 
Ukraine!

Angelika Claussen, Xanthe Hall

Angelika Claussen, IPPNW Vice-President for Europe, gave this speech 
at the Medact Conference in London on November 14, 2015, the first 
version of which was presented by Xanthe Hall at the European IPPNW 
conference in Belgrade on October 12th, 2015.

About The Author
International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War

International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War
IPPNW is a non-partisan federation of national medical groups in 64 
countries, representing tens of thousands of doctors, medical 
students, other health workers, and concerned citizens who share the 
common goal of creating a more peaceful and secure world freed from 
the threat of nuclear annihilation. www.ippnw.org

http://www.pressenza.com/2015/11/nuclear-escalation-the-conflict-over-ukraine/

-- 

Matthias Reichl, Pressesprecher/ press speaker,
Begegnungszentrum fuer aktive Gewaltlosigkeit
Center for Encounter and active Non-Violence
Wolfgangerstr. 26, A-4820 Bad Ischl, Austria,
fon: +43 6132 24590, Informationen/ informations,
Impressum in: http://www.begegnungszentrum.at
Spenden-Konto Nr. 0600-970305 (Blz. 20314) Sparkasse Salzkammergut,
Geschäftsstelle Pfandl
IBAN: AT922031400600970305 BIC: SKBIAT21XXX

--

Ausgezeichnet mit dem (österr.) "Journalismus-Preis von unten 2010"

Honoured by the (Austrian) "Journalism-Award from below 2010"