Monday, November 22, 2021

NATO and Nuclear Expansion into Eastern Europe

A recent speech by NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg regarding Europe's nuclear defense posture has raised eyebrows in Russia.  Let's look at some of the details from the speech highlighting what NATO believes are threats from both Russia and China.


Let's start with some background.  Here is a map showing the former eastern block nations of the former Soviet Union:


As you can see, the heart of the Soviet Union was protected by a significant number of nations along its western flank.  This was important to the leadership of the U.S.S.R. because the nation was invaded from the west through Poland and Romania as shown on this map:


Here is a current map showing the current NATO member states:


Other than Belarus and the Ukraine, the Russian heartland is far more vulnerable to invasion from Europe than it was in the years after the Second World War.


With that background, let's look at some highlights from Stoltenberg's speech.  


"In an increasingly dangerous and competitive world, this commitment (to NATO) is as important as ever.


Today we face many different challenges.


Russia carries out aggressive actions. It interferes in other countries' affairs.


It has invested significantly in military capabilities, including new, advanced nuclear weapons.


And Russia continues its massive military build-up, as we see now around the borders of Ukraine. And it has shown a willingness to use military force against its neighbours."


It's a good thing that Washington never interferes in other nations' affairs, isn't it?


Here is his solution to the "Russia problem" noting the use of the words "eastern Allies" which refers to the former Warsaw Pact nations of the Soviet Union, Albania, Poland, Romania, Hungary, East Germany, Czechoslovakia, and Bulgaria as members:


"Our aim is a world free of nuclear weapons.


But as long as others have them, NATO must have them too.


The nuclear weapons we share in NATO provide European Allies with an effective nuclear umbrella.


This, of course, also includes our eastern Allies.


And they are an important signal of Allied unity against any nuclear-armed adversary.


So NATO’s nuclear sharing arrangements are of particular importance for Europe."


As it stands now, the United States has "nuclear-sharing arrangements" with a number of European NATO member nations.  These nations have dual-capable aircraft which are dedicated to the delivery of these U.S-owned nuclear weapons which remain in U.S. custody at all times.  According to Arms Control Center, there are the following nuclear weapons in the NATO member states which do not have their own nuclear programs:


"The United States and its NATO allies do not disclose exact figures for its European-deployed stockpiles. In 2021, it is estimated that there are 100 U.S.-owned nuclear weapons stored in five NATO member states across six bases: Kleine Brogel in Belgium, Büchel Air Base in Germany, Aviano and Ghedi Air Bases in Italy, Volkel Air Base in the Netherlands, and Incirlik in Turkey. The weapons are not armed or deployed on aircraft; they are instead kept in WS3 underground vaults in national airbases, and the Permissive Action Link (PAL) codes used to arm them remain in American hands. To be used, the bombs would be loaded onto dual-capable NATO-designated fighters. Each country is in the process of modernizing its nuclear-capable fighters to either the F-35A, the F-18 Super Hornet, or the Eurofighter Typhoon.


Obviously, the Russians are concerned about any nuclear weapons ending up in former Warsaw Pact nations along its western edge.  In fact, here's Russia's response through state-owned RT:


Just in case you thought that one of the world's "greatest threats" was not receiving any attention from NATO since it is not located in the North Atlantic, here is what Stoltenberg had to say about China:


"Meanwhile, China is using its might to coerce other countries and control its own people. It is investing heavily in new technologies, like hypersonic glide vehicles. Expanding its global economic and military footprint in Africa, in the Arctic and in cyber-space.


And China is suppressing democracy and human rights at home. We don’t regard China as an adversary but we need to take into account the consequences for our security, the rise of China."


Isn't it interesting to see that NATO is even looking to the Far East for yet another threat to its existence?


Since NATO is largely an offshoot of American hegemony, one has to wonder how many fronts (i.e. China, Iran etcetera) Washington thinks that it can wage war at one time?  With the hard lessons taught by the U.S. experience in Afghanistan barely in the rearview mirror, the Biden Administration should be doing what it can to prevent the United States from entering yet another losing proposition.  After all, there are no winners in a nuclear exchange.


  1. Miles Mathis has his own arguments as to why nuclear fission weapons don't actually exist, including his own extensive knowledge of physics, the apparent manipulation of numerous nuclear explosion test films (one featured the rising sun and portrayed it as the initial flash), and how the main players have the usual elite genealogy.
    Out of curiosity, I once did some back of the envelope calculations to determine the amount of heat a nuclear bomb would dissipate in the form of nuclear decay. It was between 10-40 watts. While it may not seem like much, it is quite significant for a device which is presumably sealed and stored in closed quarters, not containing heat dissipating fins or radiator, and in close proximity to precision electronic instruments and controls. Even though the heat would be evenly distributed throughout the metallic fuel, it would be encased in explosives which would act as thermal insulation, causing the fuel to rise in temperature enough to degrade the high explosives. It may just be that our nuclear weapons program are just another scam to siphon vast amounts of money from the taxpayer. No one alive today could visually discern between a nuclear explosion and an extremely high yield conventional explosive. Even the heat from conventional explosions can singe the paint off of buildings. They could still cause immense destruction, but if they went through with it, the jug would be up. Food for thought.

  2. NATO lost its raison d’être with the fall of the USSR and has been flailing around looking for any reason to exist, as any bureaucracy will. Unfortunately it looks like Washington war-hawks are happy to manipulate it.

    The problem seems that those war-hawks do not seem to understand the difference in picking on a third or fourth-rate military power like Iraq or Libyia and poking a stick at first-rate economic and military powers such as the Russian bear or the Chinese dragon.

    As far as I can tell most Washington "Russian Experts" think that Russia is still the basket case it was in the 1990s. I don't have a good handle on the "Chinese experts" but it looks like they may have failed to notice that China is no longer just a poverty-stricken country where Westerners can manufacture cheap consumer goods.

    Certainly the behaviour of the US at the Alaska meeting seemed to suggest this.

    BTW, what is with the US's weird approach when holding diplomatic talks with a country to almost simultaneously slam said country with new sanctions? Does Washington think it does anything other than convince the rest of the world of US insincerity?

    1. I agree wholeheartedly with all of your points. I really don't understand Washington's two-faced approach to "diplomacy" and it seems that the Democrats and Republicans are singing from the same hymnbook when it comes to handling their position in the global hierarchy, a hierarchy which is about to undergo a major sea change.