We Need To
Distance Ourselves From NATO If We Want To Avoid War
Elinder, Anders Romelsjö and Martin Gelin
First posted in
Göteborgsposten in Swedish, translated by
Siv O'Neall. - Title in Swedish: "Vi måste
fjärma oss från Nato om vi vill slippa krig"
- The risk of nuclear war has never been
greater and it is partly because of NATO rearmament
of European countries bordering on Russia. However,
these countries will also be targeted if Putin
decides to strike back. Thus write three Swedish
doctors in an article in Göteborgsposten on Friday
Cuban missile crisis, President Kennedy discussed
with his advisors the various options available. One
involved a limited attack on Soviet missile bases.
Moscow was supposed to accept such a response rather
than fight back in a way that would result in the
devastation of both the U.S. and the Soviet Union.
During the years from 1950 into the
1980s there was a doctrine of military strategy
and national security
known as MAD (mutual assured destruction). MAD means
that if a great power attacks first, it will always
be possible for the attacked nation to retaliate.
The ability to strike back served as a sufficient
security that the MAD doctrine created no longer
exists. The U.S. and Russia now mutually accuse each
other openly of constituting an "existential
threat". The military-strategic balance is becoming
nuclear rearmament and NATO's encirclement of Russia
have created a highly insecure and dangerous world
situation. The advantages of having the "first
strike" becomes harder to resist. With the support
of NATO, Romania and Poland are now installing a new
American "defense" robot system called "Aegis
Ashore". President Putin has warned the two
countries that in case of a military conflict, they
will now become the primary objectives. Russia's
concern for a disarming first attack appears to be
genuine. Whether the concern is well-founded, we can
not know. What is crucial to our security are the
actual thoughts and plans of each superpower.
has never been greater
Defense Secretary William Perry has warned that the
risk of a nuclear war is now greater than ever. The
reasons are, among other things, the following:
breaking of the agreement after the dissolution
of the Soviet Union (1990) not to expand NATO.
The number of NATO nations has since increased
from 13 to 28.
illegal intervention in Yugoslavia (1999) with
the separation of Kosovo.
termination of the ABM Treaty (Anti-Ballistic
Missile Treaty) in 2001.
establishment of anti-missile bases in Romania
and Poland (see above) – bases that can easily
be reprogrammed to serve for attack robots.
upgrading of the US nuclear weapons system at a
cost of a trillion (12 zeros) dollars.
illegal US-backed coup (2014) in Ukraine.
strategic military superiority in terms of
ability to strike first.
demonization of Putin, including comparisons to
Hitler. (A "Hitler" is not someone you can
negotiate with – but someone who has to be
American security analysts such as VIPS (Veteran
Intelligence Professionals for Sanity) consider NATO
war games in Russia's neighborhood as extremely
provocative and dangerous. More and more European
politicians are publicly distancing themselves from
NATO's aggressive policies – such as the Greek Prime
Minister Tsipras, the German Foreign Minister
Frank-Walter Steinmeier and French President
strong globally. Compared to Russia, NATO spends ten
times more money on weapons. Many countries assume
that becoming a member of NATO provides protection.
But when there is an asymmetric military balance,
the logical consequence will be the opposite. Should
US/NATO strike from bases bordering on Russia, the
Russian military leaders will not have time to
made it clear that such a situation will not be
tolerated. Therefore, Russia currently applies a
nuclear doctrine that allows for a nuclear strike
with restrictions ("The Concept of De-escalation").
The intention of this doctrine is that with a
limited first attack, the strike will make continued
warfare less likely. By not fighting back, the U.S.
will avoid the risk of an extension of the conflict
to its own territory. Would an American president be
willing to devastate his own country in order to
retaliate against a Russian strike on bases in
military-strategic situation is thus extremely
unstable. Countries bordering on Russia that have
allowed the installation of NATO bases are at an
increasingly greater risk of becoming prime
objectives. The outcome of the US presidential
election brings no relief – whatever will be the
Cause and effect
Western politicians do not distinguish between
"cause and effect", provocation and reaction, the
consequences can be devastating. Russia now faces
three choices, in terms of dealing with NATO:
up, and accepting the role of an American vassal
Waiting for NATO to strike first and thus be
first with tactical nuclear weapons against
European missile bases which constitute a direct
threat and expect the U.S. not to retaliate,
risking a counter-attack on its own territory.
(Donald Trump has already implied that the
United States will not unconditionally retaliate
militarily to protect its NATO allies.)
Putin has indicated that it is the third military
scenario that Russia is now considering. The only
question is when. The loser, in whichever case, will
rapprochement to NATO has increased the risk of our
country being drawn into a war. Therefore, it is
particularly important to Sweden and other European
countries to support all initiatives aimed at
détente and disarmament – and thus create a public
opinion that will distance us from NATO.
active in the peace movement - Leif Elinder, Anders
Romelsjö, Martin Gelin