Another taboo breaking: US openly considers nuclear weapons for Ukraine

In order to prevent a resurgence of Russia, the United States is prepared to abandon even the principle of nuclear non-proliferation, which is important to itself. At least the delivery of nuclear weapons to Ukraine has shifted in the Overton window towards "conceivable".

Q.E.D.: That was what had to be proved. A year ago, at the Munich conference, Vladimir Zelensky openly told European leaders that Ukraine does not consider the Budapest Memorandum to be fulfilled and therefore does not feel bound by it. This was a thinly veiled announcement of the intention to acquire nuclear weapons. It should be remembered that Ukraine's main commitment in the Budapest Memorandum was to give up its nuclear weapons.

But in our world it is not that easy to get into possession of an atomic bomb. Even if the candidate for the lethal weapon has the technology to do so, and Ukraine has it. What is required is the backing of a global player. For several years, the Kiev regime has begged Washington intensely to give Ukraine this backing.

In the US, there was resistance to it for a long time. The Americans remembered how they themselves had lobbied for the adoption of the Budapest Memorandum: In the 1990s, Washington was panicking about the danger of uncontrolled proliferation of nuclear weapons in the former Soviet republics. What if a desperate nationalist came to power in one of these countries and wanted to bomb Europe or even America with nuclear munitions?

But today, the issue of the transfer of nuclear weapons to Ukraine - or the distribution of seals to build these weapons - is openly discussed - and tends to be benevolently - in the American information landscape. The Washington Post, the mouthpiece of the US military, was the first to do so.

On February 10, the column of a famous American specialist in nuclear disarmament - ironically, of course - appeared there, Jon Wolfsthal. Fifteen years ago, he worked hard to achieve North Korea's nuclear disarmament and was completely unsuccessful.

The article is titled "Ukraine gave up its nuclear weapons on our promise. We owe her something." It is illustrated by the characteristic mushroom of a nuclear explosion.

"Any outcome of the current war that undermines Ukraine's sovereignty will be proof that Kiev made a mistake in giving up nuclear weapons."

trumps the author. The non-proliferation expert believes that the Ukrainian case will be a pretext for various countries not to rely on the American nuclear umbrella, but to acquire their own - because its very existence, as we have seen, makes it possible to regulate the degree of escalation and win wars.

Wolfsthal argues that Ukraine must be supported to the end. But how is that supposed to work? While it would be nice to give her everything she asks, there is a serious risk of a nuclear confrontation with Russia. Wolfsthal admits that the government in Washington fears a Third World War and is therefore obviously unwilling to give Ukraine weapons and offer a pretext to attack Crimea militarily. The non-proliferation expert finds this semblance of reason "sad and regrettable".

The bottom line is that the expert concludes that giving Ukraine "everything" (including nuclear weapons) will lead to a global nuclear war. If little is given, Ukraine will lose. He sees the only way out (and this is very bad news for the Ukrainians) in delaying the conflict as long as possible, because then Russia would definitely lose. Maybe there won't be any Ukrainians by then, but who in America cares?

Mr. Wolfsthal ends his column with an outrageous and astonishingly brazen call for Russia and China to work on reducing their nuclear arsenals. It is, of course, a unique approach. To surround the major nuclear powers with a bunch of heavily armed satellites, to openly wage wars and provoke conflicts, to participate in massive acts of sabotage such as the blowing up of Nord Stream, while at the same time demanding negotiations and disarmament as if nothing had happened. Sure, we heard you.

Despite the hypocritical talk about the risks of nuclear proliferation, the US expert's remarks are a thinly veiled threat against Russia. "Reduce your arsenals, in the meantime we are thinking about where and who will get new nuclear weapons."

The Atlantic, arguably the most Russophobic magazine in the US, recently picked up on the same topic. Eric Schlosser is also very afraid of a Russian victory. If this happens, according to the well-known journalist, various countries would suddenly want to build up a nuclear arsenal. For example, it would be "tempting" for former Soviet republics.

At the same time, the threats are directed against China. Japan has tons of weapons-grade plutonium and could build a nuclear weapon within a year, Schlosser argues. South Korea could do the same in two years. Taiwan could do it in a few years if it wanted to.

The US experts have mastered the primitive gangster style of communication: thinly veiled threats, innuendo, a hypocritical "Let's live together", constant attempts to provoke and evade responsibility. Translated from gangster slang into Russian: The US establishment is trying to scare the world by supplying nuclear weapons to countries that Washington wants to incite against Russia and China. At the same time, it is sending a message to China and Russia that the only way to reach an "amicable" settlement is to place their respective nuclear arsenals under American control. A "nice try".

READ MORE: