Editor’s Note: A military report issued by NATO recently said that NATO should be prepared to launch a nuclear war "preemptively" to avoid being threatened by weapons of mass destruction from hostile countries. The Russian side did not show weakness and made an equally tough statement. The two players face the world stage and "prepare" for each other to strike first. The threat of nuclear war seems imminent-
Amazing nuclear explosion [data picture]
A gloomy plan of NATO
The article "Pre-emptive Nuclear War" of "New NATO" in Mexico’s "Daily News" on January 27th: In today’s Putin-Medvedev era, Russia has re-emerged, and it is aware of the new changes in the global geo-energy balance. Russian troops resumed military activities in the Bay of Biscay, not far from the Spanish coast.
This military deployment of Russia is probably a response to a recent NATO report called "Radical Manifesto" by the British newspaper The Guardian. The Guardian is the first media to report NATO’s "preemptive war", which is a coping strategy put forward by five generals of the United States, Britain, Germany, the Netherlands and France to prevent the "rapid" proliferation of nuclear weapons.
Undoubtedly, this "very alarming" report is supported by the Marshall Foundation and other organizations that help spread the influence of the United States in Europe, but they do not think that NATO’s preemptive nuclear strike strategy is a replica of the Bush administration’s preemptive war strategy.
For this report, it can be understood as a gloomy plan for NATO’s future development after successive failures in the wars for energy in Iraq, Afghanistan and Lebanon.
However, this radical declaration led to a rapid response from "hostile" countries. As pointed out by Yuri Baluyevsky, Chief of Staff of the Russian Armed Forces, they will reserve the right to take the lead in launching a nuclear strike to defend the sovereignty of the country and its allies.
The "United States-NATO-European Union" tried to reverse its geo-economic defeat in the face of China, Russia and OPEC countries through the strategy of pre-emptive nuclear attack, but the problem was that it forgot that Russia was equally powerful in nuclear weapons.
Russia shows a tough stance
On January 25th, the Russian Independent newspaper published the article "Worries at the Annual Meeting of the Academy of Military Sciences": Yuri Baluyevsky, Chief of General Staff of the Russian Armed Forces, made a report at the annual meeting of the Russian Academy of Military Sciences, saying that Russia was prepared to use nuclear weapons, including pre-emptive measures.
In fact, he just summarized the views of famous Russian military experts and Russian military doctrine. Military doctrine holds that Russia can use nuclear weapons first for countries or groups of countries that possess nuclear weapons and are ready to invade Russia and its allies on a large scale.
To be precise, the statement of the Chief of General Staff is this: "We are not prepared to attack any country. But all Russia’s partners should understand and dispel any doubt: (Russia) will use force to safeguard sovereignty and territorial integrity and protect its allies-including the use of pre-emptive means and nuclear weapons. "
Relevant documents of the United States and other big countries also talk about the right and possibility of using nuclear weapons for pre-emptive strikes. The leaders of the Pentagon are even prepared to use nuclear bombs on the battlefield, which is not available in Russian military doctrine.
However, once Baluyevsky’s words were spoken, they became the top news and almost caused a sensation-
Russia says it will use nuclear weapons to defend itself against the United States if necessary.
Russian "Baiyang -M" intercontinental missile [data picture]
Baluyevsky, chief of the general staff of the Russian army, delivered the latest tough speech, saying that the use of preemptive measures is not ruled out when necessary.
Comprehensive report: Baluyevsky, chief of general staff of Russian army, said on 19th that Russia will use force, including pre-emptive measures and nuclear weapons, if necessary to safeguard the security of Russia and its allies. This is the latest tough speech made by the Russian authorities. Russian President Vladimir Putin and other officials have also publicly spoken about launching pre-emptive attacks in the past, but they have not mentioned the use of nuclear weapons.
Baluyevsky, chief of the general staff of the Russian army, said at a meeting held by the Russian Academy of Military Sciences on the 19th that Russia does not want to attack any country, but all western partners should understand that in order to safeguard the security of Russia and its allies, Russia will use force when necessary, including the use of pre-emptive measures and nuclear weapons.
First mention of the use of nuclear weapons
Baluyevsky said that the 21st century has not witnessed the beginning of a "golden age" that people expected, because many new threats have emerged, including some countries’ efforts to dominate the region or the world. In addition, there is the threat of terrorism. He said that Russia is trying to find ways to deal with new threats, and the Russian armed forces should be able to deal with all modern threats and provocations.
Baluyevsky’s talk is consistent with the established Russian policy. The Russian leadership has repeatedly stressed that it is necessary for Russia to maintain a strong nuclear deterrent force and reserve the right of preemption to counter external threats.
Russian media quoted Baluyevsky as saying that Russia’s strategy of using nuclear weapons and pre-emptive strike will only be implemented if it conforms to the military principles formulated by Russia in 2000.
targetPoint to America
The publication of the above remarks comes at a time when relations between Moscow and the West are tense. Recently, the differences between Russia and the West on a series of issues have become increasingly prominent. Related events include Moscow’s opposition to the deployment of missile defense system by the United States in the satellite countries of the former Soviet Union, and the refusal of the United States and Europe to ratify the revised Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe. On the issue of Kosovo’s independence, Russia’s position is also inconsistent with that of western countries.
Baluyevsky did not name any country or organization that threatened Russian security. However, Baruyevsky said that in addition to terrorism, the security threats facing the world also include "countries vying for regional and global hegemony". This obviously refers to the United States.
In this regard, Moscow military analyst Gorz pointed out that Russia parted ways with the Soviet-era policy in 2000, and now it claims to use nuclear weapons against the aggressors, which actually reflects the decline of Russian traditional force since the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991: "Baruyevsky means that Russia can no longer rely on traditional weapons to stop aggression, and must rely on nuclear weapons as the main weapon."
However, this is not the whole reason.
Expert: Russia’s move focuses on performance posture.
Chen Hu, an expert on military issues and executive editor of World Military magazine.
Expert quick comment:Why did Russia make a tough stance of using nuclear weapons first? On this issue, I don’t think we can simply consider whether Russia’s conventional forces are enough to pose a threat.
On the one hand, it reflects that Russia is increasingly under pressure from the United States and other western countries, and the color revolution has taken place in neighboring countries, and NATO’s anti-missile system has been promoted step by step. Considering the interests of big countries and strategic choices, Russia needs to respond.
On the other hand, Baruyevsky’s statement is also addressed to the domestic people to a great extent. The Russian general election is just around the corner, which does not rule out the possibility that the Putin authorities hope to draw a certain established route for the latecomers.
As far as Russia’s own military strength is concerned, although Russia has a foundation in technology and human resources, and its economy has recovered in recent years, it is still not enough to fully restore the military framework of the former Soviet Union. Judging from Russia’s recent actions, the focus of its power is not on traditional military forces, but on trying to make a gesture at the strategic level, such as aircraft carrier going to sea, bomber cruising, and poplar missile deployment.
In reality, will Russia really preempt or even use nuclear weapons first? I’m afraid western countries are well aware of this issue.
No matter to what extent Russia’s tough speech is just a gesture, it has long been an indisputable fact that there are more and more confrontations between Russia and NATO led by the United States.
The embryonic form of the US-Russia bipolar confrontation strategy is emerging.
Imagination map of Sangl’s "Silver Bird" space bomber [data picture]
Under the trend of multipolarization, the strategic prototype of bipolar confrontation between the United States and Russia is presented
The United States aims to dominate the world, and all countries that may challenge its hegemonic position are "enemies" of the United States. Unfortunately, because Russia is the only country that can compete with the United States in military power, it cannot but be listed as the first target of the United States. The Iranian nuclear issue is ultimately a strategic dispute between the United States and Russia. The United States is not fighting Iran now because it is not involved in the anti-American armed forces in Iraq, but because it is worried about the price of oil. The United States launched the Iraq war to raise oil prices, which unexpectedly accelerated the revival of Russia. If there is a war against Iran, the current oil price will skyrocket, so the rise speed of Russia can be imagined. Therefore, in terms of strategic steps, the United States will press Russia step by step. NATO continues to expand eastward, while the United States deploys anti-missile systems in Eastern Europe. Ukraine and Georgia of the Commonwealth of Independent States have indicated that they want to join NATO. If this step comes true, the United States will be at the gates of Moscow. In order to cooperate with the strategic westward advance, the United States and Japan also conducted anti-missile tests in the Pacific Ocean. This is a move to kill two birds with one stone. On the surface, it seems to be against China, but in fact, it is also blocking the Russian road to the east.
Many routines in the United States are a diversion, seemingly aimed at China, but actually imply wrestling with Russia, such as trying to win over India, giving aid and selling advanced weapons. Also posing as an "Asian NATO" to surround China. In fact, what really divides the United States is Russia-India relations. If the United States sweeps the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and Iraq and so on, it is cutting off Russia’s strategic wings, then pulling India away is to remove Russia’s thigh extending into the Indian Ocean, and Russia really cannot be called a world power.
Russia, like a boxer who was forced into the corner of Taiwan, launched a series of Jedi counterattacks intensively: aircraft carriers and strategic bombers cruised, declared Arctic sovereignty, conducted strategic reconnaissance on North America and US Pacific bases, accelerated the test of new strategic missiles, played a big energy card against Europe, strengthened the SCO and sold advanced weapons to Iran. Although today’s world is not as clear-cut as the East-West camp in the Cold War, the prototype of the world with the struggle between the United States and Russia as the main axis is roughly clear. The United States and the West constantly create the China threat theory, which on the one hand means to scare China, and more is to cover the smoke screen of strategic attack on Russia. In Asia, Japan is still a loyal ally of the United States, while India still adopts the basic national policy of strategic speculation. Although Russia does not explicitly say that it is an enemy of the United States and the West, in fact, it can only rely on China and India as strategic partners and rear areas.
Unlike wars in the 20th century designed around ideology, wars in the 21st century are designed around resources. Therefore, in the future, the United States will not only continue to press Russia, but also compete with Russia in Central Asia and other regions rich in strategic resources. Because the interests of all parties are far from irreconcilable, there will be no confrontation in the foreseeable future, and the "battlefield" of big countries will still be on the political chessboard with economy as the core.
Great powers rush to the commanding heights of information warfare.
The world’s new military revolution characterized by informationization has been going on for nearly twenty years. The outline of a new type of army forged by the world powers headed by the United States is faintly visible. At the end of 2006, the United States put forward the "one-hour global plan". The basic operational platform of this information-based blitzkrieg is an air-space bomber equipped with conventional warheads for intercontinental missiles and flying at the first cosmic speed, and deploying lasers and kinetic energy weapons in space. The global missile defense system of the United States has entered the actual deployment. If the "one-hour global strike" plan is regarded as a strategic spear, the global missile defense system is a strategic shield. In fact, the American global rapid combat system, which takes the world as the big battlefield, takes big countries as opponents and focuses on global public space control, has begun to emerge. Not long ago, the United States announced a 3/4 reduction in its nuclear arsenal. After the conventional armed forces were fully informationized, the United States finally began to informationize its huge nuclear weapons system. The United States is well aware that the commanding heights of future wars are in space, which is the source of all information systems. The United States now has an absolute advantage in space power, and it should firmly grasp the right to control space while most countries have not caught up.
Russia wants to catch up with the military pace of the United States in almost all fields, but it seems that it is willing but unable to do so. Although Russia has not made a big move in the field of nuclear weapons, it has made rapid progress in the development of space positioning systems and new ballistic missiles that can penetrate anti-missile systems. India and Japan, as the leaders of the second military echelon in the world, have also made breakthroughs in space and anti-missile. On the contrary, the European powers, which have always been among the best in modern history, are not good enough and are willing to be the tail of the American eagle.
Editor: Cao Jin
