In 1914, all the major powers of Europe understood that a war would be a complete disaster. Yet they blundered into one of the most disastrous wars in history and bled themselves to death.
Wars aren't always planned. Sometimes wars happen after a period of rising tensions and deteriorating relationships.
We know the issue of Russia is a very controversial one. We are not going to defend the actions of President Putin, nor are we going to defend the actions of President Trump.
Yet the most important national security issue in the world today is the relationship between America and Russia. Russia is not like any other country in the world. It alone has the capability to wipe out the United States in about 45 minutes. Likewise, America has the ability to wipe out Russia in about 45 minutes. Also, if there is a nuclear war, the consequences for the global environment could be fatal and kill everybody else on the planet, not just the citizens of America and Russia. As a result, there is a need for mature and intelligent relations between these two great nuclear super powers.
But we must ask an important question: Does America want to blow up the world in a dispute over Crimea? Over Estonia? Do American citizens feel like dying for Estonia? We doubt it.
While a nuclear war is not immediately imminent, the threat of nuclear war is growing closer each day. Today we have tripwires for war just as we had in 1914. So both sides need to step back. There is a need for intelligent discussion on both sides of the issue.
BROKEN PROMISES TO RUSSIA AND U.S. HYPOCRISY
Relations between Russia and the United States are currently at their worst point in 20 years. The specter of a nuclear war between these two global super powers is actually greater today than it was during the Cold War. At least during the Cold War there were security mechanisms put into place in an effort to prevent such a disaster, and the possibility of said disaster was discussed quite openly, unlike today.
When the Cold War ended in 1991, people around the world breathed a collective sigh of relief. It seemed that the possibility of nuclear annihilation had been averted.
But since the end of the Cold War, America and the West have adopted highly threatening policies towards Russia, hypocritical policies towards Russia, and have broken a large number of promises. Specifically, there was a promise not to expand NATO to the east. Yet today NATO is about an hour away from St. Petersburg. After the Cold War, it would have been logical to dissolve NATO since the whole purpose of NATO was to stand up to the Soviet Union. But that did not happen. As we document on our website, NATO was expanded to the east in two stages. The first stage took in the nations of central Europe. There was very little debate about this even though this was a total violation of US promises to the former Soviet Union. The second stage of expansion of NATO was even less discussed and was even more of a threat, and that was the integration of the Baltic states into NATO, which brought Western military forces directly up to some of the most sensitive parts of Russia from a military point of view. The Baltic states in Russian history have been an invasion route from the West starting with the Teutonic Knights in the 13th century. After that, it was an invasion route for the Swedish Empire into Russia. After that, it was the invasion route for two German invasions of Russia, one in World War I, and one in World War II. In the case of World War II there was one of the most horrific moments in Russian history where then Leningrad, now St. Petersburg, was cut off and at least a million people died in an absolutely horrible situation. So the presence of any hostile power in Estonia is logically seen by Russia as an extremely threatening act. Estonia is a mere hours away from St. Petersburg, one of the two main cities of Russia.
Hostile actions by America and the West toward Russia don’t end there.
From President George W Bush, to Obama, to Trump, each successive American president has taken steps to bring the United States closer to the brink of nuclear war with Russia.
PRESIDENT GEORGE W BUSH'S WITHDRAWL FROM THE ABM TREATY
In 2001, under George W. Bush, we had the disastrous withdrawal from the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) treaty, which stated that in order to reduce offensive nuclear forces in Russia and the United States, both sides would have to agree to limit anti-ballistic missile defenses.
PRESIDENT OBAMA STARTS NEW COLD WAR - AMERICA INTERFERES IN UKRAINE
Tensions accelerated under President Obama when he chose to take an aggressive stance toward Russia over the conflict in the Ukraine and the Crimea. In 2014, America supported the overthrow of the legally elected government of the Ukraine. We're not going to get into a detailed discussion of Ukrainian politics, but we do need to make some major points. Ukraine is one of many states created in the legacy of World War I and the end of the Cold War that didn’t make a whole lot of sense. Crimea has been a part of Russia for ages. Due to internal Soviet politics it was stuck in the Russian province of Ukraine. No one ever thought Ukraine under those borders would become an independent country. The state of Ukraine is an ethnically divided area where there are Russian speakers in the East and Ukrainians in the West, and because of Stalin’s atrocities against the Ukrainians, huge animosity to Russia.
So this is an ethnic conflict. Kiev the capital is in the Ukrainian area. If you elect a government that comes from the eastern area it's going to be very unpopular in Kiev. Likewise, if you elect the government that represents the Ukrainian parts of the Ukraine it’s going to be very unpopular in the eastern areas.The overthrow backed by America and the notorious Ms. Nuland in the US State Department was seen as a great threat to the Russian speaking populations in the East. (A very hypocritical action we will add, given the later hysteria over Russia's purported election meddling in America). The Russian speakers in the East joined with Russia to seek their independence. This is a struggle that did not in any way affect America’s national security interests, but had a huge impact on Russian security interests. This was a war started by America.
Sanctions were issued under the Obama administration in response to the situation in Ukraine, and later under the Trump administration in response to allegations that Russia interfered with an American election. Whatever the reasons, sanctions are an act of war. An economic war against Russia could end up devastating the U.S. economy if it creates major shifts in world credit flows. So this is not wise.
Under Obama, America also started building an ABM base in Poland that could very well be seen as a means to enable an American nuclear first strike.
THE PURPORTED ELECTION HACK AND U.S. HYPOCRISY
At the conclusion of the U.S. 2016 Presidential Election, there have been claims that Russia hacked Democratic Party organizations in order to help Donald Trump to win the election. We're not going to get into the ins and outs of what really happened, but trying to blame Russia for interfering with a U.S. election is a very dangerous accusation to make, given the current tensions that already exist between Russia and the U.S. And not only are these accusations dangerous, they display an incredible level of hypocrisy. The United States has been interfering with elections in other countries since the end of World War II. One of the most infamous examples being the 1953 Iranian Coup. (The Washington Post, 10-13-16).
Yet despite the fact that the United States has been interfering with other governments for more than 60 years, our own government is deeming it appropriate to impose sanctions on Russia for supposedly interfering with the United States election, even though there is a lack of actual proof that this happened.
PRESIDENT TRUMP LOWERS THE THRESHOLD FOR NUCLEAR WAR
Far from being a so called Russian stooge, President Trump has done much to exacerbate the current situation with Russia. He has endorsed lowering the threshold for nuclear war by building "smaller, friendlier," low-yield nuclear bombs and putting these new warheads on Trident submarine missiles. The supposed idea behind the low-yield bomb is that if it does less damage than a conventional nuclear weapon, we might be more likely to use it, and if Russia thinks we are more likely to bomb them, this is supposed to act as some sort of deterrent. There are many reasons why this thinking is dangerous insanity.
As Rep. David Hobson (R-Ohio) said in 2004 when this idea was originally proposed under Bush, “What worries me about the nuclear penetrator [low-yield bomb] is that some idiot might try to use it.”
If a missile is launched, Russia has no way of knowing whether this is a conventional or nuclear weapon. So even if it was a low-yield bomb, they would not know that, and they would be forced to respond as if this were a conventional nuclear weapon.
Making Russia think we are more likely to nuke them brings us all closer, not further, from an all out nuclear war.
There is no such thing as a limited or a controlled nuclear war. As Secretary of Defense Jim Mattis said: “I don’t think there’s any such thing as a tactical nuclear weapon. Any nuclear weapon used at any time is a strategic game changer.” (The National Interest).
The Trump administration plans to spend $1.7 trillion to rebuild the nuclear arsenal over the next thirty years.
In the Trump Administration's 2019 budget to Congress, there is $50 million allocated to build the new Trident warheads.
Sixteen senators wrote a Jan. 29 letter to Trump out of concern that his new policies "increase the risk of a nuclear arms race and raise the real possibility of nuclear conflict." This new warhead is dangerous, unjustified, and has already been rejected by Congress in previous lives. It is now up to Congress to stop Trump from bringing this zombie back from the dead.
Other signs indicate that Trump is very open to nuclear weapons use. His administration's new Nuclear Posture Review reveals "a shift from one where the use of nuclear weapons is possible to one where the use of nuclear weapons is likely," Beatrice Fihn, executive director of the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN), said in a statement. (Truth-out). The Nuclear Posture Review states that nuclear weapons can be used in response to a non-nuclear threat.
Putin alluded to the Nuclear Posture Review (NPR) in a speech, noting, "Some of the provisions of the updated US nuclear strategy review, which reduces the threshold for using nuclear weapons, trigger tremendous concern. It is written in such a way that it can be used in response to a conventional weapon strike or even in response to a cyberthreat."(Truth-out)
President Donald Trump's steps to make nuclear war more likely are very frightening. And many Americans do not trust Donald Trump with nuclear weapons (for good reason). Sixty percent of Americans don't trust Trump with nuclear weapons, according to a recent NBC News/Washington Post poll.
THE POISONED DIPLOMAT
We also should address the recent controversy of the Russian diplomat being poisoned in London. The British government promptly accused Russia of having done this. However, we find the evidence for this accusation scanty at best and fraudulent at worst. Russia would have no incentive for doing such an action and there are plenty of people who would have the capability to carry this out, perhaps people who would want a war between Russia and the West.
So this is all very dangerous, and a dire threat against America's safety, and the safety of all life on the planet.
WHAT SHOULD BE DONE?
Everyone needs to take a step back. The answer is not more sanctions or lowering the threshold for nuclear war. The answer is intelligent conversation between the world's two greatest nuclear super powers.
OPEN NEGOTIATIONS WITH RUSSIA
The U.S. needs to open negotiations with Russia on plans to de-escalate this new Cold War, and make plans for both nuclear superpowers to decrease their nuclear arsenals.
DE-ESCALATING THE SITUATION IN THE UKRAINE
We call on all reasonable people to support an internationally supervised plebiscite in Ukraine to help the different provinces to decide their own future. We have both Ukrainian and Russian friends. We need a road to a peaceful future for all.
WE PROPOSE AN INDEPENDENT JOINT COMMISSION TO REVIEW U.S. RUSSIAN RELATIONS
The main issue is that America and Russia have nuclear arsenals that can destroy each other. How do we get to a better relationship between the two countries? A joint commission to look at the overall picture of U.S. Russian relations is one solution.
RELATED LINKS
DONALD TRUMP'S OFFICIAL NUCLEAR POLICY
The Nuclear Posture Review- Office of the Secretary of Defense PDF
A letter from 16 senators who are alarmed by Trump's nuclear policies PDF
WORLD FUTURE FUND REPORTS
America's Relations with Russia Today
A short report on our key views about relations with Russia.
Our Priorities For Stopping a New Cold War
In certain unique situations we make grants to other non-profit organizations. Such organizations must be compatible with our main goals as defined on this web site.
One of our top priorities is to stop the escalation of a new Cold War between Russia and the United States.
If you are part of an organization that is working toward this goal, be sure to check out our grants.
Sanctions are an act of war. They will only serve to further deteriorate relations between the U.S. and Russia
Russia is unlike any other country on the planet. They are the one country that has enough nuclear weapons to wipe the United States off the face of the Earth in 45 minutes.
Can the United States afford to continue with its aggressive stance toward Russia? We think not.
When the Cold War ended in 1991, many people around the world breathed a collective sigh of relief. It seemed that the possibility of nuclear annihilation had been averted.
But today the threat looms closer than many people think.
We call on all reasonable people to support an internationally supervised plebiscite in Ukraine to help the different provinces to decide their own future.
We have both Ukrainian and Russian friends. We need a road to a peaceful future for all.
NATO: Time for Shared Sacrifice
Is it time for America to end its huge military subsidies to wealthy European countries?
NATO Lies about Eastward Expansion
What exactly was Moscow promised in 1990 by the West? This has been the subject of much dispute.
There should be no dispute. There is not a shadow of doubt that Russia was very specifically promised that NATO would not expand by both America and Germany.
Putin's Warning to the West 2016
This is a portion of Putin's speech to international news agencies. The speech took place with representatives of various media outlets during the St. Petersburg International Economic Forum, in June 2016.
Putin urged journalists to report genuinely on the impending danger
RELATED NEWS STORIES
Theresa May's Claims of Russian Poison Attack Fall Apart (Popular Resistance, 3-18-18)
Trump's New 'Low-Yield' Nuclear Weapon: Two Bad Ideas Rolled into One (The National Interest, 3-10-18)
Marjorie Cohn | US Refusal to Negotiate With Russia Increases Likelihood of Nuclear War (Truth-Out, 3-12-18)
Can America Prevent Russia from Using Low-Yield Nukes? (The National Interest, 3-12-18)
From Mutually Assured Destruction to Mutually Assured Delusion (and Back?) (The National Interest, 3-12-18)