Mums reikia Trumpo, kad vėl sudarytų taiką: pasauliniai konfliktai kursto branduolinio karo grėsmės eskalaciją

 "Šaltojo karo pabaiga žadėjo palengvėjimą nuo branduolinių košmarų. Ilgą laiką besipriešinusios, vyriausybės sutiko panaikinti kovines galvutes ir bendradarbiavo, siekdamos sustabdyti atominių ginklų plitimą. Dabar šis pažadas dingsta.

 

 Rusijos prezidentas Vladimiras Putinas rugsėjį paskelbė naujas branduolinių ginklų naudojimo taisykles, duodamas naujausią Maskvos ženklą, kad ji yra pasirengusi gynybai panaudoti atominius ginklus. Šiaurės Korėjos branduolinis arsenalas plečiasi. Iranas artėja prie tinkamų panaudojimui branduolinių ginklų kūrimo, todėl baiminamasi dėl Artimųjų Rytų ginklavimosi varžybų.

 

 Viena iš dviejų svarbių JAV ir Rusijos branduolinių ginklų kontrolės sutarčių žlugo. Kita, kuri apriboja Rusijos ir JAV dislokuotų branduolinių ginklų skaičių, baigiasi 2026 m. pradžioje.

 

 Maždaug prieš 60 metų prezidentas Johnas F. Kennedy perspėjo, kad iki 1975 metų pasaulis gali turėti 15–20 branduolinių galių. Jo baimės buvo išpūstos: šiandien yra tik devynios.

 

 Vis dėlto pasaulinei ginklų neplatinimo sistemai gresia didesnis pavojus, nei bet kada nuo Šaltojo karo laikų, sakė Jungtinių Tautų Tarptautinės atominės energijos agentūros (TATENA) generalinis direktorius Rafaelis Grossi. 

 

Branduolinės konfrontacijos grėsmė, kuri prieš dešimtmetį atrodė išgalvota, nebėra neįsivaizduojama.

 

 „Bendras didžiųjų valstybių sutarimas dėl ginklų neplatinimo svarbos, kuris buvo labai svarbus, kuriant ir palaikant neplatinimo režimą, nuo septintojo dešimtmečio, sumažėjo“, – sakė Ericas Breweris, buvęs Nacionalinio saugumo tarybos kovos su ginklų platinimu direktorius. Branduolinės grėsmės iniciatyvos ekspertų grupė. „Manau, kad bent jau atsidursime pasaulyje, kuriame bus daugiau šalių, galinčių pasigaminti branduolinius ginklus."

 

 Griuvus Berlyno sienai, JAV ir Rusija bendradarbiavo, siekdamos deaktyvuoti daugiau, nei 3000, strateginių branduolinių galvučių, esančių buvusiose sovietinėse Baltarusijos, Kazachstano ir Ukrainos respublikose. Iki 2012 m. Rusija ir JAV turėjo mažiau, nei 5000 kovinių galvučių. Pasak Amerikos mokslininkų federacijos, 1988 m. jų buvo atitinkamai daugiau nei 41 000 ir 23 500.

 

 Pietų Afrika, sukūrusi nedidelį branduolinį arsenalą, tapo pirmąja – ir vis dar vienintele – šalimi, kuri dešimtojo dešimtmečio pradžioje atsisakė savo branduolinių ginklų.

 

 Po dešimtmečio Libija sutiko nutraukti savo branduolinę programą.

 

 Iranas, po JAV invazijos į kaimyninį Iraką, sutiko pradėti derybas dėl savo branduolinių tyrimų.

 

 Neplatinimas susidūrė su tam tikromis nesėkmėmis. Pakistanas savo pirmąjį branduolinį ginklą išbandė 1998 m., o Šiaurės Korėja tai padarė 2006 m.

 

 Pastangos suvaldyti branduolines grėsmes buvo sutelktos į 1970 m. Sutartį dėl branduolinio ginklo neplatinimo arba BGNS. Joje buvo kodifikuotas dviejų supervalstybių sprendimas, kad branduolinių ginklų plitimo ribojimas yra svarbiau, nei siekti pranašumo, kiekvienai padovanojant savo sąjungininkams po bombą.

 

 BGNS, kurią šiandien turi 191 pasirašiusi šalis, įpareigoja šalis, neturinčias bombos, naudoti branduolinę energiją taikiems tikslams ir suteikia TATENA priežiūros įgaliojimus. Tai apima, branduolinį ginklą turinčių, valstybių įsipareigojimą sąžiningai dirbti, kad sumažintų savo arsenalus.

 

 Pastaraisiais metais didėjant įtampai tarp JAV, Kinijos ir Rusijos, sutarimas dėl ginklų neplatinimo žlugo.

 

 Pareigūnai teigia, kad Iranui gali prireikti kelių mėnesių iki branduolinio ginklo pagaminimo, o Saudo Arabija pareiškė, kad jei taip atsitiks, imsis sekti pavyzdžiu. Aukščiausi Pietų Korėjos ir Turkijos pareigūnai kalbėjo apie tai, kad jų šalys imsis branduolinių ginklų.

 

 Įvykiai Ukrainoje iškėlė pirmą tikrą branduolinio ginklo panaudojimo šmėklą per dešimtmečius.

 

 Rusija ne kartą nurodė jos branduolinius ginklus, kaip gynybos priemonę, nors Vakarų žvalgybos agentūros neaptiko jokių realių pasirengimo branduoliniam naudojimui žingsnių.

 

 Matthew Kroenig, Atlanto tarybos Skovkrofto strategijos ir saugumo centro vyresnysis direktorius, tvirtina, kad, nepaisant pasaulinės ginklų neplatinimo sistemos įtempimo, JAV turi priemonių jam atremti.

 

 „Mes daugiausia dėmesio skiriame probleminiams vaikams, tokiems, kaip Iranas ir Šiaurės Korėja, tačiau dažniausiai tai seka 190 šalių“, – sakė jis apie BGNS. „Manau, kad daug kas yra mūsų rankose... Ir aš manau, kad pagrindinis dalykas yra išplėstas atgrasymas ir ar galime sutvarkyti savo branduolinę strategiją ir patikimai užtikrinti savo sąjungininkus."

 

 TATENA Grossi yra mažiau optimistiškas. Šiandien vis labiau įtempta pasaulinė aplinka daro „branduolinių ginklų trauką labai stiprią“, – sakė jis rugsėjį. „Tikrai sunkus momentas“." [1]

 

1. World News: Global Conflicts Fuel Escalation in Nuclear-War Risks. Norman, Laurence. 
Wall Street Journal, Eastern edition; New York, N.Y.. 17 Oct 2024: A.8.

We Need Trump To Make Peace Again: Global Conflicts Fuel Escalation in Nuclear-War Risks

"The Cold War's end promised relief from nuclear nightmares. Long-adversarial governments agreed to eliminate warheads and collaborated to stop the spread of atomic weapons. That promise is now slipping away.

Russian President Vladimir Putin in September touted new rules on using nuclear arms, offering Moscow's latest signal of readiness to use atomic weapons in its defense. North Korea's nuclear arsenal is expanding. Iran is close to developing usable nuclear weapons, prompting fears of a Middle East arms race.

One of the two critical U.S.-Russian nuclear-arms-control treaties has collapsed. The other, which caps how many nuclear weapons Russia and the U.S. deploy, expires in early 2026.

Roughly 60 years ago, President John F. Kennedy warned that by 1975 the world could have 15 to 20 nuclear powers. His fears were inflated: There are only nine today.

Still, the global nonproliferation system is in greater peril than at any time since the Cold War, said Rafael Grossi, director-general of the United Nations International Atomic Energy Agency, or IAEA. The threat of a nuclear confrontation, which a decade ago seemed fanciful, is no longer unimaginable.

"The shared consensus among great powers on the importance of nonproliferation -- which was critical to building and sustaining the nonproliferation regime since the 1960s -- has eroded," said Eric Brewer, a former director for counterproliferation at the National Security Council, now at the Nuclear Threat Initiative think tank. "I think at a minimum we're going to end up in a world with more countries that are capable of building nuclear weapons."

After the Berlin Wall fell, the U.S. and Russia cooperated to deactivate more than 3,000 strategic nuclear warheads located in the former Soviet republics of Belarus, Kazakhstan and Ukraine. By 2012, Russia and the U.S. each held fewer than 5,000 warheads. In 1988, they had more than 41,000 and 23,500 respectively, according to the Federation of American Scientists.

South Africa, which had developed a small nuclear arsenal, became the first -- and still only -- country to scrap its nuclear weapons in the early 1990s. 

A decade later, Libya agreed to end its nuclear program. 

Iran, in the wake of the U.S. invasion of neighboring Iraq, agreed to start negotiations over its nuclear research.

Nonproliferation faced some setbacks. Pakistan tested its first nuclear weapon in 1998, and North Korea did so in 2006.

Efforts to contain nuclear threats have centered on the 1970 Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, or NPT. It codified a decision made by the two superpowers that limiting the spread of nuclear weapons was more important than seeking advantage by each giving its allies the bomb.

The NPT, which today has 191 signatories, commits countries without a bomb to using nuclear energy for peaceful purposes and grants the IAEA oversight powers. It includes a pledge by nuclear-weapons states to work in good faith to reduce their arsenals.

As tensions have grown among the U.S., China and Russia in recent years, the consensus around nonproliferation has frayed. 

Officials say Iran could be months away from building a nuclear weapon, and Saudi Arabia has said it would follow suit if that happens. Top officials in South Korea and Turkey have talked about their countries going nuclear.

Events in Ukraine have raised the first real specter of nuclear-weapons use in decades.

Russia has repeatedly pointed to its nuclear weapons as a means of defense, although Western intelligence agencies have detected no real steps to prepare for nuclear use.

Matthew Kroenig, senior director of the Atlantic Council's Scowcroft Center for Strategy and Security, argues that despite the strains on the global nonproliferation system, the U.S. has the tools to shore it up.

"We focus on the problem children like Iran and North Korea, but for the most part, 190 countries are following it," he said of the NPT. "I do think a lot of it is in our hands. . . And I think the big one is extended deterrence and can we get our nuclear strategy in order and credibly assure our allies."

The IAEA's Grossi is less sanguine. Today's increasingly tense global environment makes "the attraction of nuclear weapons very strong," he said in September. "It's a difficult moment, indeed."" [1]

1. World News: Global Conflicts Fuel Escalation in Nuclear-War Risks. Norman, Laurence. 
Wall Street Journal, Eastern edition; New York, N.Y.. 17 Oct 2024: A.8.

 

All Lithuania's defense funds and the years of our youth's lives have been wasted: without an additional 10 billion euros it is impossible to withstand the Russian attack

 

 

It's a shame. Our defense planners need to be prosecuted and jailed for years for the grand theft of our wealth. Vaitkus is right. Another 10 billion euros you will no longer extort from us.

 

 

 "Journalist, head of the Strong Together organization, Edmundas Jakilaitis, for the first time publicly presented a study of Lithuania's defensive power. The study was conducted by the Washington-based New Generation Warfare Center, which, together with Lithuanian military experts, simulated two scenarios of a military conflict - what awaits if Russia in 2027 goes against Lithuania. The study reviewed the first 10 days of the military conflict, after which Lithuania should defend itself not alone, but together with NATO allies.

 

 

 

 Lithuania was successful in the second simulation scenario, during which almost no state territory was lost, and the losses suffered by the enemy significantly exceeded the losses of Lithuania and its allies. "Over the next four years, by allocating an additional 10 billion euros for defense, Lithuania can effectively resist the attack of the armed forces of the Russian Federation for 10 days. During those 10 days, Lithuania would essentially lose its territory, and there would be no real threat to the existence of the state. Such a 10-day period is necessary so that NATO allies can make decisions, send their allies and help the attacked Lithuania", said E. Jakilaitis at the Lithuanian Business Forum on Thursday.

 

 

 

 "After six days, the reinforced forces of the Lithuanian army stopped four Russian armies, whose capabilities have been exhausted and which would need another echelon to return to the offensive, which they do not have. Key systems included Himars, Apache helicopters, artillery, mechanized forces, tanks and anti-tank capabilities. Expenditure on munitions, in addition to those calculated later, is 4.5 billion. dollars. The cost of all technological additions is 10 billion. US dollars," he calculated.

 

 

 

 Minister of National Defense Laurynas Kasčiūnas welcomed this investigation and said that it broadcasts one important message to all of Lithuania - under certain conditions, the state is capable of defending itself against an enemy attack. "The essential point of this simulation, of this study, is that we as a state, under certain assumptions and serious solutions, can defend ourselves against potential enemies. Of course, our defense planning is related to the entire collective defense of NATO. (...) But regardless of that, a self-respecting state must project various scenarios in order to fight on its own", emphasized L. Kasčiūnas. This is obvious, because people must see and understand that Lithuania is defensible and everything is largely in our hands. This is a form of pressure on political leaders to respond to important information from the world's best experts.

 

 

 

 There is only one solution - the borrower E. Jakilaitis emphasized that this 10 bln. euros the issue of additional funds is equal to approximately 20 percent. of Lithuania's gross domestic product (GDP).

 

 

 

 Businessman and signatory of the Act of Independence, Jonas Tamulis, assured that Lithuania must borrow and significantly invest in its defense power already now. "We need a solution within 3-5 years, that's about the time we have. In other words, we cannot invest in defense only 4% for the next 20 years and have the same result - you need now, and the answer to how to make a decision now is almost the same.

 

 

 

 You need to borrow very seriously - those slightly increased taxes and other steps are in principle also suitable, only I would combine them both at the same time", explained J. Tamulis.

 

 

 

 The scenarios were formed taking into account the current military investments of Lithuania, the arrival of the German brigade in Lithuania and other factors. In the first scenario, Lithuania had developed the military capabilities it is developing now, including the German brigade. In the second scenario, Lithuania invested an additional 10 billion. euros in a period of 4 years to the development of defense capabilities. During the simulations that lasted for several days, Ben Hodges, the commander of the NATO ground forces in Europe, who was on the side of Lithuania, together with him were the US helicopter aviation and artillery ground colonels. The entire simulation was observed by representatives of the Presidency of the Republic of Lithuania and the Defense Staff. The forces of the Russian Federation side were led by the expert of the "New generation warfare" research center, Dr. Philip Petersen.

 

 

 

 E. Jakilaitis: we want people to understand - Lithuania is defensible and almost everything is in our hands. He is a head of the "Strong Together" organization. E. Jakilaitis emphasized during the presentation of the study of Lithuania's defensive power - the country's residents must know that Lithuania can defend itself by making appropriate decisions. He hopes that an understanding public will help persuade politicians to take action. "We hope that this information will reach the public first. This is obvious, because people must see and understand that Lithuania is defensible and everything is largely in our hands. This is a kind of pressure tool for political leaders - to respond to important information from the world's best experts", E. Jakilaitis told journalists on Thursday.

 

 

 

 J. Tamulis, one of the authors of the study, a signatory of the Act of Independence, assures that the decision-makers understand how important the results of this study are. According to him, the first politicians familiar with the study did not raise the question "whether it is necessary" but "how to do it". "I'm not in a bad mood about this. We first presented this project almost a month ago. We gathered three people from each of the main parties, people from the army, the ministry, the presidency, and there were even some members of the press. The meeting was private and the information never leaked to the public. This clearly shows that politicians understand what we are dealing with and how important it is," said J. Tamulis.

 

 

 

 "I didn't hear any other questions in the discussion - the amount of money was discussed, what are the best ways to get the funds." There were no other topics - the decision-makers have an idea of ​​where we are, what we are doing," he added. Businessman and one of the authors of the study, Tomas Kučinskas, singled out the role of the media in spreading the message to the public. According to him, if the news about Lithuania's ability to defend itself reaches the population, their fear of war will not be so strong. "It is very important what the role of the media will be. (...) The media must convey the message to the residents that we must do this and only then will we be calm that nothing will happen to us in Lithuania," he said."