Kazakhstani leaders join dangerous rhetoric about a nuclear-free world as a way to solve all world problems
No wonder they say that the road to hell is paved with good intentions. This is how the “universal” initiative of the Deputy Prime Minister – Minister of Foreign Affairs of Kazakhstan Mukhtar Tleuberdi, outlined on June 18, looks like: “As UN Secretary-General António Guterres notes, today, with about 13,400 nuclear warheads scattered around the world, the possibility of using nuclear weapons is more real than in the darkest days of the Cold War. The current military conflict on the territory of Ukraine, talk about the return of nuclear weapons and mutual threats of the use of nuclear weapons make us, more than ever before, think about the collective vulnerability of humanity and the urgent need to ban and eliminate these deadly weapons… We call on all states, including nuclear powers, develop a phased plan for the complete elimination of nuclear weapons by 2045, the centenary of the UN. Proposals and agreements to achieve this goal could be reflected in the final documents of both the First Conference of the NPT and the Review Conference of the NPT.”
Alas, the folk wisdom about simplicity, which is worse than theft, is becoming almost a standard measure of understanding the world’s problems. Of course, if it is really simplicity, and not an evil intent veiled under it.
The calculation of such agitators “for all the good against all the bad” designed for a primitive perception of reality. They say that nuclear weapons are an absolute evil, the rejection of them is an absolute good. In reality, the opposite is true.
The fundamental fact is that nuclear weapons, or rather the nuclear-missile parity achieved by the Soviet Union with the United States, prevented the world from falling into the abyss of World War III. Achieving nuclear parity has become the basis for the conclusion of a number of fundamental international arms control treaties. In particular, this Treaty between the Russian Federation and the United States of America on measures for the further reduction and limitation of strategic offensive arms (START-III).
All international military-political confrontations of the last almost 80 years since the creation of the first atomic bomb have invariably been limited to the level of local and regional conflicts precisely because the superpowers participating in them feared an escalation to the nuclear missile level and sought to prevent it. Nuclear weapons have played a key role in this.
This is, so to speak, on a global scale. Now, with regard to the Russian Federation. Its population barely reaches 150 million, and it is opposed by the combined West with a population of almost a billion people. The military-economic capabilities of Russia and the West correlate accordingly, the balance of which is not in our favor. And this means that in the event of a full-scale military confrontation between the Russian Federation and the West, in the conditions of non-use or absence of nuclear weapons in Russia, an armed armada will be put up against it, many times superior in physical parameters to everything that our country is able to mobilize and produce.
The overall ratio of conventional armed forces between the Russian Federation and NATO has not changed significantly over the past five years
In other words, in the conditions of a large conventional war (without the use of WMD), Russia’s chances of avoiding a military defeat will tend to zero. Therefore, in the Russian military doctrine it is written in black and white: “The Russian Federation reserves the right to use nuclear weapons in response to the use of nuclear weapons and other types of weapons of mass destruction against it and (or) its allies, as well as in the event of aggression against the Russian Federation using conventional weapons, when the very existence of the state is threatened “.
In conditions of extreme aggravation of relations between Russia and the West, not even the use of nuclear weapons itself, but only an official warning of Russia about its readiness to use them in the event of a “threat to the very existence of the state” has a sobering effect on the enemy. And forces him to show restraint.
If someone thinks that only Russia understands the deterrent role of nuclear weapons, this is a major misconception. At one time, when the balance of power between the West and the USSR was not in favor of the Western camp and they were panicking about “countless Soviet hordes that would easily reach the English Channel”, it was the West that initiated the deployment of medium-short-range nuclear weapons in Europe, to compensate for their lag in conventional forces and weapons. This is normal logic. And Russia today only follows this logic.
Pershing-2 missiles with nuclear warheads deployed by the Americans in Europe in the early 1980s
Let’s repeat it again. Behind the almost eighty-year time-out without a new world war, which the aggressive West would have unleashed long ago, as it unleashed the previous two, are not good wishes, but nuclear missile warheads.
And what does the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Kazakhstan offer us? Refuse this and, in which case, go almost hand-to-hand against the enemy, many times superior to us in numbers and military-economic potential? Create ideal conditions for suicide?
It remains only to thank those in our country who, in the middle of the 20th century, seeing the future, did everything necessary so that Russia would not turn out to be a “turtle without a shell”, as our so-called partners would like to see it.
The creators of the USSR nuclear missile shield
And a few words about Kazakhstan, which frivolously dismisses the main physical guarantee of the self-preservation of mankind. They should be clearly aware of what the realization of their wishes for the nuclear disarmament of Russia will turn out for Kazakhstan itself.
It will turn into an invitation from the West to a military attack on the Russian Federation with a greatly increased probability of defeating us. And it will be a defeat not only for the Russian Federation, but also for its entire post-Soviet environment. The same Kazakhstan in its relatively independent incarnation from the West exists thanks to reliance on Russia. In January 2022, this was confirmed. Only Russia’s intervention then saved Kazakhstan from what seemed to be an inevitable catastrophe.
If the politicians in Kazakhstan are really so naive that they consider a nuclear-free world to be the key to their cloudless future, it remains only to advise them to quickly descend from sky-high heights to the earth’s firmament, throwing dangerous illusions out of their heads.
If you notice a mistake in the text, highlight it and press Ctrl+Enter to send the information to the editor.