Russia Calls on US To Withdraw Nuclear Weapons From Europe, Cease Joint Nuclear Drills With Non-Nuclear Allies

A TASS report follows commentary.

This is a serious issue, perhaps the most serious of issues in Europe, but coming as it does immediately on the heels of Russia’s prior list of demands being resolutely rejected by the U.S. and NATO yesterday, the prospects of Washington and Brussels positively responding to this one either don’t appear good.

See: Stoltenberg address and what it means for world peace

On the issue of joint nuclear drills and five European NATO nations hosting U.S. B61 tactical nuclear bombs, the following excerpts are from the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons.

Article I:
Each nuclear-weapon State Party to the Treaty undertakes not to transfer to any recipient whatsoever nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices or control over such weapons or explosive devices directly, or indirectly….

Article II:
Each non-nuclear-weapon State Party to the Treaty undertakes not to receive the transfer from any transferor whatsoever of nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices or of control over such weapons or explosive devices directly, or indirectly….

TASS January 27, 2022

Russia proposes US returns American nuclear weapons from NATO countries stateside

According to Vladimir Yermakov, “currently there are about 200 American nuclear air bombs of the B61 family” in five non-nuclear NATO countries

Moscow proposed to Washington to return all American nuclear weapons from NATO countries to US territory in the context of reviewing security guarantees, Director of the Russian Foreign Ministry’s Department for Nonproliferation and Arms Control Vladimir Yermakov said in an interview with TASS.

“We insist that NATO’s ‘joint nuclear missions’ should be stopped immediately, all the American nuclear weapons be returned to US national territory and the infrastructure that allows their rapid deployment should be eliminated. This aspect is one of the elements of the package of measures proposed by us to Washington in the context of considering the issues of security guarantees,” he said.

According to the diplomat, “currently there are about 200 American nuclear air bombs of the B61 family” in five non-nuclear NATO countries. Thus, the alliance is capable of rapidly deploying nuclear weapons able to reach strategic targets on Russian territory. “[NATO countries] also retain the infrastructure ensuring rapid deployment of these [nuclear] weapons capable of reaching Russian territory and striking a wide range of targets, including strategic ones,” he pointed out.

At the same time, NATO engages non-nuclear countries in training for using American nuclear weapons against Russia. “Interaction between NATO member countries in joint nuclear planning is underway. NATO ‘joint nuclear missions’ take place with non-nuclear alliance members involved in training on the use of American nuclear weapons against us,” the diplomat stressed.

He noted that the US is modernizing its nuclear arsenal with a view of the increased applicability of such weapons in real conditions, above all, in Europe. “As for modernization, the US is consistently implementing a campaign on the renovation of practically all the components of the nuclear arsenal. The B61 air bombs in their newest B61-12 modification [see video below] will have a decreased or variable yield but increased precision. This raises the question, which containment scenarios justify such ‘calibration?’ This clearly means betting on a ‘higher applicability’ of such weapons under real conditions, first of all, in Europe,” the diplomat stated.

Rick Rozoff has been involved in anti-war and anti-interventionist work in various capacities for forty years. He lives in Chicago, Illinois. He is the manager of Stop NATO. This originally appeared at Anti-Bellum.

6 thoughts on “Russia Calls on US To Withdraw Nuclear Weapons From Europe, Cease Joint Nuclear Drills With Non-Nuclear Allies”

    1. This is a superb feature. It needs to be circulated. I hope you don’t mind if I share it with friends.
      The arrangement is technically called NATO nuclear sharing or nuclear burden sharing.
      As I tried to indicate, that practice either violates or comes dangerously close to violating the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

      1. ‘W’ Ripped up the ABM in 2002. SDI was developed on S. AFRICA privately and flies on Starlink sats, WMD’s. The Russians developed the Hyperfletch that is all ceramic for re-entry and they are L.E.O.: smaller arc to travel means faster delivery. Today’s news is that the Space force’s tracking ability is offline. SDI is designed for ICBMs. Hypersonic missiles do not need a full ICBM orbit and lesser missiles can deliver them up there.
        Summary: we never really considered that the system was flawed, that Russia would reveal this weapon after meeting trump in private. But this is real, not astroturf and our hubris to believe we can beat M.A.D. is very delusional. We are going to war on untested technology and flawed tactics. The ceramic missiles are not affected by CO2 LASERS even if they could target one. Game over. CHECKMATE.

        Russia has no reason to respond half hearted, war will be absolute and scripture indicates it continues for days after a peaceful agreement is made.
        Romans 10:9

  1. As Andrei Martyanov says, “You either talk to Mr. Lavrov or you talk to Mr. Shoigu.” Some people think that if the US doesn’t remove them and those strategic weapons in Poland and Romania, Russia will. Russia has the capability of doing so – but that involves war with NATO and the US.

    1. In line with McGovern’s “half a loaf” thesis:

      There are, what, 28 NATO member states?

      It takes the UNANIMOUS CONSENT of those states to admit a new NATO member.

      Suppose that, in emergency session, even ONE NATO state’s parliament passed a bill to this effect: “It is the policy of [insert name of state here] to veto the admission of any new member states.”

      That would give Putin half of the loaf, allowing him to declare victory and put the strategic weapons issue off until later.

      It would also give Biden the ability to declare victory (“the Russians have reduced their force disposition near Ukraine; by God we backed them off!”), while shifting blame for the exclusion of Ukraine from NATO to that other member state so that he doesn’t look like HE backed down.

      1. I have a feeling that wouldn’t work. It might work in the case of any given proposed member like Ukraine, but I suspect the rules would be amended somehow if it looked like one member state could veto the entire alleged policy. Also, I’m not sure that the one member state’s parliamentary policy would override NATO policy itself. Presumably that needs at least a majority if not unanimity. I”m not up on NATO rules of procedure, so who knows?. If the US did it, it might work, but as you say, Biden couldn’t get away with it.

Comments are closed.