By Ylli Përmeti
Western oligarchies in order to protect and perpetuate their power from the socialist expansion of the 20th century, developed nuclear weapons - as a result, they spurred the same development on the other side: today, in neoliberal globalization, the use of them becomes more than ever possible, if the cause if it is not being exposed and restrained. Therefore, only by conquering western oligarchies, by politically organised People, we may save the life of the planet from a nuclear warfare.
The building of the missile shield of NATO upon the border of Russia and the visit of Putin in Cuba immediately after the end of the "World Cup", which was organised in Brazil, by forgiving 90% of Cuba's unpaid Soviet-era debts and the reopening of a Soviet-era spy base on America' doorstep in Lourdes, south of Havana, the plans for building the same bases in Latin America and the resolution of Putin to counteract in every challenge for war, marks, without any doubt, not only an economic warfare of America against Russia, but, as we shall see here, it might lead to a nuclear warfare.
And Putin, after challenging Washington, of not letting the Americans to invade in Syria, while ratified the agreement for free trade between Abkhazia and South Ossetia, ex-Soviet state, which Russia acknowledges as independent countries by supporting them economically and military, planed, together with the members of the Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO), to spend $1trl (33trl roubles) in order to secure new weapons for its rapid and united military forces. Of these 40 will be vessels and submarines equipped with nuclear missiles, and 14 others, named "Lada", of the fourth generation submarine with advanced technology, namely, with a new air-independent propulsion plant. The latter, together with the nuclear weapons - makes Russia dominant against America. But, Russia lacks an anti-ballistic missile system. If a nuclear war breaks out - Russia would be damaged more than America. This is the reason why Russia is in the process of developing an anti-ballistic missile system for all Russia - with which, it will overcome the military ruin of the last two decades. As a military study points out on Financial Times - when it analyses the preparedness and the military force of Russia: 'from armour and kit to structure and logistics, the Kremlin has for six years been on a mission to transform Russia's military from a clunking Soviet-era relic into a modern, flexible fighting force'.
In fact Russia did not stop the development nuclear weapons during the last two decades. Thus, while the expenditures of Russian government aim at country's defence and the creation of a counter-weight against Washington, the "anti-nuclear" Obama, the "guardian" of world's peace, planned to spend also $1trl for nuclear weapons over the next three decades! And this, because Russia, in some important aspects, at the military level, and particularly in relation to the nuclear weapons, stands at a higher position comparably with NATO. The development of Russian armament was a consequence of nuclear tests and of the military development of America which started in 1950s.
While the development of the armament of America was a consequence of the fear that "communists" of the 20th century would conquer Europe. In fact, Winston Churchill, the Prime Minister of Britain, went on even a further step: urged the United States to launch an attack with a nuclear weapon on the Soviet Union (Kremlin) to win the cold war! And Churchill caused the bloodshed after 1944 in Athens, not only against communists, but of the civil war too. As an analysis in The Observer points out:
Prime minister Winston Churchill considered the influence of the Communist Party within the resistance movement he had backed throughout the war - the National Liberation Front, EAM - to have grown stronger than he had calculated, sufficient to jeopardise his plan to return the Greek king to power and keep Communism at bay. So he switched allegiances to back the supporters of Hitler against his own erstwhile allies...[as a result] RAF Spitfires and Beaufighters were strafing leftist strongholds as the Battle of Athens - known in Greece as the Dekemvriana - began, fought not between the British and the Nazis, but the British alongside supporters of the Nazis against the partisans.
And unlike France and Italy, where if one had fought against the Nazis, was respected in society after the war, regardless of ideology, in Greece, they found themselves fighting - or imprisoned and tortured by - the people who had collaborated with the Nazis, on British orders! In short, it is true that the British and Americans fought against the Nazis, sometimes with greater effectiveness and sometimes not, so that, after the war, to control the western block countries through clienteles' governments, but, parallel with it, they fought against the communists by collaborating with Nazis! This approach was being used even in Ukraine.
Considering this development the socialist Russia begun to develop its own nuclear weapons and a powerful army which reached up until the middle of 1970s, its apex. But after the breakup of the Soviet Union, in 1990s, Western elites were concentrated more on developing the new generation of weapons, which had a high cost while it destroyed a great part of its nuclear weapons. At the same time Russia understood that weapons, and mainly nuclear weapons, were the mean for keeping the global balance. For the same reason, it played diplomatically by accompanying the needs of the western army in different regions around the world and by dislocating nuclear arsenal on the European Theatre Operations and by producing parallel with it weapons. 'As a result, Russia overcome the inertia of collapse and started reviving its power, while the West, being lulled by sweet day-dreams of the liberal "end of history", castrated its armed forces to the point, when they could be good for leading colonial wars with weak and technically backward enemies. The balance of forces in Europe has thus changed in Russia's favor'.
What has caused this course of armament is very dangerous for the life of the planet: for example, US and Russia keep 1,800 weapons on high alert atop long-range ballistic missiles that are ready to be launched in 5 to 15 minutes after receiving an order! There are 9 nuclear states (USA, Russia, China, France, Pakistan, India, Israel, and North Korea) which have over 10,000 nuclear weapons, and 183 non-nuclear states, which are being threatened by 9 states. The American missile with the code "W88", for example, is over 30 times more destructive than the bomb which wiped out Hiroshima: it could completely destroy a whole city like Moscow in seconds.
And it is the hegemonic role of Washington in neoliberal globalization (the cause) and the increased armament (consequence) by these countries that has led the Pentagon to drew a nuclear plan in 2001 (Nuclear Posture Review) which called for "preemtive" "first strike use" against Russia, China, Iran and North Korea, and in 2004 the American Congress to switch on the green light for the US government for the use of nuclear weapons in conventional war arenas in the Middle East and Centre Asia, by giving to it $6trl for creating a new generation of weapons for tactical "defensive" nuclear weapons or "mini-nukes". This nuclear doctrine overturns conceptions and realities: it not only denies the effects of the nuclear weapons, but it determines in terms not very certain that nuclear weapons are "safe" and their use in battlefield will guarantee minimal collateral damage and will reduce the possibility of escalation. The spreading of radioactivity and the "Nuclear Winter" is not being mentioned at all!
We may conclude that Russia in the long-term could develop weapons of different kinds, not only for its own defence but for sale as well. Because it has both - the experience and the economic resources. But in short-term America may provoke a war. Because while Russia challenges its hegemony in the international arena - America may exploit exactly the lack of the missile-defence system in Russia. It is not accidental that NATO is in the process of advancing its own "defensive" programme in Europe.
But, there is another underlying reason: Western countries need desperately Russian economic resources, particularly energy resources. And Russia will challenge them even more in the future, not only with weapons but with the Eurasian Union: the new economic bloc. For the same reason the issue lies not only in relation to Russia's ability for challenging America, but how we may change the actual course and stop spending tremendous amount of money for weapons, since the economic conditions are being deteriorated for all People around the world.
In actual conditions the change of the course depends particularly upon the American people and generally the European one: the former must exercise pressure upon the America elite in order to retract from its hegemonic role; and the latter, to exercise pressure upon the corresponding elites in order to retract from the Euro-Atlantic alliance and NATO and, all together, to create the conditions for social and national liberation. The efforts from different organizations such as the "International Campaign Against Nuclear Weapons" (ICANW), in order to restrain this course will always fail: because America will not retract from its hegemonic role. And since America does not retract - Russia will build up its own military structure in order to defend itself.
 The imperative need for popular fronts of national and social liberation in the globalization era, Takis Fotopoulos, The International Journal of INCLUSIVE DEMOCRACY, Vol. 10, Nos. 1/2 (Winter-Summer 2014).
"The tests of the missile with characteristics prohibited under the Treaty took place only 16 days after Washington completed the denunciation of the said Treaty. It is obvious that it was not improvisation," Putin said