#putin violates agreements & treaties

[tomorrowusa]

When certain people in the West insist that Ukraine “negotiate” with Russia, these are the sort of deranged bizarros  those people want Ukraine to talk to.

^^^ Andrei Gurulyov is a member of Russia’s parliament. Part of his military career involved serving in Syria where he presumably got practice terrorizing civilians on behalf of Russia’s client, President Bashar al-Assad.

Whether it’s Trumpist authoritarians on the right or crackpot “tankies” on the left, these folks are just interested in throwing Ukraine to the wolves for ideological reasons.

Negotiating with Putin implies that there is potential for progress. But given his record, Putin has no intention of sticking to any agreement.

Russian economist and former Putin adviser Andrei Illarionov told the BBC.

Putin violated all the documents. The agreement on the creation of the Commonwealth of Independent States, the bilateral treaty between Russia and Ukraine, the treaty on the internationally recognised border of Russia and Ukraine, the UN charter, the Helsinki Act of 1975, the Budapest Memorandum. And so on. There is no document he would not violate.

The only thing seriously to negotiate with Russia is how much time it would take for them to withdraw from Ukraine.

[thelostdreamsthings]

‼️Sevastopol, Crimea, bombed by American missiles (ATACMS) coordinated by American drones, American satellites, and American experts.

Maybe Ukraine provided coffee and cake.

‼️US proxy war against Russia is dangerously escalating every day.

This is Lisa, one of the little girls that Joe Biden killed with US missiles on a beach in Crimea, Russia. American drones and satellites were used to target this sweetheart with cluster ammunitions.

Remember her when you vote in November.

‼️"We are coming closer to the nuclear abyss. It’s time to talk" – US economist and professor Jeffrey Sachs.

The problem is that this trivialization of history and of today’s conflicts is leading us to the brink of nuclear war. And the US has actually become the least diplomatic of all UN member states, comparing the states according to adherence to the UN Charter.

It has been the US and its allies that have broken agreements and refused diplomacy. The US violated its solemn pledges to Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev and to Russian President Boris Yeltsin that NATO would not move one inch eastward. The US cheated by supporting the violent coup in Kiev that toppled Ukraine’s President Viktor Yanukovych. The US, Germany, France, and the UK, duplicitously refused to back the Minsk II agreement. The US unilaterally withdrew from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty in 2002 and from the Intermediate Force Agreement in 2019. The US refused to negotiate when Putin proposed a draft Russia-US Treaty on Security Guarantees on December 15, 2021.

There has in fact been no direct diplomacy between Biden and Putin since the beginning of 2022. And when Russia and Ukraine negotiated directly in March 2022, the UK and US stepped in to block an agreement based on Ukrainian neutrality. Putin reiterated Russia’s openness to negotiations in his interview with Tucker Carlson and did so again more recently.

‼️The war rages on, with hundreds of thousands dead and with hundreds of billions of dollars of destruction. We are coming closer to the nuclear abyss. It’s time to talk.

NATO expansion is the greatest risk of causing WW3

[odinsblog]

In the coming days/weeks, you’re going to hear a lot about how Ukraine should accept the terms of surrender (as that’s what they are) offered by Russia—how they’d be “stupid” not to, how Zelenskyy should “do the right thing for his people” and prioritize saving lives, how peace should be the priority and we can’t always get what we want.

Make no mistake: even if Russia intends to uphold these terms once Zelenskyy accepts them, this is a terrible deal for Ukraine and a terrible deal for the world.

First of all, there’s no guarantee that Russia will respect a cease fire or peace treaty. Obviously that’s always the case with war, but it’s especially the case when they’ve already violated multiple cease fire agreements by firing on and murdering evacuating civilians, including children. So there’s your peace treaty.

Second, the terms that Russia has presented include virtually all of Putin’s actual goals for this illegal invasion (obviously “de-Nazification” and “de-militarization” were just lies à la “weapons of mass destruction,” a rhetorical tactic that really ought to be familiar to any self-respecting American leftist). Ukraine would forfeit its claim on the territories Russia has already illegally annexed/recognized, it would be forced to change its constitution (!!!) to commit to never joining any “pacts” (EU, NATO, anything else that forms in the future), and it would retain Zelenskyy as a figurehead while installing a pro-Russian actual government leadership.

This is—and I cannot stress this enough—not a “compromise” or a “peace treaty.” It’s terms of surrender. And the lesson learned here is that Russia can continue invading and terrorizing sovereign states without any actual consequences—remember, Putin doesn’t personally care about Western sanctions. He doesn’t care if his people are plunged into poverty as long as he and his cronies aren’t, and they won’t be. He’s furious about the sanctions because he finds them personally offensive and because they confirm his victim complex, not because he’s legitimately worried for his people like Zelenskyy is.

Third, and perhaps most importantly, Putin has made it extremely clear that he seeks to rebuild a Russian empire. He will not stop with Crimea, Luhansk, and Donetsk. (And make no mistake—Luhansk and Donetsk are not independent sovereign states like Ukraine; they’re simply Russian satellites.) He will not stop with forced regime change in Belorus, Georgia, Syria, and Ukraine. (And even if he did—isn’t that awful enough?) He is not “concerned about Russia’s security” or “worried about NATO’s encroachment” or whatever his extensive social media operation has you believing. He’s not concerned or worried about anything. He’s a dictator expanding his empire. He is exactly what you all feared Trump was.

I believe that this “offer” from Russia to Ukraine serves two purposes, and neither of them is to establish a lasting peace and autonomy for each country. One is to give Putin a potential way to back out of a war that has already gone much worse than he expected and cost him significantly in terms of personnel and equipment. (Not the sanctions—like I said, I don’t think he personally cares about the sanctions and in fact sees them as a political tool to use to his advantage.)

The second and more important goal is to create a way for the international community to blame Ukraine for the continued war. “If you’d just accept the terms, you could save your people and prevent nuclear war.” It’s absolutely classic DARVO tactics that, again, any progressive activist should be familiar with. “Sure, it’s not your fault he attacked you, but you shouldn’t have reported it, made a big deal of it, gotten him ‘cancelled,’ made it public, etc.”

It’s not Ukraine’s responsibility to “prevent nuclear war.” Ukraine gave up its nuclear weapons in exchange for protection—protection that it has not received, although Western aid and military assistance has undoubtedly been helpful. Placing responsibility on Ukraine to accept unjust terms and illegal annexation of its land in order to “prevent nuclear war” only lends credence to the claim that only nuclear weapons can keep a country truly safe—after all, it would mean that Putin’s nuclear threats have allowed him to invade his neighbors, terrorize their citizens, destroy their resources, replace their democratically elected leaders with his own puppets, and steal their land—without even having to make any concessions himself.

So here’s my plea to my American progressive/leftist siblings. Please question what you think you know about Putin, Russia, and Ukraine. There are certainly far-right and neo-Nazi political forces in Ukraine as there are in any country, but Zelenskyy is a progressive, democratically elected JEWISH president. NATO and the EU have their (serious) issues, but they have not pressured or forced any former Soviet states to join—in fact, prior to this war, it seemed unlikely that Ukraine would be admitted. Ukraine WANTED to join to protect itself from Russia, which had already illegally annexed its land, empowered far-right groups within its borders, and forced regime changes in surrounding countries.

Putin is not an anti-imperialist revolutionary; he denounces American imperialism because it’s convenient for him politically and it keeps the American left from putting pressure on our government to divest from Russia. Sure, maybe the Democrats oversold Russian election hacking as an explanation for Trump’s win (although the more I learn about the extent of Russia’s disinfo campaign, the more I question this common leftist talking point), but that doesn’t mean that Putin isn’t bent on conquering Eastern Europe and subduing Western powers by any means necessary. This goes far beyond American electoral politics, and the answers here do not conform to American party lines. Do not fall into the trap of dismissing politicians’ statements about Putin and Russia just because you disagree with the rest of their stances.

Putin is a dictator. Sometimes it really is that simple. A former KGB agent, he came to power by staging the modern Russian version of the Reichstag fire (look up “Russian apartment bombings”), using that as an excuse to start a war and win it, and he has maintained his power through strong-arming and terror. The State Duma is entirely symbolic at this point; anyone who goes against Putin knows that they are likely not only to die, but to die horribly, just like Alexei Navalny almost did not long ago (look up “Novichok” and prepare yourself for some body horror).

I could go on. I won’t right now. But in truth, I deeply regret the fact that I haven’t done more over the past 8 or so years to disrupt the blatant Putinist propaganda I hear from a lot of my fellow progressives. I had other priorities and I didn’t give it the attention I should’ve. To be clear: nothing America or American progressives could’ve done would’ve stopped this war, only delayed it or hastened it. The war was inevitable because Putin wants to conquer Ukraine, and beyond.

So I’ll just say—please, please listen to people who fled Russia/the Soviet Union, and to experts who study Russia. The most likely threat here isn’t a nuclear WWIII; this isn’t about you. The thing people like me fear most is simply that Putin will continue subjugating, terrorizing, and ultimately conquering innocent citizens of sovereign states, and that the West will eventually just accept this as the price of nuclear deterrence.

I’m not a political scientist; I don’t know how to stop this war. All I know is that Ukrainian surrender isn’t it. Listen to Ukrainians, anti-Putin Russians, and other experts, form your own opinion, and most importantly, keep your wits about you. Not everyone in this world is a good faith negotiating partner. Some people are, unfortunately, just evil. Hitler was, Stalin was, Putin is.

(source)

[beardedmrbean]

SEOUL, June 25 (UPI) -- North Korea sent some 350 trash-filled balloons toward South Korea overnight, Seoul's military said Tuesday, as back-and-forth provocations continue across a tense inter-Korean border.

As of Tuesday morning, around 100 balloons carrying trash and waste paper had landed in Seoul and the northern part of Gyeonggi Province, Seoul's Joint Chiefs of Staff said in a text message to reporters.

An analysis of recovered balloons found they did not contain hazardous materials, the JCS said.

The latest launch marked the fifth time in the last month that North Korea has sent balloons filled with debris and even excrement, according to South Korean officials.

Seoul's Unification Ministry told local media on Monday that parasites, such as roundworms and threadworms, believed to have originated in human excrement, were detected in earlier balloons.

South Korea briefly resumed anti-Pyongyang loudspeaker broadcasts at the border earlier this month in response to the launches. On Tuesday, the military said it was prepared to begin the transmissions again at any time.

"Our military's psychological warfare broadcast against North Korea is ready to be implemented immediately and will be implemented flexibly depending on the strategic and operational situation," the JCS message said. "This depends on North Korea's actions."

South Korean President Yoon Suk Yeol mentioned the North's balloons during an address to commemorate the 74th anniversary of the Korean War in the southeastern city of Daegu on Tuesday, calling their launch "despicable and irresponsible."

Yoon also slammed the defense treaty signed by North Korea and Russia last week during Russian President Vladimir Putin's visit to Pyongyang.

"Last week, [North Korea] signed a 'Comprehensive Strategic Partnership Treaty' with Russia, which started the war in Ukraine, and promised to strengthen military and economic cooperation, in direct violation of U.N. Security Council resolutions," Yoon said.

"It is an anachronism that runs counter to the progress of history," he said.

The North's launches appear to be a response to the longstanding practice of North Korean defectors floating balloons with anti-Pyongyang messages across the border.

Activist group Fighters for a Free North Korea said it sent 20 balloons carrying some 300,000 leaflets, USB drives containing South Korean media and U.S. dollars across the border last week.

On Friday, Kim Yo Jong, the powerful sister of North Korean leader Kim Jong Un, issued a statement in official media condemning the launch by "disgusting defectors" and warning of possible retaliation.

North Korea has reacted with fury to the activists' balloons in the past. In June 2020, Pyongyang severed all communications with Seoul and blew up an inter-Korean liaison office over what it called South Korea's failure to rein in the defectors.

The demilitarized zone that has separated the two Koreas since fighting halted in the 1950-53 war has also been the site of multiple border incursions in recent weeks, with North Korean troops crossing the military demarcation line three times since June 9.

On each occasion, the South Korean military fired warning shots and the North's soldiers returned to their side of the border.

JCS officials said the crossings appear unintentional, as the North has been ramping up activity in frontline areas of the DMZ since withdrawing from an inter-Korean military agreement in November.

North Korean soldiers have been observed clearing land, laying mines, reinforcing tactical roads and installing structures that appear to be anti-tank barriers at several locations, the JCS said.

[head-post]

North Korean leader Kim pledges “full support” to Russia in its war against Ukraine

North Korean leader Kim Jong Un pledged full support for Russia before meeting with President Vladimir Putin in Pyongyang, according to AP News.

Speaking ahead of the summit, Putin thanked Kim for his support against Ukraine. He also announced that the two countries would sign an agreement to strengthen their partnership as part of a “fight against the imperialist hegemonistic policies of the US and its satellites against the Russian Federation.”

Putin‘s visit comes amid growing concerns over the arms agreement. Under the treaty, North Korea allegedly provides Russia with munitions in exchange for economic aid and technology transfers. However, both Pyongyang and Moscow reject accusations of North Korean arms transfers, which violate numerous UN Security Council sanctions.

North Korea is under tough UN Security Council sanctions over its weapons programme, while Russia also faces sanctions from the US and its Western partners over the war in Ukraine.

Putin is expected to travel to Vietnam on Wednesday evening.

Kim said relations between Moscow and Pyongyang were even closer than they used to be in Soviet times. He also called Putin’s visit an opportunity to strengthen their “fiery friendship.”

Prior to the talks, the North Korean leader welcomed Putin with a lavish ceremony in the city’s main square. There, he introduced key members of the North Korean leadership, including Foreign Minister Choe Son Hui, top aide and ruling party secretary Jo Yong Won, and the leader’s powerful sister Kim Yo Jong.

Meanwhile, Putin was accompanied by several senior officials, including Deputy Prime Minister Denis Mantrurov, Defence Minister Andrey Belousov, and Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov.

Tense relationship

In March, a Russian veto in the United Nations halted monitoring of UN sanctions against North Korea over its nuclear programme. This prompted Western accusations that Moscow was trying to avoid monitoring by buying weapons from Pyongyang for use in Ukraine.

Meanwhile, US Secretary of State Antony Blinken stated that Putin’s visit to North Korea illustrated how Russia was trying “to develop and to strengthen relations with countries that can provide it with what it needs to continue the war.”

North Korea is providing significant munitions to Russia … and other weapons for use in Ukraine. Iran has been providing weaponry, including drones.

Tensions on the Korean Peninsula have reached their highest point in recent years. The two Koreas also engaged in psychological warfare, with North Korea dropping tonnes of rubbish on the South via balloons and the South broadcasting anti-North Korean propaganda through its loudspeakers.

Read more HERE

[odinsblog]

Violated agreements:

1991, Russia cosigns Ukraine's independence and agrees to its territorial sovereignty and integrity as a successor of the Soviet Union.

1994, Budapest Memorandum: Russia pledges to safeguard Ukraine's territorial integrity and sovereignty in exchange for Ukraine giving up the third largest nuclear arsenal in the world, it had at the time.

1997, The Russian-Ukrainian Friendship Treaty: Russia once again reiterates its commitment to Ukraine's territorial integrity and sovereignty.

1999, Istanbul OSCE Summit: Russia promises to withdraw troops from Moldova and Georgia.

2008, Ceasefire Agreement: Russia promises to withdraw troops from Georgia.

2014, The Ilovaisk Green Corridor Agreement: Russia guarantees that it'll provide safe passage for Ukrainian soldiers that are surrendering and instead fires upon them and kills upwards of 360 people.

2014-2015, Minsk Agreements: Russia commits to a ceasefire in eastern Ukraine after invading it.

2022, The Black Sea Grain Initiative: Russia promises safe passage to grain shipments, instead hinders the initiative and then withdraws completely.

I would also give a special mention to the 2006 speech of Vladimir Putin, where he says that there is no issue that Russia has with Ukraine:

“Actually, Ukraine's territorial integrity and sovereignty has been resolved and has been pre agreed upon. And areas like Crimea really don't concern Russia because there is no ethnic conflict and Russia doesn't want to have anything to do with them. They're Ukrainian anyways.”

What is this list?

This list is all of the promises and agreements that Russia violated, off the top of one's head.

Yeah.

Let's pressure Ukraine into a ceasefire agreement. Let's pressure Ukraine into concessions. Let's give Russia more time to violate all other promises and re-attack once they can.

Great idea.

Great idea.

[globalhint]

Russia leaves the post-Cold War treaty of European armed forces.

Russia leaves the post-Cold War treaty of European armed forces. Russia formally withdrew from a historic security treaty on Tuesday, citing the US for weakening post-Cold War stability through the NATO military alliance's expansion. The treaty limited important categories of conventional armed forces. Signed in 1990, one year after the fall of the Berlin Wall, the Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe (CFE) set verifiable restrictions on the types of conventional military weapons that NATO and the Warsaw Pact might use. The deal, which lessened the Soviet Union's advantage in conventional weaponry, was unpopular in Moscow despite its intended purpose of preventing either side of the Cold War from gathering forces for a rapid onslaught against the other in Europe. In 2007, Russia withdrew from the treaty, and in 2015, it stopped actively participating. An order denouncing the accord was signed by President Vladimir Putin in May, more than a year after the full-scale invasion of Ukraine. The treaty was declared "history" by the Russian foreign ministry, which also stated that Russia had officially left the agreement at midnight. "The CFE Treaty was concluded at the end of the Cold War, when the formation of a new architecture of global and European security based on cooperation seemed possible, and appropriate attempts were made," the ministry stated. Russia said that Sweden's application and Finland's admittance to NATO showed the treaty was dead and that the United States' quest for NATO expansion had resulted in alliance nations "openly circumventing" its group constraints. The ministry stated, "Even the formal preservation of the CFE Treaty has become unacceptable from the point of view of Russia's fundamental security interests," pointing out that the US and its allies had not approved the 1999 CFE upgrade. The conflict in Ukraine has led to the most severe crisis in Moscow's ties with the West since the early stages of the Cold War. Over the weekend, Dmitry Peskov, a spokesman for the Kremlin, declared that ties with the US were nonexistent. NATO denounced Russia's decision to withdraw from the treaty, claiming it jeopardized the security of the Euro-Atlantic region. NATO declared in June that "Russia has for many years not complied with its CFE obligations." "Belarus's cooperation in Russia's aggressive assault against Ukraine is in violation of the goals outlined in the CFE Treaty." The ratification of the modified 1999 CFE was contingent upon Russia honouring its obligations toward Georgia and Moldova, according to the United States and its allies. According to Russia, the linkage was incorrect. According to the State Department, the US and NATO stopped enforcing the Russian "suspension" against Russia in 2011 in reaction to Washington's claim that it was illegal under the treaty. "Russia's 'suspension' of Treaty implementation since 2007 has seriously eroded the Treaty's verifiability, decreased transparency, and undermined the cooperative approach to security that have been core elements of the NATO-Russia relationship and European security for more than two decades," the State Department stated in 2020. source credit ALSO READ: Middle East crisis won’t affect the G7’s support for Ukraine- Japan Read the full article

[nicklloydnow]

“Russia is withdrawing its ratification of a landmark deal designed to prohibit nuclear testing. The Russian state duma carried out the first in a series of votes today that will lead to the de-ratification of the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty.

(…)

"We are in a bad place," says Andrey Baklitskiy, a senior researcher at the UN Institute for Disarmament Research in Geneva, Switzerland. "We are not yet in a terrible place, but we are in a bad place."

(…)

The treaty has not yet received enough signatures to enter into force, but it is considered a major reason why many nations — including the United States, Russia and China — have observed a voluntary moratorium on nuclear testing since the 1990s. Other nations who haven't signed onto the treaty, including India and Pakistan, have also refrained from testing.

Additionally, the treaty led to the creation of an organization charged with watching the globe for nuclear tests. Based in Vienna, it runs a network of seismographs, hydrophones, and radionuclide detectors that is capable of picking up even small nuclear explosions anywhere on the planet. It has successfully detected North Korea's nuclear detonations, and given valuable insight into that nation's nuclear weapons program.

(…)

Russia has backed away from several Cold War-era nuclear treaties in recent years. First it violated a treaty that prohibited the development of intermediate-range nuclear missiles. More recently, it suspended its participation in the START agreement with the U.S., which limits the number of deployed nuclear weapons on each side.

In remarks made last week, Russian President Vladimir Putin said the reason for the de-ratification of the test ban treaty was part of its "tit-for-tat" relations with the U.S.

"There is this tendency in the last couple of years that Russia wants to have everything the U.S. has," says Andrey Baklitskiy, a senior researcher at the UN Institute for Disarmament Research in Geneva, Switzerland.

But at the same time, Putin pointed out that Russia is developing new nuclear weapons, and that the nation may decide to test them.

Russia has historically tested its nuclear weapons on a remote arctic archipelago called Novaya Zemlya.

Satellite imagery shows a great deal of renewed activity at the site, according to Jeffrey Lewis, a professor at the Middlebury Institute of International Studies at Monterey.

"It is so busy at Novaya Zemlya, we are seeing so much construction," he says. Large new buildings are being erected in the main part of the site, and he says his group is also seeing repair and maintenance work at nuclear test tunnels all over the site.

Russia is not alone in that regard, Lewis says: China has also been hard at work modernizing its nuclear testing facilities at Lop Nur. And the U.S. has also upgraded its test facilities in Nevada in recent years, though the American government remains adamant that it is not planning a return to nuclear testing.

(…)

Lewis says at least part of the motivation for withdrawing ratification from the CTBT and pondering tests is the War in Ukraine. "I think the way the Russians see it is that by withdrawing from these agreements, they're raising the nuclear temperature," he says. "And I think they hope that will somehow cause the Biden administration to slow or withdraw its support from Ukraine."

Lewis says he personally doesn't believe a Russian test is imminent — in part because winters at Novaya Zemlya are brutally cold. But come spring, he thinks the odds Russia will test are "probably 50/50."

Andrey Baklitskiy is more doubtful that Russia will actually conduct a nuclear test. For one thing, he says, Russia remains a signatory to the treaty just like the U.S.

"I'm pretty sure that had Russia wanted to go full out and test a nuclear device, it would have left the treaty [completely]," he says.

Moreover, he says, Russia has pledged to continue to operate international nuclear monitoring equipment that's been placed on its territory by the test ban treaty organization. Russia continues to operate 32 of the global test monitoring network's 321 monitoring stations — and many of Russia's stations are crucial for following developments in sensitive parts of the world like North Korea, China and Iran.

But Baklitskiy and Lewis both warn that the norms which have long limited nuclear weapons development are starting to fray.

"I think we're just in a really dangerous uncertain period, where things could really break badly for us," Lewis says.”

“The moratorium against nuclear testing rests on an uneasy patchwork of international treaties. The Limited Test Ban Treaty was signed by the UK, US and Soviet Union in 1963, forbidding testing of these weapons in the atmosphere, underwater or in outer space, but permitting underground trials. Then, in 1996, the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT) theoretically put a stop to underground testing too.

Yet the CTBT remains unfinished. Despite 178 states having ratified it, the treaty will not officially come into force until action from eight more nations; China, Egypt, Iran, Israel and the US have signed, but not ratified, the agreement, while India, Pakistan and North Korea never signed it.

The moratorium against nuclear testing rests on an uneasy patchwork of international treaties. The Limited Test Ban Treaty was signed by the UK, US and Soviet Union in 1963, forbidding testing of these weapons in the atmosphere, underwater or in outer space, but permitting underground trials. Then, in 1996, the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT) theoretically put a stop to underground testing too.

Yet the CTBT remains unfinished. Despite 178 states having ratified it, the treaty will not officially come into force until action from eight more nations; China, Egypt, Iran, Israel and the US have signed, but not ratified, the agreement, while India, Pakistan and North Korea never signed it.

Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and the subsequent ongoing war may have changed its outlook on testing, however. Russia ratified the CTBT in 2000, but on 17 October its lower parliamentary house, the Duma, passed a measure to revoke ratification with 412 votes in favour – with none against and no abstentions. Duma speaker Vyacheslav Volodin said that the decision was being made because of the failure of the US to ratify the treaty and its “irresponsible attitude to global security issues”.

Further readings and votes are needed to officially revoke Russia’s ratification of the treaty, and it is expected to remain a signatory to it, but this is another sign that the nation may restart testing that ended in 1990, with the Soviet Union’s final detonation. In recent months Russia has tested new nuclear delivery systems – without live nuclear warheads – and there have been prominent voices within the country calling for a resumption of nuclear tests.

(…)

All three of the major nuclear powers appear to be preparing for tests. CNN reports that expansion and modernisation work has taken place at China’s test site in the far western region of Xinjiang, as well as at Russia’s in an Arctic Ocean archipelago and the US test site in the Nevada desert. Speaking to CNN, Jeffrey Lewis at the Middlebury Institute of International Studies in California said “there are really a lot of hints that we’re seeing that suggest Russia, China and the United States might resume nuclear testing”.

(…)

“A lot of nuclear devices are so simple that you can be pretty confident they’re going to work. The technology has changed, but the basic science hasn’t,” he says. “There’s no logic to doing this, other than political rhetoric – which doesn’t mean it won’t happen.”

“The trouble is that there’s what logic would suggest will happen, and then there’s reality,” says Futter.”

“A nuclear test over Siberia would be "a nuclear ultimatum" to the West that would have no serious consequences for Russia's own population — according to Margarita Simonyan. The editor-in-chief of RT, Russia's state-controlled international broadcaster, made the claim in a video early October. There, she declared that "nothing too terrible" would happen if Russia detonated a thermonuclear bomb on its own territory, and that Western countries would not back down "until they are in great pain." According to Simonyan, the West has nothing better to do than continue using Ukraine to "strangle" Russia.

(…)

Nevertheless, the discussion resurfaced this week, and Simonyan's remarks were probably at the forefront of the minds of Russian MPs on Tuesday, when the Russian parliament, the Duma, voted unanimously to withdraw from the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty (CTBT). The idea was recently floated by President Putin himself, and taken up by the chairman of the Duma, Vyacheslav Volodin.

(…)

The Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty was signed in 1996 by Russia, the USA, and China. However, unlike the other signatories, Russia actually ratified the treaty in 2000, as the nuclear expert Pavel Podvig of the United Nations Institute for Disarmament Research (UNIDIR) pointed out in an interview with DW. Podvig explained that the treaty never officially entered into force, but that the five major nuclear powers — the USA, Russia, China, France, and Britain — have nonetheless adhered to the moratorium on nuclear tests since the 1990s.

India and Pakistan have also refrained from further nuclear tests since initial ones in 1998, Podvig said. "In this respect, the only dissident, so to speak, is North Korea, which has already conducted six nuclear tests."

Podvig stressed that the arms treaty is held in high regards across the world. "No one is going to win friends by conducting new nuclear tests. All the ideas being discussed in Russia right now — along the lines of 'Let's scare everyone!' — are not actually likely to scare anyone. There will, however, be unequivocal condemnation."

(…)

Russian nuclear expert Maxim Starchak of Canada's Foreign Policy Research Institute said he would not be surprised if Russia did carry out nuclear tests soon. But he assured DW that "so far, there are no clear indications that Russia is planning any such tests in the near future." He added that nuclear physicists are divided on the usefulness of such tests: "Some are in favour, some are against. A political decision will definitely be needed if they are to be revived."

Starchak explained that Russia already has a zone prepared for this: the archipelago of Novaya Zemlya. "To the best of our knowledge, there are three sites there where underground nuclear tests can be carried out. I think that if nuclear tests really were being considered, they would be at these sites. I doubt that this madness will be realized in the form of a surface blast."

(…)

Starchak believed that Russia's plan was to further escalated the war in Ukraine. He estimated that Moscow's hope was for the US to feel threatened by and seek to reduce that threat by making concessions in the war in Ukraine.”

“Kremlin propagandist Margarita Simonyan has rejoiced at the attention given by Western powers to the Israel-Hamas war, which she believes is pivoting the global focus away from Ukraine, and said it's about to kick off a third world war in the Middle East.

(…)

"This is wonderful, it's beautiful! Watch how the British instructors are leaving Ukraine because they have no more time for Ukraine, just like the Americans and everyone else, because the world is on the brink of World War III," she said, as translated by Russian Media Monitor.

"It's obvious and it has nothing to do with Ukraine! Thank God, it has nothing to do with Mother Russia!," she continued. "We're recording this program just as Iran announced that if Israel starts its land operation in Gaza, Iran will intervene. If Iran intervenes, it won't be pretty."

Simonyan then said that Iran is an "enormous military nation" that is "five minutes away from getting a nuclear bomb" and possesses "many other interesting things." She then went on to belittle and mock the Israeli army for not having been able to stop "1,000 bandits" from infiltrating the country.

"How is this army planning to handle Iran? I wanted to say, 'I'd like to see that,' but no, I would not want to see that," Simonyan said. "I don't wish for anyone to see that, because this is on the brink of WWIII. At this point, no one cares about Ukraine!," she added.”

[romanmigracs]

I don’t think you understand what is at stake, here, do you?

This is WAAAYYY bigger than Russia. Even Russia’s nuclear arsenal is not the biggest concern, here (although it is certainly not negligible).

Russia led by Putin has nullified international treaties they signed, committed massive amount of war crimes, violated human rights systematically, kidnapped children, shot down a passenger plane with international passengers, caused grain prices to rise so that Third World countries are at the brink of a famine, toyed with blowing up more than one nuclear plant, flooded a valley with people living in it, caused unnecessary death of civilians and military personel and vast material distruction. All in hopes of material gain and for hunger of power. Putin’s goverment has bet the farm to commit genocide in Ukraine. Putin has tried to utilize international energy trade as a weapon, and his minions have threatened the international community with attacks on information cables in the seabed and rattled the nuclear sabre.

Everyone, NOT JUST PUTIN, are waiting to know, whether such transgressions are punishable? Everyone. Jury is stil out. Does the international community stand in support of the values they have declared to protect? Or are they just big words that vanish, when push comes to shove? Putin clearly objects to such international values and has very deliberately violated against them all to make a point.

If he is driven out of Ukraine and Russia needs to oust him and show remorse of what they have done, international treaties such as Declaration of Human rights and the Geneva Convention will grow stronger. Everyone will see that violating international agreements will bring no benefit and a clear, physical punishment from the international community. Even for a dictator of mighty Russia. Even to the richest man of the World. No-one is bigger than all the people in the world. No-one will dare challenge them all at once. If the people of the World choose to cooperate. IF.

If Putin, after doing all of this that he has done, “saves face”, it is the end of the international community as a whole. Then it is (again) a free-for-all every-man-for-himself -scenario. The one with the nukes gets to do what he wants. So, everyone will get themselves a nuke or two. Everyone allies with the biggest and strongest, not the one who they like, not the one who will keep the world safe. Everyone just allies with the guy with the biggest guns.

Time for human rights, time for fair trade, time for international treaties on climate change and collaboration in the polar regions are over. Every little pesky country will try to get nukes and bigger powers - US, China, UK, Germany(!), India - are forced to shed their thin veil of peace.

Putin declared that sovereign countries between Russia and US should be divided into spheres of influence and lose their independence. They caused Finland to join NATO and Sweden has applied too! These are countries that previously believed in non-alliance and buffer zones between great military powers. Believed in assertive military power, defence without projection of power abroad. This is bad enough, it is a death of a dream. It is not like Finland thinks that US is this saint of a giant. We know full well they can - on a bad day - invade a country to rid them of weapons of mass destruction that do not exist. US sometimes disguised their bad behaviour quite poorly, but at least they tried to disguise it. Putin makes no real effort to even disguise his actions. He wants his approach to be out in the open, he wants this to be the way of the world from now on. He wants to return to imperialism - not just for Russia but for all of the world. He believes that in the chaos that ensues, Russia and his mafioso ways will find prosperity.

The World either wants that. Or we don’t.

We shall see.

[parolim-prlm]

How Putin's fate is tied to Russia's war in Ukraine

“Putin violated all the documents. The agreement on the creation of the Commonwealth of Independent States, the bilateral treaty between Russia and Ukraine, the treaty on the internationally recognised border of Russia and Ukraine, the UN charter, the Helsinki Act of 1975, the Budapest Memorandum. And so on. There is no document he would not violate.” #Putins #fate #tied #Russias #war #Ukraine

[cryptosecrets]

Ukraine war: How Putin's fate is tied to Russia's war

“Putin violated all the documents. The agreement on the creation of the Commonwealth of Independent States, the bilateral treaty between Russia and Ukraine, the treaty on the internationally recognised border of Russia and Ukraine, the UN charter, the Helsinki Act of 1975, the Budapest Memorandum. And so on. There is no document he would not violate.” #Ukraine #war #Putins #fate #tied #Russias…

[tomorrowusa]

It's a no-brainer that tankies and MAGA zombies just don't get.

Russia invaded Ukraine in violation of international treaties and agreements including the United Nations Charter, the 1975 Helsinki Accords, and the 1994 Budapest Memorandum.

The invasion is not a matter for compromise or negotiations. If somebody is hitting you with a baseball bat, you don't negotiate with the assailant.

Kowtowing to Putin only encourages him. His land grab in neighboring Georgia during a five-day war in 2008 resulted in almost no international punitive action. So he got into the habit of increasingly trying to undermine Russia's neighbors.

Somebody who scoffs at international law like Putin will not honor a new agreement regarding Ukraine.

So Russia, if you're listening, here's what you need to do – in plain Russian...

And for the record, here are President Zelenskyy's comments in the original Ukrainian. 🇺🇦

[gamegill]

Ukraine war: How Putin's fate is tied to Russia's war

“Putin violated all the documents. The agreement on the creation of the Commonwealth of Independent States, the bilateral treaty between Russia and Ukraine, the treaty on the internationally recognised border of Russia and Ukraine, the UN charter, the Helsinki Act of 1975, the Budapest Memorandum. And so on. There is no document he would not violate.” #Ukraine #war #Putins #fate #tied #Russias…

[gamekai]

Ukraine war: How Putin's fate is tied to Russia's war

“Putin violated all the documents. The agreement on the creation of the Commonwealth of Independent States, the bilateral treaty between Russia and Ukraine, the treaty on the internationally recognised border of Russia and Ukraine, the UN charter, the Helsinki Act of 1975, the Budapest Memorandum. And so on. There is no document he would not violate.” title_words_as_hashtags

[mariacallous]

Russian President Vladimir Putin announced on Tuesday that his country would suspend its participation in the New START agreement with the United States, throwing into question the future of the last remaining arms control accord between the world’s two largest nuclear powers. 

The treaty, which came into force in 2011, places limits on the number of intercontinental nuclear weapons that each country can have and was extended for an additional five years in 2021. Arms control had long been regarded as the last redoubt of constructive collaboration between Washington and Moscow. 

Putin showed no signs of backing down as he used his annual state-of-the-nation address to rail against the United States and accuse Ukraine and the West of provoking the war days before the first anniversary of the Russian invasion. “They want to inflict a ‘strategic defeat’ on us and try to get to our nuclear facilities at the same time,” Putin said during his nearly 100-minute speech, which was met with applause from Russian lawmakers and senior officials. “In this context, I have to declare today that Russia is suspending its participation in the Treaty on Strategic Offensive Arms.”

Responding to Putin’s announcement, NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg said, “With today’s decision on New START, the whole arms control architecture has been dismantled.” 

Experts said it’s too soon to interpret Putin’s remarks as heralding a new nuclear arms race, but with the treaty set to expire in 2026, the Russian leader’s announcement will further complicate diplomatic efforts to extend or negotiate a new treaty between the United States and Russia, which together hold about 90 percent of the world’s nuclear weapons.

“If they don’t agree to new limits on their strategic arsenals before New START expires, we won’t have any limitations on the world’s two largest nuclear arsenals for the first time since 1972,” said Daryl Kimball, executive director of the Arms Control Association. “That does open the door to a build-up by both sides of their strategic nuclear arsenals.”

Here’s what Putin’s announcement could mean for the future of arms control. 

What did Putin actually say?

Putin did not quite invoke the nuclear option on arms control in his announcement on Tuesday. In suspending Russia’s participation in the treaty, rather than withdrawing in full, the document still stands and can in theory be returned to in the future. “Suspension is better than withdrawal,” said Pavel Podvig, a senior researcher at the United Nations Institute for Disarmament Research. “Things could have been worse,” he said. 

It’s unclear what it would take for Russia to return to the treaty, Kimball said. “I would not pay too much attention to the pretext and excuses that [Putin] gave for why Russia is pulling out,” he added. 

Putin outlined his terms for returning to the agreement, including factoring in the nuclear capabilities of other NATO member states including the United Kingdom and France, which are not currently party to the agreement. 

“That’s not a serious point,” said Andrey Baklitskiy, a senior researcher with the United Nations Institute for Disarmament Research. “The U.K. and France were not a party when Russia signed it. They were not party in 2021 when Putin extended the treaty for five years.” 

Putin also said that Russia would not conduct any new nuclear test explosions—unless the United States did so first, in a seemingly responsible but largely irrelevant statement. “It is not an appreciable change in Russia’s position,” Kimball said, noting that both the United States and Russia are signatories of the 1996 Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, which bans any and all nuclear weapons tests. As the United States has no appetite to violate the treaty by testing its nuclear capabilities for the first time in over a quarter-century, Kimball said, there will be no reason for Russia to follow suit. 

Why did Putin say it now?

Red lights had been flashing around Russia’s participation in the treaty for some time. “The writing was on the wall,” Baklitskiy said. 

Mutual inspections of strategic nuclear weapons sites were suspended in March 2020 due to the health risks posed by COVID-19. But as the pandemic subsided, Moscow announced in August 2022 that it would bar U.S. inspectors from resuming visits to its facilities, claiming that Western sanctions impeded the ability of its officials to conduct reciprocal visits to the United States. Last November, the U.S. State Department announced that Russia had postponed a planned meeting in Egypt that was intended to forge a road map to resuming inspections. 

In an announcement last month, the State Department accused Moscow of violating its obligations under the treaty by preventing U.S. officials from inspecting Russian weapons sites. 

What can Washington do?

In a statement on Tuesday, Secretary of State Antony Blinken said that the United States would watch closely what Russia does following Putin’s announcement and reiterated that Washington remains ready to talk about arms control.

“The question is, will it be possible for the Biden administration to make the case to Vladimir Putin, who is the blockage here, that it is in Russia’s national security interest to resume full implementation of the treaty,” said Rose Gottemoeller, who served as chief U.S. negotiator of New START. 

Shortly after Putin’s speech, the Russian Foreign Ministry said that it would continue to observe limits on the number of nuclear warheads it can deploy under the treaty, staving off the prospects of a renewed arms race for the time being. 

Since mutual site inspections had not resumed following the pandemic, the most immediate impact of Putin’s announcement will likely be an end to Russia upholding its side of the agreement to notify Washington each time nuclear-capable missiles are moved, maintained, decommissioned, or put into storage. Such information sharing served as an important transparency measure that allowed each side to keep tabs on the status of the other’s nuclear forces, even while they were unable to conduct in-person checks. (Since the deal came into effect in 2011, the two sides have exchanged more than 25,000 notifications, according to the State Department.)

“The suspension of the notification regime is to my mind a serious, serious problem,” Gottemoeller said. “The implications are serious for predictability for the United States, but—and this is what is so puzzling about this—it’s equally serious for Russia. How are they expecting to plan for their nuclear operations in the future if they don’t know what’s going on in the U.S. strategic nuclear forces?”

Washington is now faced with the question of whether to continue to keep Moscow updated on the status of its nuclear forces. For now, experts are confident that the Biden administration will keep the door open. “This administration, I’m very confident, is not going to pull out of that agreement,” Kimball said. However, it may face increased pressure from Republicans to take a tougher line. In light of Putin’s announcement, Chairman of the House Armed Service Committee Mike Rogers said “[a]ll options must be on the table,” including the deployment of additional nuclear forces.

[anewswire]

Ukraine war live updates: Biden says ‘Kyiv stands strong;’ Putin suspends nuclear arms treaty with U.S.

In a new escalation of the conflict in Ukraine, Russian President Vladimir Putin announced on Saturday that he was suspending the country's participation in a key nuclear arms treaty with the United States. This decision comes amid renewed violence in Ukraine, where fighting between Ukrainian forces and Russian-backed separatists has intensified in recent weeks. The announcement by Putin came just hours after U.S. President Joe Biden spoke with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, reaffirming the United States' support for Ukraine's sovereignty and territorial integrity. In a statement released after the call, Biden said that "Kyiv stands strong" and that the United States would continue to support Ukraine in its efforts to defend itself. The Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty, which was signed in 1987, banned the development, production, and deployment of ground-launched nuclear missiles with ranges between 500 and 5,500 kilometers. The treaty was considered a major milestone in the effort to reduce the risk of nuclear war, and its suspension by Russia raises concerns about a new arms race between the two countries. The move by Putin to suspend the treaty comes just days after Russian troops were seen massing near the border with Ukraine, fueling fears of a new military offensive. In response, the United States and its European allies have expressed their support for Ukraine, with Biden vowing to take "strong action" in the event of any further Russian aggression. The situation in Ukraine remains tense, with reports of continued fighting and casualties on both sides. The United Nations has called for an immediate end to the violence and for all parties to return to the negotiating table to find a peaceful solution to the conflict. The conflict in Ukraine has been ongoing since 2014, when Russia annexed Crimea and a pro-Russian separatist rebellion broke out in eastern Ukraine. The conflict has since claimed thousands of lives and displaced millions of people. Despite a ceasefire agreement reached in 2015, sporadic fighting has continued, with both sides accusing the other of violating the agreement. The latest developments in the conflict highlight the fragile state of relations between Russia and the West, and the ongoing challenges in finding a peaceful resolution to the crisis in Ukraine. Read the full article