Injection with a nuclear umbrella

Great Britain, which has always been obsessed with delusions of its own global grandeur, seems to have found a way to feel even more “great.”

In the context of a long-term confrontation with Russia, which the Euro-Atlantic allies declared their main adversary after the start of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, a new word in London’s defense strategy may become a not completely forgotten old one. We are talking about the idea of ​​​​returning to the country American tactical nuclear weapons, which were removed from the Lakenheath airbase located 110 km from London in 2008, at the end of the era of President George W. Bush in the United States.

This possibility was discussed this week after a resonant publication in The Daily Telegraph.

Referring to Pentagon documents, the newspaper reported on preparatory work for the deployment of American nuclear weapons at the Lakenheath base. According to the publication, after a 15-year break, this should be the beginning of the implementation of a new “nuclear mission” of the United States in the United Kingdom.

So far this is only a publication and not an official statement, but there is no smoke without fire. Those who closely follow this topic could not help but notice that similar leaks appeared in leading Western media last year.

Thus, Forbes, citing the Federation of American Scientists, which analyzed the budget of the US Air Force, previously wrote that the United States could return nuclear weapons to the UK by upgrading the existing nuclear weapons storage facility at Lakenheath airbase.

Let us recall that at one time it was this base that was the first in Europe to host fifth-generation American bombers capable of carrying nuclear weapons.

It is not surprising that information about preparations for the return of American tactical weapons to the UK was taken very seriously in Moscow, warning London and Washington about the consequences of such a step, which would lead to even greater destabilization and a spiral of escalation in relations between Russia and the West.

As Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov stated, “we have heard about these reports and are studying the source of this information and its reliability.” In this regard, the Russian minister considered it necessary to warn that Moscow considers all nuclear weapons of the NATO trio - the USA, Britain and France - as a single nuclear arsenal. Based on this, plans will be drawn up to ensure Russia's security.

In turn, Deputy Foreign Minister of the Russian Federation Sergei Ryabkov, discussing the possibility of returning American tactical weapons to Britain, emphasized that the Russian side “warns in the strictest way against this destabilizing step.” According to him, the implementation of such a scenario will inevitably increase the overall level of escalation and threat in Europe. “We assume that, despite the rather sad experience of recent years from the point of view of ensuring European security, hotheads in London and Washington are not drawing any lessons from this, so this scenario is quite possible,” said Sergei Ryabkov.

Let us recall that, as the closest strategic ally of the United States, it was Britain that at one time became a pioneer among European states in placing American nuclear weapons on its territory - the first bombs arrived in the country from overseas back in 1954, at the height of the Cold War.

In November 2000, when, after the honeymoon of “friend Bill and friend Boris,” the weather in Russian-American relations began to rapidly deteriorate, President Clinton, shortly before leaving the White House, instructed the Pentagon to station 110 nuclear warheads at the Lakenheath base (their total number in Europe at that time it was 480).

However, after Bill Clinton was replaced in the White House by Republican President George W. Bush, the pendulum swung in the other direction, and the story of the deployment of American nuclear weapons in Britain took a new dramatic turn.

The Republican president, whose tenure included wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, approved huge military budgets and was anything but a dove. However, the task of keeping the American nuclear arsenal in Europe did not quite fit into his declared main task of fighting international terrorism and regimes undesirable to the United States. Its implementation did not require preparation for the use of nuclear weapons.

Moreover, Russian-American relations at that time were not as bad as they are today. In 2001, George W. Bush made a loud statement that he looked into the eyes of Vladimir Putin and saw the “Russian soul” in them, and the next year Russia and the United States signed in Moscow the agreement on the reduction of strategic offensive capabilities (SOR), known in the West like the Moscow Treaty. This document limited the number of nuclear warheads on alert to 1,700-2,200 for each side and generally restored some hopes for de-escalation after Washington unilaterally withdrew from the ABM Treaty in 2001. in 1972.

As a result, during the reign of George W. Bush, US nuclear weapons were withdrawn from three European countries: Greece (2002), Germany (2005, Ramstein base) and Great Britain (2008), remaining at six bases in five countries ( Italy, Germany, Turkey, Belgium and the Netherlands).

And today in Europe there has been a new surge of interest in nuclear weapons, which are seen as the main tool for containing Russia. The discussion about what the European nuclear umbrella should look like at the new stage of the confrontation with Moscow is gaining momentum. While a number of European countries are calling not to rely on the reliability of the American nuclear umbrella, fearing the return to power in Washington of Donald Trump, known for his skepticism of the idea of ​​​​collective defense, Britain, apparently, is ready to take a different path. At the dawn of the Cold War, having already shown Europeans an example of how to rely on American nuclear weapons, London is again ready to strengthen their shaky faith in the American nuclear umbrella.

At a recent press conference at UN headquarters in New York, Sergei Lavrov reiterated that Russia “has no desire, neither military, nor political, nor economic need to attack” any NATO country.

In turn, the press secretary of the Russian President Dmitry Peskov said that by talking about a possible war with Russia, European politicians are trying to divert citizens' attention from problems in the economy. “You should always look for an external enemy - Europeans always gravitate towards this. For them, of course, we are a long-standing enemy,” he diagnosed a long-standing illness of the Euro-Atlantic allies.

Let us add that the proposal to remove American nuclear weapons from Europe was one of the key points of the draft agreements on security guarantees transferred by Moscow to the United States and NATO in December 2021 and, as is known, rejected by them.

In general, it is not surprising that the spiral of confrontation continues to unwind, and along with it, faith in the nuclear umbrella and the possibility of being ready to inject them with Russia are growing among the Western allies.

In this collective European psychosis, the tone is again set by “great” Britain, which has the richest experience of confidential communication and selfless love with American nuclear warheads among the countries of the Old World.

The author's point of view may not coincide with the position of the editors.