While terming Russian President Vladimir Putin’s decision to put nuclear forces on alert as “unnecessary and escalatory”, the US has chosen not to respond in kind and change its alertness levels, and said that it is “comfortable with its strategic deterrent posture”.
Building on the US ambassador to the United Nations, Linda Thomas-Greenfield’s statement that Putin’s move was “unnecessary and escalatory that threatens us all” at a meeting of the UN Security Council, White House spokesperson Jen Psaki, on Monday, said, “We think provocative rhetoric like this regarding nuclear weapons is dangerous, adds to the risk of miscalculation, should be avoided and we will not indulge in it.”
She said that throughout the conflict, Russia had “falsely alleged” that it was under threat from the US and Nato. “Neither the US nor Nato has any desire or intention for conflict with Russia.”
The White House said that it was assessing Putin’s directive, but did not, at this point, see any reason to change the US’s alert levels. “But it is also important to remember that, even over the course of the last several months and years, when we have had significant disagreements with Russia over a range of issues, Russia and the US have long agreed that nuclear use would have devastating consequences and have stated many times, including earlier this year, that a nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought.”
In the same vein, the Pentagon said it was reviewing and analysing Putin’s announcement. “I would only just tell you that as we continue to review and analyse and monitor that Secretary (Lloyd) Austin is comfortable with the strategic deterrent posture of the United States and our ability to defend the homeland, our allies and our partners,” said John Kirby, Pentagon spokesperson.
Ankit Panda, Stanton senior fellow, nuclear policy programme at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, said that nuclear weapons have always been a part of the “context of this crisis” and are precisely why Western support in the months leading up to the war wasn’t to “the extent of direct military intervention”.
“The precise nature of Putin’s alert is not clear, but so far, it seems like a procedural step rather than an operational one. This was an attempt to remind the West of what’s at stake. It was also notable that Putin cited sanctions and ‘aggressive statements’ as the justification for the change in alert status – not Nato countries providing Ukraine with military aid. One concern could be that Putin perceives a broader, implicit Western objective of ending his regime – something that neither Ukraine nor Nato seek to do in practice,” he added.
Most analysts of nuclear affairs in Washington see Putin as engaging in an expected game of brinksmanship, as economic sanctions mount against Russia and as it faces more stiff resistance on the ground it had anticipated, and believe that the US and Russia have a language that both sides understand in the realm of nuclear weapons and deterrence – and while there hasn’t been a change in language that warrant an immediate response, it will require carefully monitoring.
from WordPress https://ift.tt/nQPEBjA
via IFTTT
No comments:
Post a Comment