Like all European environmental parties, without any exception, Luigi Di Maio’s
Five-Star Movement is deeply anti-nuclear. It campaigned vehemently on
this theme. And like all European environmental parties, when they come
to power, they defend NATO, its wars and its nuclear policy.
***
Is there finally a Minister of Foreign Affairs who
will commit to Italy joining the UN Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear
Weapons?
The neo-minister Luigi Di Maio subscribed in 2017 to the Ican
Parliamentary Pledge, the international coalition to which was awarded
the Nobel Peace Prize [1]. In doing so, the political leader of the 5
Stars Movement – the current Minister of Foreign Affairs – has pledged
to “promote the signature and ratification of this Treaty of Historic
Importance” by Italy.
The Ican Commitment was also subscribed to by other current 5-star ministers –Alfonso Bonafede (Justice), Federico D’Incà (Relations with Parliament), Fabiana Dadone (Public Service) – and by other M5S parliamentarians, like Roberto Fico and Manlio Di Stefano.
But there is a problem. Article 4 of the Treaty states:
“Each State Party which has nuclear weapons owned or
controlled by another State on its territory shall ensure the prompt
withdrawal of such weapons”.
To accede to the UN Treaty, Italy should ask the United States to
withdraw B-61 nuclear bombs from its territory (which already violate
the Non-Proliferation Treaty) and not to install the new B61 -12 or
other nuclear weapons. Moreover, since Italy is one of the countries
which (as NATO itself states) “provide the Alliance with aircraft
equipped to carry nuclear bombs, over which the United States retains
absolute control, and staff trained for this purpose “, to accede to the
UN Treaty, Italy should ask to be exempted from this function.
Unthinkable requests from the second Conte government which, like the first, considers the United States as a “privileged ally”.
Here is where the cards are shown. The Ican Commitment was subscribed
to in Italy by more than 200 parliamentarians, mostly from the Pd and
the M5S (about 90 each), the current government parties. With what
result?
On September 19, 2017, the day before the Treaty was opened for
signature, the House approved a Pd motion (also voted by Forza Italia
and Fratelli d’Italia) which committed the Gentiloni government to
“evaluate the possibility” of joining to the UN Treaty. For its part,
the M5S did not ask for the accession to the UN Treaty, and therefore
the withdrawal from Italy of nuclear weapons, but to “declare the
unavailability of Italy to use nuclear weapons, and not to buy the
necessary components to make the F-35 aircraft fit for the transport of
nuclear weapons “. Ergo: that the F-35 planes, designed for nuclear
attack especially with the B61-12, be used by Italy with a kind of
security that prevents the use of nuclear weapons.
The following day, the North Atlantic Council, with full Italian
support, rejected and attacked the UN Treaty. It has so far been signed
by 70 countries, but, because of pressure from the US and NATO, ratified
only by 26 while it takes 50 to enter into force.
The same thing happened with the Treaty on Intermediate Nuclear
Forces buried by Washington. Whether at the NATO, UN or EU headquarters,
the first Conte government has lined up behind the US decision, giving
the go-ahead for the installation of new US nuclear missiles in Europe,
Italy included.
The solemn undertaking pledged by Pd, 5 Étoiles and others has
therefore proved, based on the test of facts, to be a demagogic
expedient to collect votes. If for any of them this is not so, let them
demonstrate it in fact.
Because of the “inevitable link with the United States”, reaffirmed
yesterday by Conte in his speech in the House, Italy finds itself
deprived of its own sovereignty and transformed into the front line of
US nuclear strategy. With multi-partisan consensus and complicit
silence.
*
Note to readers: please click the share
buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists.
Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
This article was originally published on Il Manifesto. Translated from Italian by Roger Lagassé.
Award winning author Manlio Dinucci is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG).
There
is a current discussion on how much and what kind of funding Italy
will receive from the European Union and under what conditions.
Reassuring messages arrive from Brussels. But since such financing will
be mostly provided in the form of loans, several economists warn that
there is a danger of heavy debt and further loss of economic
sovereignty.
Political-media
attention therefore focuses on relations between Italy and the European
Union. An important issue, which cannot however be separated from the
relations between Italy and the United States, and nobody discusses in
Parliament and major media.
Italian
public continues to ignore the implications of this “assistance” plan
for Italy launched by President Trump on April 10 (il manifesto, 14
April 2020). Yet the US ambassador to Italy, Lewis Eisenberg,
calls it “the greatest financial aid that the United States has ever
given to a Western European country since 1948, since the time of the
Marshall Plan.”
In
support of anti-Covid health activities, already “tens of million of
dollars have gone and will go to the Red Cross and some non-governmental
organizations” (not better identified). In addition to this, the plan
provides for a series of interventions to “support the recovery of Italian economy“.
President Trump has ordered the Secretaries ofTreasury
and Commerce, the president of the Export-Import Bank, the
administrator of the US Agency for International Development, the
director of the United States International Development Finance
Corporation (Government Agency financing private development projects)
to use their tools to «support Italian companies»
for this purpose. Nobody says which companies are and will be financed
under this plan, nor under what conditions are these loans bound to.
Ambassador Eisenberg speaks in general of excellent relations between the United States and Italy, demonstrated by “important economic and strategic indicators“, including “one of the largest military agreements with Fincantieri“,
which gained a contract of about $6 billion for the construction of ten
US Navy multi-role frigates last May. The Italian group is controlled
70% by the Ministry of Economy and Finance, has three shipyards in the
US, where four similar warships for Saudi Arabia are also under
construction.
Another
important economic and strategic indicator is the growing integration
of Leonardo, the largest Italian military industry in the US
military-industrial complex, especially through the largest US military
industry Lockheed Martin. The Ministry of Economy and Finance is the
main shareholder of Leonardo, which supplies the USA with products and
services to the armed forces and intelligence agencies, and manages
Lockheed’s F-35 fighters Martin factory in Cameri, Italy.
These
and other powerful interests – especially those of large financial
groups – bind Italy to the United States. Italy’s foreign and military
policy is also an economic policy, subordinated to the strategy of the
United States based on an increasingly acute political, economic and
military confrontation with Russia and China. Washington’s plan is
clear: exploiting the crisis and the fractures in the EU to strengthen
US influence in Italy.
The
consequences are obvious. For example, it would be in our national
interest to remove sanctions to Moscow reviving Italian exports to
Russia and restore export especially for small and medium-sized
enterprises, this choice has been made impossible by our dependence on
the choices made in Washington and Brussels. At the same time, Italy’s
agreements with China under the New Silk Road project are under threat,
they are not welcome to Washington.
The
lack of real political sovereignty prevents these and other vital
economic choices to exit the crisis. But, on political talk shows there
is no mention of all this.
*
Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below.
Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site,
internet forums. etc.
This article was originally published on Il Manifesto. Translated from Italian by Jean Toschi Marazzani Visconti.
Manlio Dinucci is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization.
Note
to readers: please click the share buttons above The politico-media
tornado lifted by the confrontation between the "Europeanists" and the
"Sovereignists" hides what the reality actually is – a Europeanism
without Europe and a sovereignism without sovereignty. The politician
who is brandishing the banner of Europeism at the…
NATO Defense Ministers (Lorenzo Guerini,
Pd representing Italy) gathered by videoconference on June17/18, and
made a series of “decisions to strengthen the Alliance’s deterrence.”
However, nobody in Italy talks about it, neither the media (including
social media) nor the political world, where an absolute multipartisan
silence reigns over all this. Yet these decisions, basically dictated by
Washington and signed by Minister Guerini for Italy, not only trace the
guidelines of our military policy, but also our foreign policy.
First of all – announces Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg
– “NATO is preparing for a possible second wave of Covid-19,” against
which NATO has already mobilized over half a million soldiers in Europe.
Stoltenberg does not clarify how NATO can predict a possible second
virus pandemic with a new lockdown.
On
one point, however, he is clear: this “does not mean that other
challenges disappeared.” The major problem – Defense Ministers
underlined – comes from Russia’s “destabilizing and dangerous behavior,”
in particular from its “irresponsible nuclear rhetoric, aimed at
intimidating and threatening NATO allies.”
In
this way they overturn reality, erasing the fact that it was NATO that
extended its nuclear forces and bases close to Russia, especially the
United States after the end of the Cold War. A strategy aimed at
creating growing tensions with Russia in Europe has been methodically
implemented with Washington’s direction.
Defense
Ministers met in the Nuclear Planning Group, chaired by the United
States, to decide on new military measures against Russia.
It
is unknown what decisions on nuclear matters Minister Guerini signed on
behalf of Italy. However, it is clear that by participating in the
Group and hosting US nuclear weapons (which can also be used by our Air
Force), Italy violates the Non-Proliferation Treaty and rejects the UN
Treaty for the prohibition of nuclear weapons.
Stoltenberg
merely said, “Today we have decided on further steps to keep NATO
nuclear deterrent in Europe safe and efficient.” Among these steps there
is certainly the next arrival of the new US B61-12 nuclear bombs also
in Italy.
Defense
Ministers spoke of another growing “challenge” which is that of China
for the first time “at the top of NATO’s agenda.” China is a trading
partner of many allies, but at the same time “heavily invests in new
missile systems that can reach all NATO countries,” said Stoltenberg.
Thus, NATO begins to present China as a military threat.
At
the same time, they present Chinese investments in the countries of the
Alliance as dangerous. Based on this premise, Defense Ministers updated
the guidelines for “national resilience,” aimed at preventing energy,
transport and telecommunications, 5G in particular, from ending up under
“foreign ownership and control” (read “Chinese Ownership and Control”).
These
are the decisions signed by Italy at the Defense Ministers NATO
meeting. They bind our country to a strategy of growing hostility,
especially towards Russia and China, exposing us to increasingly serious
risks and making our arrangements on which the same economic agreements
rest unstable.
It
is a long-term strategy, as evidenced by the (Born) NATO 2030″ project
launch made by Secretary General Stoltenberg on June 8 to “strengthen
the Alliance militarily and politically” by including countries like
Australia (already invited to the Defense Ministers meeting), New
Zealand, Japan and other Asians, in clear anti-Chinese function.
A
group of 10 advisors was formed for the Great Global (Born) NATO 2030
project, including Prof. Marta Dassù, former foreign policy adviser in
the D’Alema government before and during NATO’s war on Yugoslavia, in
which Italy participated in 1999 with its bases and bombers, under US
command.
*
Note to readers: please click the share
buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists.
Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
This article was originally published in Italian on Il Manifesto.
Manlio Dinucci is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization.
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by
activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of
our home page (Desktop version). Visit and follow us on Instagram at
@crg_globalresearch.
***
According to an expert on
viral transmission mechanics, brief outdoor encounters present a “very
low risk” for transmission of COVID-19. Viral particles quickly disperse
in outdoor air, so the risk of inhaling aerosolized virus from
passersby is negligible
Using mathematical models,
Italian researchers have calculated the amount of time it would take for
you to contract the SARS-CoV-2 virus outdoors in Milan. If 10% of the
population were infected, you would require 31.5 days of continuous
outdoor exposure to inhale a dose of virus sufficient to transmit
infection
Other research has shown your odds of transmitting COVID-19 are 18.7 times greater indoors than in an open-air environment
Several investigations looking
at SARS-CoV-2 RNA concentrations in air have come up empty. No
detectable RNA was found in air samplings from various locations in
Wuhan, China, Venice in northern Italy, or Lecce in southern Italy,
during the pandemic
Germany’s first registry for
side effects of mask wearing on children has identified 24 physical,
psychological and behavioral health issues, including irritability
(60%), headache (53%), difficulty concentrating (50%), reduced happiness
(49%), reluctance to go to school/kindergarten (44%), malaise (42%),
impaired learning (38%) and drowsiness or fatigue (37%)
*
After a year of questionable advice on masking, ranging from head-scratching and mildly amusing to outright laughable — such as Spain mandating use of face masks while swimming
in the ocean — health experts who counter the prevailing narrative on
universal masking are finally getting some airtime in the mainstream
media.
In an April 22, 2021, article in The New York Times,1 Tara Parker-Pope cites several doctors and virologists who advise against universal mask wearing outdoors.
Health Experts Weigh in on Outdoor Mask Wearing
Among them is Linsey Marr, a professor of civil and environmental
engineering at Virginia Tech and an expert on viral transmission
mechanics, who notes that brief outdoor encounters, such as walking past
someone on a sidewalk or hiking trail, present a “very low risk” for
transmission.
“Viral particles quickly disperse in
outdoor air, and the risk of inhaling aerosolized virus from a jogger or
passers-by is negligible,” Marr told Parker-Pope.2“Even
if a person coughs or sneezes outside as you walk by, the odds of you
getting a large enough dose of virus to become infected remain low.”
Similarly, Dr. Muge Cevic, a clinical lecturer of infectious disease
and medical virology at the University of St. Andrews School of Medicine
in Scotland, is quoted saying:3
“I think it’s a bit too much to ask
people to put the mask on when they go out for a walk or jogging or
cycling. We’re in a different stage of the pandemic. I think outdoor
masks should not have been mandated at all. It’s not where the infection
and transmission occurs.”
Parker-Pope also quotes Dr. Nahid Bhadelia, an infectious diseases
physician and medical director of the special pathogens unit at Boston
Medical Center:4
“Let me go for my run, maskless …
Given how conservative I have been on my opinions all year, this should
tell you how low [the] risk is, in general, for outdoors transmission
for contact over short periods …”
Vaccinated or Not, Masks Don’t Work
Of course, most all of the doctors quoted in The New York Times
article make the claim that vaccination lowers your risk of COVID-19,
thus you can be more lenient when around other vaccinated individuals.
I’ve written many articles explaining why this narrative is nonsensical and just flat out wrong.
In a nutshell, it makes no sense because all COVID-19 “vaccines” are
designed to do is reduce your symptoms if or when you get infected. They
are not designed to prevent infection, they do not give you immunity
against SARS-CoV-2, and they do not prevent transmission, so you can
still spread the virus to others if you get infected.
All of this means you present the same “risk” to others whether
you’re vaccinated or not. And, to be clear, if you have no symptoms of
respiratory infection, the health risk you pose to others is virtually
nonexistent.5 You simply cannot spread an infection you do not have.
The minuscule bits of viral RNA that the PCR test can pick up if run
through too many augmentation cycles — thereby rendering a false
positive result — are not infectious. You need a whole, and live, virus
for that.
CDC Grants Special Permission to Fully Vaccinated
Despite science being rather clear on these points, at the end of
April 2021, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention eased
its outdoor mask guidelines for vaccinated-only.
If you’ve gotten all of the required doses of the COVID-19 “vaccine,”
you no longer need to wear a mask outdoors when in small groups or when
exercising. Masks are still recommended when in crowded outdoor venues,
though, such as sports stadiums. According to another New York Times
article:6
“President Biden hailed it as a
landmark moment in the pandemic, wearing a mask as he approached the
lectern on a warm spring day on the White House grounds — and pointedly
keeping it off as he walked back into the White House when he was done.
‘Go get the shot. It’s never been easier,’ Mr. Biden said. ‘And once
you’re fully vaccinated, you can go without a mask when you’re outside
and away from big crowds.'”
Researchers Set the Record Straight
Breaking with The New York Times’ typical propaganda, Parker-Pope actually goes on to cite research7 published in February 2021 in the Environmental Research journal:
“To understand just how low the risk
of outdoor transmission is, researchers in Italy used mathematical
models to calculate the amount of time it would take for a person to
become infected outdoors in Milan.
They imagined a grim scenario in
which 10% of the population was infected with the coronavirus. Their
calculations showed that if a person avoided crowds, it would take, on
average, 31.5 days of continuous outdoor exposure to inhale a dose of
virus sufficient to transmit infection.
‘The results are that this risk is
negligible in outdoor air if crowds and direct contact among people are
avoided,’ said Daniele Contini, senior author of the study and an
aerosol scientist at the Institute of Atmospheric Sciences and Climate
in Lecce, Italy.
Even as more-infectious virus
variants circulate, the physics of viral transmission outdoors haven’t
changed, and the risk of getting infected outdoors is still low, say
virus experts.”
Other research8
has shown your odds of transmitting COVID-19 are 18.7 times greater
indoors than in an open-air environment. Several investigations looking
at SARS-CoV-2 RNA concentrations in air have also come up empty,
including air samplings done in various locations in Wuhan,9,10 China, Venice in northern Italy, and Lecce in southern Italy.11
This part of the equation has been roundly ignored since the very beginning, even though there are both environmental drawbacks to universal mask use and individual health hazards, including the following:12
Wearing a face mask increases breathing resistance, and since it
makes both inhaling and exhaling more difficult, individuals with
pre-existing medical conditions may be at risk of a medical emergency if
wearing a face mask.
This includes those with shortness of breath, lung disease, panic attacks,
breathing difficulties, chest pain on exertion, cardiovascular disease,
fainting spells, claustrophobia, chronic bronchitis, heart problems,
asthma, allergies, diabetes, seizures, high blood pressure and those with pacemakers. The impact of wearing a face mask during pregnancy is also wholly unknown.
Face masks can reduce oxygen intake, leading to potentially hazardous oxygen deficiency (hypoxia).
They also cause rapid accumulation of harmful carbon dioxide, which
can have significant cognitive and physical impacts. Germany’s first
registry13,14
recording the effects mask wearing has on children, has identified 24
physical, psychological and behavioral health issues associated with
wearing masks. Recorded symptoms include:
“… irritability (60%), headache
(53%), difficulty concentrating (50%), less happiness (49%), reluctance
to go to school/kindergarten (44%), malaise (42%), impaired learning
(38%) and drowsiness or fatigue (37%).”
Of the 25,930 children included in the
registry, 29.7% reported feeling short of breath, 26.4% being dizzy and
17.9% were unwilling to move or play. Hundreds more experienced
“accelerated respiration, tightness in chest, weakness and short-term
impairment of consciousness.”
Wearing a face mask increases your body temperature and physical
stress, which could result in an elevated temperature reading that is
not related to infection.
All face masks can cause bacterial and fungal infections in the user
as warm, moist air accumulates inside the mask. This is the perfect
breeding ground for pathogens. This is why disposable medical masks were
designed for short-duration, specific-task use only, after which they
are supposed to be discarded.
Medical doctors have warned that bacterial pneumonia, facial rashes, fungal infections on the face,15 “mask mouth” (symptoms of which include bad breath, tooth decay and gum inflammation) and candida mouth infections16 are all on the rise.
A study17,18
published in the February 2021 issue of the journal Cancer Discovery
also found that the presence of microbes in your lungs can worsen lung
cancer pathogenesis and can contribute to advanced stage lung cancer.
The same types of bacteria, primarily Veillonella, Prevotella, and
Streptococcus bacteria, can also be cultivated through prolonged mask
wearing.19
With extended use, medical masks will begin to break down and release chemicals that are then inhaled. Tiny microfibers are also released, which can cause health problems when inhaled. This hazard was highlighted in a performance study20 being published in the June 2021 issue of Journal of Hazardous Materials.
Mask mandates also represent another erosion of freedom, and
normalizes the false notion that people are sick unless proven healthy, and that it’s acceptable to be forced to cover your face just to go about your daily life, even when you’re outdoors.
The public narrative is building prejudice against people who refuse to wear masks or get an experimental vaccine,
such that some are now fearful of people who aren’t masked or those who
choose not to get vaccinated. With societal norms rapidly changing, and
an increasingly authoritative environment emerging, it raises the
question of whether or not the public will continue to blindly obey, no matter the consequences.
The Only Type of Mask That Is Safe and Effective
To provide any benefit whatsoever, users must be fitted with the
right type and size of respirator, and must undergo fit testing by a
trained professional. However, N95 respirators, even when fitted
properly, will not protect against viral exposures but can adequately
protect against larger particles.
Surgical masks, which do not seal to your face, do not filter out
anything. They are designed to prevent bacteria from the mouth, nose and
face from entering the patient during surgical procedures, and
researchers have warned that contaminated surgical masks actually pose
an infection risk.21 After just two hours, a significant increase in bacterial load on the mask was observed.
Nonmedical cloth masks are not only ineffective, but also
particularly dangerous as they’re not engineered for effective purging
of exhaled carbon dioxide, making them wholly unsuitable for use.
The only type of mask that is actually safe and effective to wear is
the gas mask kind of respirator you’d use to protect yourself against
painting fumes, organic vapors, smoke and dust. These respirators are
built to filter the air you breathe in, and to get rid of the carbon
dioxide and humidity from the air you breathe out, thereby ensuring
there’s no dangerous buildup of carbon dioxide or reduction in oxygen
inside the mask.
While there are a lot of data and science showing that masks are
ineffective against viral transmission and that mandates do nothing to
protect public health, government spokespeople simply continue spouting
the propaganda narrative that mask wearing saves lives. “Listen to the
experts; follow the science,” they say. Yet they have yet to produce a
single credible piece of scientific support for universal mask wearing.
Where are the data showing that masks work? Where are the data
showing it lowers infection and hospitalization rates? Where is the
evidence that mask mandates have had any positive influence at all on
the COVID-19 pandemic during these past 14 months? We ought to have a
mountain of data to support it by now.
I suspect the reason we don’t have massive studies filled with global
data showing that mask mandates were a breakthrough success is because
they either had no impact, or made matters worse. Case in point: “Texas,
Mississippi See Lowest COVID Cases in Almost a Year 1 Month After
Lifting Mask Mandate,” Newsweek reported in an April 6, 2021, article.22
Yes, ironically, despite fears that lifting mask mandates would
result in hospitals overflowing with COVID-19 cases, the opposite
actually happened. Both Texas and Mississippi are now, four weeks later,
reporting their lowest case and COVID-related mortality numbers since
May 2020.
North Dakota Aims to Secure Freedom From Mask Mandates
A special ray of hope shines in North Dakota, where the House of
Representatives has approved a bill (H.B.1323) that would actually ban
schools, businesses and local governments from making face masks a
requirement for service. The bill, which passed 50 to 44 at the end of
February 2021, is now being reviewed by the Senate.
The bill’s sponsor, Rep. Jeff Hoverson, characterized the state’s
mask mandate, imposed in November 2020, as “diabolical silliness.”23 He told the Prairie Public Press he’d received “a lot of emails” from constituents opposed to mask mandates, adding:24
“They do not want North Dakota to get
sucked into what is becoming obvious. The mask is a part of a larger
apparatus of a movement of unelected, wealthy bureaucrats, who are
robbing our freedoms and perpetuating lies.”
Yes. That about sums it up.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share
buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @crg_globalresearch.
Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site,
internet forums. etc.
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
***
Italian Foreign Minister Di Maio and Defense Minister Guerini
were urgently summoned to NATO headquarters in Brussels for an
extraordinary meeting of the North Atlantic Council on April 15: the
same day on which President Biden signed the “Executive Order Against
Harmful Foreign Activities of the Russian Government” in Washington. The
Order not only decrees expulsions of diplomats and economic sanctions,
as reported by the media. “If Russia continues or intensifies
its destabilizing international actions”, the Order established, “the
United States will impose such costs as to cause a strategic impact on
Russia”.
Precisely
in order to prepare the “strategic impact”, that is an intensified
political-military escalation against Russia, the North Atlantic Council
was convened at the level of Foreign and Defense Ministers of the 30
NATO countries, formally chaired by the Secretary-General Stoltenberg,
in reality by US Secretary of State Blinken and US Defense Secretary
Austin.
The
North Atlantic Council – the Alliance political body which, according
to NATO rules, decides not by majority but always “unanimously and by
common agreement”, i.e. in agreement with what was decided in Washington
– has immediately approved, unanimously, a «Declaration of solidarity
with the United States on actions, announced on April 15, to respond to
Russia’s destabilizing activities». The Council then listed the charges
against Russia: “Destabilizing and provocative behavior, violation of
the territorial integrity of Ukraine and Georgia, interference in US and
Allied elections, vast disinformation campaign, use of nerve gas
against Navalny, support for attacks on US / NATO forces in Afghanistan,
violation of agreements on non-proliferation and disarmament ” in the
same words as the Biden Executive Order.
On
the merit of these accusations, it is enough to consider one for all,
the latter: who accused Russia of having violated the agreements on
non-proliferation and disarmament is the United States, which has always
violated the Non-proliferation Treaty, deploying nuclear weapons in
Italy and other European countries, and tore up the INF Treaty by
reopening the way for new nuclear missiles installation in Europe.
The
escalation is not just verbal. The day before the North Atlantic
Council meeting, the US Army in Europe announced that it will retain
three bases in Germany that it should have returned to the German
government because it will receive two new operational units in the
coming months. The day after the North Atlantic Council meeting, the
United States announced an agreement with Norway, which allows the US to
have four air and naval bases on the border with Russia.
In
the meantime, the US destroyer Arleigh Burke has returned to Europe
after undergoing a modernization that has “increased the range and
capacity of its armaments”. The Arleigh Burke is one of the four
advanced deployment missile-launching units of the Sixth Fleet that
operate mainly in the Baltic and Black Sea under the orders of the US
Naval Forces Command in Europe (with their headquarters in
Naples-Capodichino).
These
ships are equipped with Lockheed Martin Mk 41 vertical launchers,
capable of launching (according to official technical specifications)
«missiles for all missions: anti-aircraft, anti-ship, and attack against
land targets». This latter, including the Tomahawk missile, can be
armed with a conventional warhead or a nuclear warhead. Unable to know, Russia takes it of granted that nuclear attack missiles are aboard these ships near its territory.
While London also announces the forthcoming dispatch of a missile-launching unit
to the Black Sea, Moscow announces that no passage of foreign warships
will be allowed through Russian territorial waters in three areas of the
Black Sea from April 24 to October 31. The situation will become even
tenser when, next summer, the US-Ukraine Sea Breeze exercise will take
place in the Black Sea with over 30 ships supported by airplanes,
helicopters, and drones with the participation of other NATO countries.
*
Note to readers: please click the share
buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists.
Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
This article was originally published in Italian on Il Manifesto.
Manlio Dinucci is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization.
Post
