MIAMI, United States. – China has presented a peace plan for Ukraine with 12 goals. China intends to revitalize the mechanisms of international law, prevent nuclear war in all circumstances, declare a “ceasefire” in the “ukrainian” conflictas it is said today, or “Ukrainian”, as it has always been said, and even restore cities, bridges, roads, educational institutions, hospitals and homes.
The only thing that cannot be replaced is lives. Those of the Ukrainians and those of the Russian conscripts. No one will dedicate a prayer to them, not a thought, nor is it contemplated in the Chinese document what to do with the mercenary troops operating on the Russian side. These are highly paid soldiers or officers who walk the map of public butcher shops under the pirate flag of the Wagner Group. ―with a skull included― or ex-convicts who have exchanged their lives as poor madmen and evil murderers for the possibility of being free after the war.
Frankly, I’ve read and reread the document a dozen times, and despite my skepticism, I still haven’t found the “trick” anywhere. There is no formal statement of who is the aggressor and who is the victim, but that follows from the context. I knew that China was pro-Russia and anti-Ukraine because of affinity between the two dictatorships, and it occurred to me that Russia has asked China to intervene to get the chestnuts out of the fire. And it also occurred to me that Biden went to kyiv to ask him that there was an opportunity for peace in the Chinese plan and that Zelenski should not miss it. The sanctions had worked.
What doesn’t work for Russia is nuclear blackmail. Charles de Gaulle, who got tired of the gringo umbrella in 1960, thought that 300 bombs were enough to destroy all cities with more than 20,000 inhabitants in Russia, as well as the capital and Saint Petersburg. Almost everything depended on the precision in the “delivery”.
The “force de frappe” was that. De Gaulle opted for a deterrent force. The French could not have thousands of nuclear warheads, nor did they need to. Then came the Mirage 2000 N aircraft and the Triomphant submarines. Only one of those submarines – called Le Terrible – has enough explosives in its 138-foot length to completely destroy Moscow and Saint Petersburg. Each of those submarines has more firepower than all the fleets of the combined Second World War.
Yes, Russia can pulverize France, but at what cost? Can you trade Moscow for Paris knowing that the world’s largest country is coming to an end? That is why there is not much temerity in arguing that it is enough to have a deterrent force available. It’s not even possible to drop the first nuclear rock without being cooked over a not-so-slow fire. Mrs. Thatcher, a prime minister of iron, or stainless steel, as the most irreducible supporters affirmed, it occurred to her to mention that she was listening to the shooting of the Malvinas with her finger on their atomic weapons and the English ate her alive . The Argentines protected themselves with their defenselessness. Doña Margaret did not speak of the matter again and she was re-elected.
A guy as ruthless as Putin brought up the subject of the Ukrainian resistance and they beat him to a pulp. One of the discreet systems for measuring public opinion – he has three and consults them frequently – told him that, for the most part, his country did not agree with the use of nuclear weapons. never. It was then that Putin declared that he would never use atomic weapons first. He was a holy man. When he called off the commitment to the United States to police each other, he said with his body language something that was true, especially if he was an inveterate cynic: Pacts are made to be broken, like marriages. Otherwise, it was enough to shake hands and look into his eyes. In this case he was referring to a treaty on the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons. The last one that existed.
Does not matter. If atomic weapons cannot be used even to intimidate the adversary, it is a useless weapon. It is of no use to Russia because France, England or Israel can destroy it and the US can preside over the scrapping of the enormous country, with the aggravating circumstance that it is an entity that dates back to the 18th century, that is, since yesterday. And it doesn’t help the US because it’s insane to keep piling on nuclear weapons, because they cost so much. The fate of this panorama is to end up in an organization that watches over the real end of atomic weapons.
What is a blessing is NATO. NATO allows the European Union to exist and a crazy country like Montenegro to shelter under those acronyms. Donald Trump wondered, in 2018, why Americans had to die for a country that they were not even able to discover on a silent map. First, because many fewer knew of the existence of Archduke Ferdinand and 117,000 died in the First World War. “It’s the principles, stupid” would say James Carville. 7% of Americans are unable to locate the US on a world map. Second, because Americans are willing to die rather than learn geography.
NATO is very important. Spain, Portugal and Greece are today defenders of NATO because of how much the Institution is convenient for them to preserve democracy. The rulers of Poland and Hungary would behave even worse if there were no NATO. A few years ago I had a conversation with Boris Yeltsin and asked him if Russia could fit into NATO. He was surprised by the question. He thought for a few seconds and answered me. “Yeah. If it is a condition to enter the European Union we would submit to it”. Perhaps I am getting carried away by enthusiasm, but perhaps the Chinese disarmament plan will serve to solve all the pending problems. At the end of 1943, the US knew that they were going to win World War II and promoted an international meeting known as Bretton Woods (1944) after the name of the hotel where they met. What was left of the 20th century and the 21st century were both Americans for Bretton Woods and the stability they gave the planet. That episode needs to be redone.
OPINION ARTICLE
The opinions expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the person who issues them and do not necessarily represent the opinion of CubaNet.
