US nuclear weapons USA They reignite in Europe: how this will affect Lithuania

“Germany should abandon the deployment of US nuclear weapons in the country in the future,” Rolf Muetzenich, the country’s Social Democratic leader, who made an “unexpected” statement in early May, sparked continued heated debate in Germany and beyond.

German parliamentarians, experts, and anyone with an opinion on nuclear weapons have moved into television studios, newspapers, and German discussion spaces on Twitter have simply exploded. At first glance, this may seem like an internal matter of German politics.

But then kerosene swept through the US ambassadors. USA In Germany and Poland, and the German Foreign Minister, Heiko Mass, who spoke about the importance of nuclear disarmament last year, has now entered the opposite field and warned that hasty action will not increase security. Closer observers recalled that such an image had already been seen. And not only because for several years, Germany has been cautious, but increasingly open about the nuclear debate.

Almost as cyclical as the economic crisis, the nuclear issue in Germany intensifies every decade. In 2009-2010, the then leader of the Liberal Party and the successful candidate Guido Westerwelle took the nuclear card into their own hands.

He then also called for the removal of the US tactical nuclear bomb B-61 from Biuchel Air Force Base in Germany. The proposal was unequivocally accepted, and Westerwelle was simply dragged along by it, which had a negative effect on its popularity.

By contrast, then-President of Lithuania Dalia Grybauskaitė jumped in September 2010 to link the issue of tactical nuclear weapons with the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START) signed between the United States and Russia in September 2010 and drew attention to itself.

“He was linked to the negotiations between the United States and Russia on disarmament in the world, including in Europe. Seeing that this may not be in the interest of at least Eastern Europe and the Baltic region, he did not want to drink champagne for such a prospect “said D. Grybauskaitė at the time, and was already forecasting a door slam in Washington.

A decade later, Lithuanian presidents, ministers, secretaries, and other officials changed, but the coincidences are eloquent: Washington and Russia are renegotiating a new START treaty, while the Germans are again raising the issue of US nuclear weapons in the country. . It is true that not only the attitude of the West towards Russia has changed, but also the attitude of Europe and the United States towards each other. And that means that this time you can expect completely different solutions and their consequences.

Bombs are not just deterrents

The issue of nuclear weapons in Germany did not become sensitive in May this year, decades before the US presence in the country, especially the massive protests against nuclear weapons.

After World War II, around the 1960s, Americans had deployed hundreds of nuclear weapons in what was then West Germany at the time: from tactical to strategic missiles with thermonuclear warheads, from bombs to nuclear artillery shells.

Germany was no exception, but one of them remained: The United States withdrew nuclear weapons from Greece, Spain, and the United Kingdom after the end of the Cold War, and B-61 tactical bombs are currently the only nuclear weapons in the United States. in Europe, in addition to Germany. In the Netherlands and Turkey.

A few months later @Vredesactie Protesters returned and got INSIDE an unlocked hardened aircraft shelter and photographed the control panel for a WS3 vault. WS3 vaults are used to store American nuclear weapons. (3/5) pic.twitter.com/RFECv4MBkj

– Jeffrey Lewis (@ArmsControlWonk) February 21, 2019

These bombs are not just American weapons – they are part of NATO’s nuclear fission program and have designated certified planes and pilots who can carry out nuclear missions. Theoretically, this means that with the permission of the US President. In the USA, German, Dutch, Belgian, Italian and Turkish pilots sitting in their fighters can use B-61 nuclear bombs with a capacity ranging from 0.3 to 400 kilotons. In comparison, the power of the detonated bomb over Hiroshima was about 16 kilotons.

Such NATO nuclear deterrents are more of a political than a military factor: to detonate a nuclear bomb, a fighter must approach the target, and obsolete German and Italian tornado fighters certified for such missions must traverse the integrated anti-aircraft defense of a potential enemy. It was his replacement that sparked a new debate.

Conflict between politicians and the military.

In Germany, as in any other country, it is understood that the military wants to have the best aircraft with the greatest capabilities. But resilience is also important for Germany, which means several different models of fighters, preferably from different providers, if one of them fails to fulfill his obligations on time for one reason or another, such a painful experience that Germany has had in the last decades.

But even the desire to act fast outside the rules of the game in Germany can be costly. The then Commander of the German Air Force, General Karl Müllner, was convinced of this a few years ago: by his public support for the latest fifth-generation F-35 fighter in the US. In the USA, he was soon fired, and last year the fighter, chosen by several European countries, was withdrawn from the German wrestlers contest.

The Germans considered what to do next: modernizing the more than 80 vintage Tornado and Eurofighter models that had just flown thus far proved too costly even for Germany, and then Defense Minister Ursula Von Der Leyen made no secret of the country’s plight. : Germany wants to maintain nuclear energy. Weapons capability is part of deterrence, part of Germany’s special status.

Therefore, in April, Germany finally decided to purchase new fighters, including at least 45 American-made F / A-18 Super Hornet fighters and its special version of Growler electronic combat.

The new Eurofighter models do not match Growler’s impressive capabilities in electronic combat, and German defense experts and the military leadership have made clear that the country will need such capabilities and specially certified aircraft capable of carrying American nuclear weapons very soon.

As experts weighed in on the debate, things got even more complicated, as the Super Hornet F / A-18, even a powerful fighter, is called an intermediate option: starting in 2040, the Germans hope to accept the sixth generation fighter who are developing together. with France, but in the meantime Germany can still get back to the F-35 issue.

“It is the responsibility of the German federal government to provide pilots with the most suitable aircraft for a particularly dangerous mission. Therefore, the F-35 must be included in the benchmarking and evaluation before a final decision is made,” says the report of the influential German Foreign Affairs Council.

But then the dissatisfied German Social Democrats intervened. After all, while the majority of fighters are at least 93 from the latest Eurofighter modification, buying out fighters from the United States just to maintain Germany’s ability in the nuclear fission program didn’t like the country’s left. .

This is also related to pragmatic interests, because the German Social Democrats feel the nose of the influential and electoral unions in the elections: DGB, Verdi, IGM. Choosing an American fighter is said to cost Germany up to 25,000. jobs, in pre-election and post-pandemic times, including in Germany.

Furthermore, due to the incidents of the ruling coalition, the complicated decision-making process in Germany is favorable for the Social Democrats, since they control the Ministries of Foreign Affairs and Finance and, most importantly, the Ministry of Labor and Social Affairs.

In the latter, the influence of the unions is particularly great, so it would be on the cross against any decision that the unions do not like. And that would mean a small blow to the entire ruling coalition or paralysis of decisions. Finally, the purchase decision also requires Bundestag approval, and in the German parliament, most of the elected, to put it mildly, do not burn with love in the United States.

Officially, the logic of the German Social Democrats is simple: why should Germany remain in a nuclear fission program if it formally owns all NATO members? And even if Germany remains a member of this program, it is not necessary to keep the US nuclear bombs, they can be abandoned; This is what Spain and Greece have done in the past, so why can’t the Germans do it?

Conversely, if Germany chooses American fighter jets, most of the components of which will be assembled in the US. What example will Europe show of an informal leader named Germany? If this country chooses American planes again, decades after the scandalous F-104 fighter deals, why should other European countries choose Eurofighter?

The latest fighter is not certified for NATO nuclear missions and is not designed to carry American nuclear bombs. It may not be technically difficult to make, but politically the Eurofighter would not be the plane Americans would like to see with the B-61. Then the Germans would be left without an instrument of military and political weight guaranteed for decades.

Even Masso, a spokesman for the Social Democrats themselves, said such a unilateral move would have the opposite effect in Germany: German diplomats simply would not stay at the negotiating table when it comes to nuclear disarmament. Such procedural issues are of utmost importance to German politicians, as is the fragile coalition agreement with the Christian Democrats, which is currently unfavorable to any party dismantling the coalition.

The Americans did not stay away from the Germans. Trump’s supporter, the U.S. Ambassador to Germany Richard Grenell, has traditionally chastised Berlin for considering abandoning America’s nuclear weapons in an outrageous manner, saying that Germany is failing to deliver on nuclear deterrence policy commitments. of NATO. The United States embassy even recalled the 2016 Warsaw Declaration, in which NATO leaders declared that “the primary objective of NATO’s nuclear capabilities is to preserve peace, prevent violence, and deter aggression.”

Furthermore, NATO leader Jens Stoltenberg himself spoke clearly and recalled that “Berlin would guarantee its strategic role in Alliance decision-making” only if it adheres to the commitments of the nuclear fission program. Such an unequivocal message from the NATO leader was addressed not only to the Germans: he recalled that it is Russia that considers nuclear weapons not as a political tool, but as a part of the military strategy.

“Russia has deployed nuclear-capable missiles in Kaliningrad, just 500 km from Berlin. Russia has threatened its allies, Denmark, Poland and Romania, with nuclear weapons. Russia has illegally seized part of Ukraine, a country whose borders are it had pledged to respect in exchange for Ukraine’s renunciation of nuclear weapons. As long as nuclear weapons exist, NATO will remain a nuclear alliance, “Stoltenberg recalled.

“As long as there are nuclear states in the world that do not want to be part of our community and do not respect our values, we must maintain a strong negotiating position,” said Annegret Kramp-Karrenbauer, Germany’s ruling leader and defense minister, noting that nuclear deterrence and it is the object of bargaining power.

An unexpected offer for Poles

However, the US ambassador to Poland, Georgette Mosbacher, surpassed everyone and said that if Germany tried to “reduce its nuclear potential and weaken NATO, perhaps Poland, which is diligent in its commitments, understands the risks and is in NATO’s east wing, he could take that potential for himself. “

If Germany wants to decrease nuclear capacity and weaken NATO, perhaps Poland, which pays its fair share, understands the risks and is on NATO’s eastern flank, could host the capabilities here: https://t.co/ VIzpHIgoUN

– Georgette Mosbacher (@USAmbPoland) May 15, 2020

Mosbacher’s explosive statement could have sparked a storm, as some commentators said it could have benefited German opponents of nuclear weapons: it has been debated for years as potentially more American weapons, including nuclear weapons or at least wanting to accept Poland now. it is called openly. And so you will have to react. However, in the political turmoil before the presidential elections, Poland managed to resist the temptation and did not publicly respond to the deliberations of the American ambassador.

The experts, as a mat, rebuked such a proposal by the United States. In his article, Steven Pifer, a former US diplomat in Poland and currently a member of the Brookings Non-Proliferation and Arms Control Initiative, warned that transferring US nuclear weapons to Poland would be a bad idea.

First, it would be “a costly and militarily reckless move, as it would make weapons more vulnerable in the event of a pre-emptive strike, would provoke unnecessary provocations and disagreements within NATO.” Steven Pifer.

“Relocation would mean creating special infrastructure, such as installing WS3 underground storage facilities near airplane hangars and other equipment necessary to ensure security. And while this is not a very high cost, the United States and NATO have other more necessary deterrents, “he said.

Furthermore, the security of existing infrastructure is well illustrated by the case of Belgium: In November 2009 and February 2010, Belgian anti-nuclear activists successfully entered the Kleide-Brogel air base in Belgium, where dozens of B bombs are stored. -61, twice. . After several minutes of wandering around the unprotected base, activists even freely entered the hangars, where the nuclear weapons were stored, until they were finally presented to a stranded Belgian soldier with a weapon but not attached to a magazine.

Polish flirting with nuclear weapons resumed 5 years ago after they (belonging to the Soviets and later to Russia) were deported from the country in 1991. Until then, Poland maintained the role of passive observer and in 2010 opposed weapons nuclear power plants on Polish territory, although this, unlike Lithuania, is not prohibited by the constitution.

2015 In December the then Polish Deputy Defense Minister and now Polish NATO Ambassador Tomasz Szatkowski began publicly discussing the possibility of nuclear weapons in Poland, and a few years later the influential Polish politician Jaroslaw Kaczynski spoke about ” European nuclear capabilities. ” In addition, Polish F-16 fighter jets have been participating in nuclear fission program exercises for several years, with training by Poles to accompany and defend Allied aircraft carrying nuclear weapons.

Poland currently has two bases: the 32nd Lasko Air Force Base near Łódź in the center of the country and the 31st Tactical Base near Poznań. Ironically, the last base was established by the Germans during World War II, bombarded by the Americans, and now stationed by American fighters used by Polish pilots. Also, the US Air Force. USA He has deployed a squad at Lasko Air Force Base. However, the infrastructure for nuclear weapons, the certification of Polish aircraft is not only a technical but also a political problem that can cause passions in Poland and its neighbors.

According to S. Pifer, the first important factor for Russia is that Moscow would undoubtedly react to such a transfer of nuclear weapons as a greater provocation than the actions of the United States so far. According to Pifer, this could be equated with the Kremlin’s decision to deploy nuclear-armed missiles in Cuba in 1962, sparking a crisis in the Caribbean that had almost intensified in World War III. In fact, the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs reacted to the proposal of the American ambassador.

“We hope that Washington and Warsaw understand the dangers of such statements,” said Maria Zakharova, spokeswoman for the Russian Foreign Ministry. According to her, this would violate one of the main provisions of the pact signed between NATO and Russia.

This would not be the first time in recent years that the fate of an international treaty would conflict between the interests of the United States and Russia, and ultimately the treaty would collapse: Moscow’s actions collapsed last year in 1987. The Treaty of Forces Medium Range Nuclear (INF) was signed in October, and the United States announced this week its intention to formally withdraw from the Open Skies Treaty.

However, according to Pifer, Russia did not hesitate to react not only to rhetoric, but also to openly strengthen its capabilities, from anti-aircraft defense in Kaliningrad to Iskander ballistic missile complexes, which can be armed with 80-kiloton nuclear warheads and target to bases in Poland. This means that the US B-61 nuclear bombs. USA And its delivery devices, the F-16 fighters and later the F-35, would theoretically be more vulnerable in Poland.

Which solution is beneficial for Lithuania?

On the other hand, Poland, which is modernizing its armed forces, has not accidentally despised Americans as a country to which, at the request of the Poles themselves, more and more American capabilities have been transferred in recent years. Long-term purchases of American weapons, the deployment of troops and equipment, and the development of infrastructure in Poland are increasing the country’s weight in the eyes of the Americans.

And it may no longer matter which administration will be in the White House for the next 4 years or more; further deterioration of German-American relations could lead to a costly but inevitable divorce. And if the United States remains interested in its presence in Europe, Poland’s role could be even stronger in the context of US-NATO relations.

The growing confrontation between the USA. USA And Russia in recent years and the reciprocal withdrawal of bilateral or multilateral agreements show that breaking traditions and long-standing agreements is not impossible, and that even taking into account the situation will worsen.

And although Vilnius is still completely satisfied with the current situation in which the US nuclear weapons. USA Remain where they are, dramatic changes: relocating to Poland would mean Lithuania’s neighbor and historical ally would be even more important in the context of regional security, any attempt to cut Lithuania and other Baltic states through the Suwalki corridor can hang Poland, which, in turn, would be almost a nuclear state.

On the other hand, things could change even more radically, as this country’s left, seeking to eliminate Germany from the nuclear exchange club, realizes that this is not a good time for its traditional opposition to nuclear weapons. . In next fall’s parliamentary elections, German Social Democrats, along with the openly communist radical leftist party Die Linke and the Green Party, hope to form a non-right-wing coalition with Angela Merkel for several years.

In Germany, the image of the United States, and of Donald Trump in particular, is declining, so the public desire to remove the symbols of American power that he dislikes could become not only a pre-election card, but also a way to provoke the American leader himself to take action.

Paradoxically, in 2009, when the United States suspended a missile defense shield project developed in Poland at the time, Washington, despite the pre-Nobel Peace Prize, was still reluctant to have Obama engage in a nuclear weapons debate in Germany. . The divisive policies of the US administration in recent years can provoke precisely such drastic actions.

He has repeatedly threatened to withdraw US capabilities from US allies. USA If those countries no longer contribute financially to the maintenance of American forces, namely D. Trump, he may be tempted to transport the B-61 nuclear bomb from Germany and Europe in general. And this would have a negative effect both on NATO’s deterrence capabilities and, more specifically, on Lithuania’s security situation, as Russia, which has tactical nuclear weapons on its side, would only see more temptations. Ukraine, which renounced nuclear weapons in 1994 and experienced Russian aggression in 2014, was convinced of this.