​
Back from the Brink
We express our support for the Five Points of "Back from the Brink" which are:
​
-
Renouncing the option of using nuclear weapons first
-
Ending the sole, unchecked authority of any U.S. president to launch a nuclear attack
-
Taking U.S. nuclear weapons off hair-trigger alert
-
Cancelling the plan to replace its entire nuclear arsenal with enhanced weapons
-
Actively pursuing a verifiable agreement among nuclear-armed states to eliminate their nuclear arsenals
​​
​
Ukraine sovereignty threatens the entire planet
By Richard J. Ochs
If a sovereign Ukraine is allowed to place U.S. nuclear missiles aimed at and nearer to Moscow than the U.S. missiles already in Turkey, Italy, Romania, and on U.S. submarines in the Baltic and Black seas, it will risk global catastrophe.
As distance and warning time decrease, the probability of nuclear war, by accident, miscalculation or first strike, increases. Fifteen minutes is not enough warning time for anyone to verify if reports of incoming missiles are accurate. Hence, a threatened nation must launch their retaliation missiles before they are destroyed. Proximity heightens the “use them or lose them” danger. The U.S. has the same protocol. Putin warned the U.S. of this before he was forced to invade Ukraine. The U.S. “Big Lie” is that Russia is not provoked.
Ironically, Russia’s aggression is protecting the earth from a high risk of annihilation. The U.S. demanded a safety buffer zone in 1962 when JFK illegally blocked Soviet missiles in Cuba. For the sake of the planet, Russia needs a similar nuclear safety zone. Ukraine must not be allowed the sovereignty to put the world at risk. Ukraine must not be allowed to join NATO, but the recent NATO conference predicted otherwise.
The U.S. aggression in 1962 was more dangerous to the world than the Russian aggression in Ukraine now. The U.S. naval blockade in international waters was an illegal act of war and could have touched off nuclear war.
If Nikita Khrushchev had not retreated in 1962, the U.S. was prepared to illegally invade Cuba, which would have sparked a bloody war of resistance like in Ukraine. Now it is NATO’s turn to match the Soviet favor to humanity, or is the U.S. less humane and less rational than the Soviets were?
For the sake of the planet, NATO needs to retreat like Khrushchev did and make a compromise deal with Russia to allow the Russian-speaking population in eastern Ukraine the choice to be allied with Russia. After all, Eastern Ukraine was part of Russia for 207 years. Catherine the Great of Russia won Donbass and Crimea from the Ottoman Empire in 1783. The residents of Donbass and Crimea voted to return to Russia in 2023.
While those residents may be motivated to end their oppression by the Kiev regime, the rest of the world has a great interest in avoiding a global nuclear holocaust if the U.S. gets a closer nuclear missile proximity on hair-trigger after refusing a no-first-strike pledge.
Risking global annihilation is a lot worse than Ukraine losing national sovereignty. While Article One of the UN Charter prohibits acts of aggression, Article Two prohibits threats of force, which applies to NATO’s encirclement of Russia with nuclear missiles after taking the world to the precipice of destruction in 1962 to prevent a lesser threat.
​
​
​
​
​
