A US/NATO plot to break up Russia? Wall St. Journal disproves the claim.

WSWS (and probably others on the Putinized “left”) argues that Prigozhin’s revolt was part of a US plot to break up Russia. Completely aside from the fact that there is not a shred of evidence of US involvement, this claim flies in the face of reality: US strategists are very concerned about nuclear proliferation and the danger of rogue actors getting their hands on nuclear weapons. That concern includes a possible breakup of Russia and who knows who getting ahold of such weapons. Today’s Wall St. Journal carries two articles that make that clear. The first, explains the concern of Russia becoming a “wild card”.  The key sentences are: “No question, it will put the question of regime stability front and center,” said Ian Lesser, vice president of the German Marshall Fund, an international think tank. Foremost among concerns will be the predictability of Russian military command and control, particularly regarding the safety of nuclear weapons.

He said that while the events won’t lessen Western commitment to Ukraine’s security, they may introduce ‘concern that a less-stable regime would take a more cavalier approach to questions of escalation and risk-reduction, because it is a question of regime survival.”’

A second article about “US fears of over control of Russia’s Nuclear weapons” lays it out equally clearly: “While U.S. and Western officials see Putin as a nemesis, none want to see a breakdown in order that could jeopardize the security of the world’s most dangerous weapons.”

I suppose the Putinized left would argue that articles like these are just propaganda meant to cover the US’s tracks, but the Wall St. Journal doesn’t work that way. Its news articles are meant to inform the capitalist class itself. This article is a straight up reporting of some facts as the WSJ understands them. It is confirmed by history – the fact that when Ukraine separated from Russia the US negotiated a deal for the return to Russia of the nuclear weapons kept in Ukraine. Their reason then was they understood that nuclear proliferation meant an increased danger that some lunatic would actually use a nuclear weapon. It’s something similar now.

Categories: Uncategorized, war

Leave a Reply