Siberian political analysts have reacted skeptically to Donald Trump's proposal for universal disarmament of nuclear weapons.
President Trump stated that the U.S. administration would like to discuss the issue of denuclearization with Russia and China. He noted that during his first term, he addressed this matter with Moscow and Beijing and intends to renew such consultations. In this regard, the news agency "Teleinform" gathered comments from Siberian political scientists.
Political scientist and Candidate of Historical Sciences Sergey Schmidt urged Trump to reconsider:
— For 22 years, I have been teaching international relations students the discipline of 'International Security,' where we examine the subject of nuclear weapons. In particular, we discuss Article VI of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons from 1968, where the treaty participants – and let me emphasize that we are concerned here with nuclear-armed countries – commit 'in the spirit of goodwill to engage in negotiations… on a treaty for general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control.' I would note that at all review conferences of the participants in the nuclear non-proliferation regime, based on the aforementioned treaty, which occur every five years, non-nuclear states ask nuclear states what progress is being made toward complete nuclear disarmament. The responses are either diplomatic silence or vague diplomatic mumbling.
For 22 years, I have posed the question to my students: does anyone believe that one day nuclear states will renounce their nuclear weapons? Throughout this time, not a single hand has been raised. Occasionally, comments arise suggesting that if such a thing is possible, it would only occur in the aftermath of the invention of more horrific weapons of mass destruction than nuclear arms.
In summary, Trump’s statements are empty political chatter. Nothing of the sort will happen because it cannot happen – miracles do not exist. Moreover, nuclear weapons serve not only as instruments of mass destruction but also as the most effective guarantee against mass casualties, in the sense of preventing global wars akin to World War I and World War II. Yes, the weapon capable of annihilating millions has saved the lives of many millions during the Cold War and continues to do so. Nuclear-armed countries do not engage in war with one another, although I must acknowledge they do venture into proxy wars and dangerous provocations against each other. Nevertheless, they do not go to war. If Trump does not understand this, I believe Putin or Xi could explain it to him.
Why does the American president engage in empty rhetoric? I suspect it is a reflection of his eccentric and theatrical nature; he cannot contain himself. Frankly, were I in Trump’s position, I would not pursue this path. He articulates very sensible ideas, and people around the world look upon him with hope—not just conservative homophobes but also those who believe he, as a pragmatic realist, might help curtail the military madness in Ukraine (I am a typical representative of those yearning for an end to the bloodshed).
When this pragmatic realist begins to throw out evidently utopian ideas, trust in his words, position, and actions diminishes. Trump should refrain from exhibiting any form of empty idealism; it is not his style, it does not aid the cause of peace, and it damages his carefully curated image. Overall, I hope Trump’s aides will convey my comments in “Teleinform” to him, so he understands he has veered off course.
Political scientist and deputy editor-in-chief of the newspaper "Mои года," Yuri Pronin, also believes that Trump presents a beautiful fairy tale:
— Trump’s musings on the necessity of denuclearization are fundamentally positive. However, a complete renunciation of nuclear weapons is a highly contentious idea in today’s world. Such a renunciation would require stringent measures of coercion and control not only among nuclear states but over all other nations. This is necessary to ensure that no one is tempted to acquire or regain such weapons, thus obtaining an immediate advantage over others.
Secondly, without a powerful deterrent, such as nuclear arsenals, the likelihood of localized armed conflicts increases, along with the belief that they can be won without the threat of total annihilation. If you attack a state that does not possess a nuclear shield, neither do its allies, you feel more secure, as total retaliation is no longer a concern.
Thus, Trump’s words in the current situation are akin to a beautiful, benevolent fairy tale that may appeal to unwary voters (which, after all, is what Trump needs). Additionally, the accompanying phrase about the 2020 elections being fraudulent is discordant. It is not a matter of banning personal opinions: were Trump not in the White House, he could deny the legitimacy of the 2020 elections to his heart’s content. However, as the head of state, he undermines public trust in the country’s law enforcement system with such statements, which is absolutely irresponsible behavior for a president."
Former Chairman of the IRO PARNAS, Mikhail Vasilyev, sees no future for such ideas:
— In recent years, nuclear weapons have proven to be an effective tool for influencing international security, unlike any other means. Regardless of Donald Trump’s intentions, the coming decade is likely to be characterized by a sentiment expressed by Golda Meir: 'We do not have nuclear weapons, but if necessary, we will use them.' This reflects the reconfiguration of the global security system that we have witnessed in recent years, including the involvement of the United States. There are times when politicians declare one goal but achieve completely opposite results. While I would prefer not to believe this, logic suggests that such an outcome is the most probable.
