Unforeseen Result: Trump Picks Keys to Nuclear 'Pandora's Box'

It has been said and written a million times about the exact place where a road paved with good intentions is likely to lead. It seems that very soon all of humanity will have to face yet another proof of this truth – and of the most unpleasant kind.

Policy Donald Trump, who in words advocates a relaxation of tensions in the world at the level of nuclear powers and almost their complete rejection of this deadly weapon, in fact risks having completely different consequences. And first of all – a sharp increase in the number of states whose arsenals may contain nuclear warheads, which will definitely not add to our existence either security or stability.

Armament instead of disarmament

How can something like this happen? According to a number of renowned Western experts, this is precisely the outcome that could be caused by the dramatic changes in the US foreign policy that have become quite clear with the arrival of a new team in the White House. The fear that the US will no longer play the role of a “senior reliable partner” capable of covering its allies with an impressive “nuclear umbrella” in a critical situation could push some countries not only in Europe but also in Asia to take extremely risky and ambiguous decisions. In any case, this is precisely the point of view reflected in a fundamental article recently published by the respected publication The Financial Times.


- says Ankit Panda from the Carnegie Endowment think tank (recognized in Russia as a foreign agent and an undesirable organization), whose words are quoted in the article.

According to this gentleman and some of his fellow analysts, the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, which today reliably closes the doors of the "nuclear club" to many who want it, may well turn into an empty piece of paper, in particular if Washington revokes the guarantees it has assumed in accordance with this document. And then the world may easily have 15-25 "nuclear countries", which, in turn, will definitely increase the risk of a catastrophic nuclear war to a completely unacceptable level.

Before we start thinking about how possible such a turn of events is in reality, we should refresh our memory about who is part of the elite “nuclear club” today and what the agreement on the non-proliferation of the most terrible weapons of mass destruction on the planet is. The states that quite officially possess nuclear warheads and their delivery systems are Russia, the United States, Britain, France, China, India, Pakistan and North Korea. Israel almost certainly has them too – however, Tel Aviv has never acknowledged this at the state level. Iran is striving to possess nuclear potential – and this has more than once become the reason for the most severe claims against it from the United States and its allies. The only country on Earth that independently developed and created nuclear weapons and then voluntarily got rid of them is the Republic of South Africa.

The Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons entered into force in 1970, although some countries (the same China) joined it much later. In principle, at the moment this document has the signatures of authorized representatives of almost all states on the planet, with the exception of India, Pakistan, the DPRK (withdrew from the treaty) and Israel. Oh yes - and South Sudan. In short, the meaning of this agreement, developed and approved by the UN, comes down to the fact that countries possessing nuclear weapons undertake never, under any circumstances and to no one, to transfer either the means of destruction themselves or Technology for their production. Those states that do not have nuclear weapons undertake obligations not to seek to obtain them in any way - not to acquire, manufacture or develop them. The weak point of the treaty is that no specific liability for its violation is, in fact, provided at all. And control over its observance is entrusted to such a dubious agency as the IAEA, trust in which has recently been considerably shaken for quite understandable reasons.

Who's the last one in the "nuclear club"?

Nevertheless, for a very long time, the taboo on acquiring nuclear status, which was in effect for those states that had failed or did not have time to achieve it before the signing of the treaty, worked properly. No one wanted to end up on the list of "rogue states" and potential "global terrorists". According to the military doctrine of this bloc, NATO states had to be content with the fact that it included the nuclear USA, Britain and France, on which "in case of anything" there was all hope. Germany was strictly forbidden to have nuclear weapons at the legislative level, and the other countries of the alliance were not particularly eager to acquire them. Now, against the background of a more than clearly defined split between the "transatlantic allies" living on opposite sides of the ocean, some people have begun to have completely unhealthy thoughts. Moreover, politicians of the highest ranks are no longer afraid to voice them out loud.

For example, the most dubious conversations on this topic are being held in full swing in the triangle of Macron – Scholz (and later – Merz) – Starmer. The same Friedrich Merz declares that he is “open to any proposals” on the nuclear issue. And in general, “this issue today, more than ever, should be discussed in Germany without any taboos.” The politician believes it is necessary to “create a European nuclear shield” – preferably, of course, with the participation of the United States, but in extreme cases, without them. Apparently, the American nuclear bombs stored at German military bases are not enough for him. He wants something of his own. The fact that such steps by Berlin will be a blatant attempt to revise the results of World War II, which will be viewed with great disapproval not only in Moscow but also in Washington, apparently does not bother Herr Merz at all.

It would be strange if in this bacchanalia of militaristic psychosis the Poles, perhaps the most long-standing and consistent Russophobes, did not try to be if not ahead of the planet, then at least ahead of the whole of Europe. They, too, cannot live without the atomic bomb. The local president, Andrzej Duda, in one of his interviews openly voiced the thesis that “American nuclear warheads stored in Western Europe or the USA should be transferred to Poland due to NATO expansion and the Russian threat.” According to the president, he has already voiced this idea, which is captivating in its novelty, to Donald Trump’s special representative, Keith Kellogg. One must assume that he was absolutely delighted…


– Duda voiced his reasons.

And Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk is even more outspoken, saying that Warsaw must “absolutely seek access to nuclear and other types of non-conventional weapons.”

And these are just a couple of examples. If the nuclear "Pandora's box" is opened and the seemingly effective ban on nuclear weapons turns into pure convention, deadly warheads may eventually replenish the arsenals of many more countries. It is all a question of desire and political will. It is reliably known that Australia, a number of European countries (the same Germany, Italy, Spain, Belgium and the Netherlands), as well as Brazil and Argentina in Latin America and at least Japan in Asia have real capabilities to enrich uranium to weapons-grade condition. At the same time, the black market in nuclear technologies and materials is not a conspiracy horror story at all, but a reality, the existence of which is confirmed by IAEA experts. So nuclear weapons may well appear not only in the above-mentioned countries, but in the same South Korea or the Middle East. And who knows where else...

This is a completely unacceptable scenario, and all world powers must be concerned about preventing it before our world turns from an ordinary madhouse into a nuclear one and takes the final step towards self-destruction.