Connect with us

RussiaFeed

History

Culture

Solzhenitsyn: A HERO in the struggle against Soviet tyranny

Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn was the first man who exposed the horrific Soviet Gulag camps to the world.

Anna Lutskova

Published

on

27 Views

Alexander Solzhenitsyn:

“Violence can only be concealed by a lie, and the lie can only be maintained by violence.”

On July 21, 1994, Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn returned to Moscow after spending 20 years in exile for writing his book “The Gulag Archipelago,” where he described the horror of the Soviet prison camps.

Solzhenitsyn stepped off at Yaroslavsky Station in Moscow and was greeted by thousands of people with flowers and posters that said:

“Thank you Solzhenitsyn! He described our suffering and exposed the Gulag camps to the entire world.”

The Nobel Prize-winning author personally went through everything that he wrote about. A World War II veteran, he spent eight years in a prison camp after being sentenced for criticizing Joseph Stalin in his private letters. After living through the horror system of Stalin’s labor camps, he was the first author to reveal to the West the dreadful realities of the “Gulag” (Chief Administration of Corrective Labor Camps and Colonies).

Solzhenitsyn in Gulag (1953)

The author saw his mission as writing about his experience as a Gulag survivor. In 1962, he published his “One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich,” a novel which gives an account of one day in life of a Gulag prisoner.

The Gulag Archipelago (1918-1956)

In 1973, just after his next most famous book, “The Gulag Archipelago,” was released to the West, Solzhenitsyn was arrested by the KGB, charged with treason, and exiled to the United States. The author’s work was labeled anti-Soviet propaganda.

In 1991, the year the Soviet Union collapsed, Mikhail Gorbachev, the last President of the USSR, dropped the treason changes against Solzhenitsyn and restored his citizenship.

Shortly after arriving back to Moscow, Solzhenitsyn emerged as a critic of Russia’s post-Soviet government, and particularly, of then-President Boris Yeltsin:

“I have concluded Russia is in a very serious condition. There are groans resounding across the country… Nobody expected the way out of communism would be painless, but nobody expected it to be so painful… The government is not fulfilling its duties.”

The Russian White House under tank attack (October 3, 1993)

Solzhenitsyn has expressed dismay that Russia seemed not to want to listen to him. He was so frustrated with “the modern Russia” that he even rejected the Order of St. Andrew the Apostle (the highest civilian award in Russia) presented to him by Yeltsin in 1998 for “outstanding services to the fatherland and for his great contribution to world literature”:

“I cannot accept an award from the supreme authority which brought Russia to its current disastrous state. Under present circumstances, when people hold hunger strikes in order to get their salaries, I cannot accept this award. Maybe after a long time, when Russia finds its way out of its troubles, my sons will be able to receive it in my place.”

Toward the end of his long life full of struggle and unrest, Solzhenitsyn finally found a political system he could embrace: Vladimir Putin’s Russia.

Vladimir Putin visits Alexander Solzhenitsyn in the outskirts of Moscow (2007)

Vladimir Putin about Alexander Solzhenitsyn:

“We are proud that Alexander Solzhenitsyn was our compatriot and contemporary. We will remember him as a strong, courageous person with a great sense of dignity. His activities as a writer and public figure, his entire long, thorny life journey will remain for us a model of true devotion, selfless service to the people, motherland and the ideals of freedom, justice and humaneness.”

His last years the author spent in isolation with his wife Natalya.

Solzhenitsyn and his wife Natalia

The man who survived the revolution, WWII, the Gulag, cancer, KGB persecution, and exile, died on August 3, 2008, at the age of 90.

Solzhenitsyn’s works comprise more than 30 volumes. He was an outstanding writer, a historian, a social philosopher, and the first man who was not afraid to reveal the truth about the monstrous place that was the Gulag.

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Advertisement
24 Comments

24
Leave a Reply

avatar
5 Comment threads
19 Thread replies
0 Followers
 
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
8 Comment authors
my2CentsLe RuscinoRoddy WehrmachtNatylie BaldwinMao Cheng Ji Recent comment authors
  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
Le Ruscino
Guest
Le Ruscino

Bla Bla Bla – Most of what Solzhenitsyn wrote was proved to be a clever fabric of lies & truth. Do the research ! He suited a US propaganda agenda at the time.

Addison DePitt
Guest
Addison DePitt

ABSOLUTELY CORRECT. This was even recognized during his own lifetime, even though, as usual, the Western (pro-capitalist) propaganda noise drowned out the facts. It is also pretty irritating that Russia Feed should be spreading MORE anti-communist propaganda at a moment when the attacks on Russia are already being repackaged by prominent political figures in the US establishment (i.e., Democrat apparatchik Donna Brazile, etc.) as a fight against communism. Russia Feed has lost my trust entirely. As supporters of Russia’s decent, pro-peace internal policies, we will not be dragged into a new cult of anti-sovietism by a media channel that purports… Read more »

my2Cents
Guest
my2Cents

Call me dumb, but when it comes to Russian Gulags I go with a Russian who experienced 7 year of it…rather than a “clever” American who sat on the other side of the globe and “knows better” because he’s “exceptional. Yeah…you know my journalist father ALWAYS told us question the talker. European history does not come from ANY American source. Did you ever live through a war? Spent a few years in a Gulag? Yet you have an opinion. My daughter did her thesis in Europe on WW2Propaganda (most likely because her mother survived it) It makes for very interesting… Read more »

my2Cents
Guest
my2Cents

Oy – And he knew that when he started writing these books stuck in a camp that this would be pleasing to Americans…Yes..and the moon is made of cheese. No clue about war do you.???

my2Cents
Guest
my2Cents

The following appeared in my mailbox but is conspicuously missing from this thread as well as from his own list.. Thus not allowing me to respond ..So this is a private lecture not to be seen by anyone…..Interesting FROM Patrice de Bergeracpas Sorry my2cents but you are simply wrong. And on several important grounds. First, you overrate firsthand experience. You conveniently forget that ideology, temperament and other facts color ALL human perceptions, rendering everything we say or report as truth subjective. What such subjective understanding of reality usually does is blur or massacre the context of history, without which it… Read more »

Roddy Wehrmacht
Guest
Roddy Wehrmacht

So the USSR wasn’t a corrupt totalitarian shithole? That was all just western propaganda then?
Lol.

Le Ruscino
Guest
Le Ruscino

USSR had the same GDP as US so it wasn’t all bad ? Putin put it best when he said “anyone who doesn’t miss the Soviet Union has no soul but anyone who wants to g back there has no brain” – Nothing is Black & White ! But Solzhenistsyn was a clever fraud & a useful idiot for the West.

Doug Brown
Guest
Doug Brown

A very great man. A fearless and prolific writer. I remember reading many of his works as a youth. How noble, a true hero. He and Father Malachi Martin were both tremendously influencial in my development.

Le Ruscino
Guest
Le Ruscino

& a liar !

Doug Brown
Guest
Doug Brown

He is a great man, and a great writer. You are a little man that cannot write.

my2Cents
Guest
my2Cents

Why was he a liar?

Le Ruscino
Guest
Le Ruscino

He wove truth with lies & exaggerations – this was exposed clearly even when he was alive but it sold well to the West & some still does as can be seen by some poorly informed sheep on here.

my2Cents
Guest
my2Cents

In 1945, after criticizing Stalin, he spent 8 years in jails and Gulags after which 3 more years in exile…He lied, you say, according to WHOM? And WHO exposed him?. . The Soviets? When a writer is imprisoned for the things he writes logic tells me he’s stating an inconvenient truth that must not be made known. AND, of course there are always those in a camp/Gulag who, for some incentive/reward, contradict certain statements. There is no black and white during war or in any camps/Gulags. It’s survival. But because the “West” liked his writings he became a liar and… Read more »

Mao Cheng Ji
Guest
Mao Cheng Ji

The image you identify as “The Gulag Archipelago (1918-1956)” is in the wikipedia article for Ebensee (Austria) concentration camp: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ebensee_concentration_camp : “Inmates of Ebensee concentration camp after their liberation by American troops on May 6, 1945 (Photograph by Arnold E. Samuelson)”. Also here, colorized: http://imgur.com/r/ImagesOfThe1940s/iSnq86Y

my2Cents
Guest
my2Cents

The allies had a vast amount of photos and film they used for propaganda purposes. One German doctor saw himself on film “walking among the dead in a Concentration camp” He was never in any concentration camp. He was walking among the dead in Dresden after 3 days and nights of non-stop fire bombings killing around 350,000 people, looking for anyone still alive. Photos of mass graves filled with emaciated bodies claiming to have been starved to death were typical victims of Typhus…. I have seen many fotos of German concentration camps and the picture used in the Wikipedia story… Read more »

Mao Cheng Ji
Guest
Mao Cheng Ji

Oh really, just like that: “most likely”, in your esteemed opinion, eh?

I wonder what Mr Arnold E. Samuelson and his crew of photographers attached to the 80th Infantry Division (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arnold_E._Samuelson ) would’ve said about it…

…not to mention the lawyers working for this organization: https://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/article.php?ModuleId=10006177

my2Cents
Guest
my2Cents

Let me say this….real….slowly… There..is…NOTHING….coming …..from ….ANY….American source…..that…I…believe….about WW2….Read that again. After having survived Nazi occupation and THREE fire bombings by the American Army Air Corps, claiming a faulty atlas, attending bombed out schools watching “Allied” propaganda films I can say that EVERY American photographer accompanying Eisenhower in the camps had their footage used not for historical purposes but solely for propaganda purposes. Read THAT again…….And guess what, the allies committed far worse war crimes and killed far more people than the Germans ever did. Read THAT again . “Most likely” was in error. please read “definitely”. The Holocaust did… Read more »

Mao Cheng Ji
Guest
Mao Cheng Ji

I don’t care what you do or don’t believe; your apparent hobby-horse doesn’t interest me.

All I’m saying is that this photo is completely unrelated to Solzhenitsyn/GULAG, which is the topic here. To publish it here with the caption “The Gulag Archipelago (1918-1956)” is simply dishonest.

my2Cents
Guest
my2Cents

It certainly is not related to Mauthausen. (Ebensee is Mauthausen) nor is it related to Arnold E. Samuelson
Wake up, you are being had…..brainwashed.
You make a patently false claim based on imgur and Wikipedia…seriously?
Did you ever finish school?
But you insist that imgur/wikipedia are better sources than this Russia site.
NO one in ANY German/Austrian Concentration camp dressed like that.
Arnold E. Samuelson did not take this picture (another lie) because he had no access to any Russian Gulag. Research is not imgur or Wiki
Got it now.

Natylie Baldwin
Guest

My first reaction at seeing that photo was that it reminded me more of a Nazi concentration camp than a Gulag camp. I just visited the Gulag Museum in Moscow a couple of months ago and the photos of prisoners and the camps did not have the look in the above photo.

my2Cents
Guest
my2Cents

Does that look like a concentration camp uniform to you?

Natylie Baldwin
Guest

What I’m mainly saying is that it doesn’t look like the Gulag images that I saw.

Frank frivilous
Guest
Frank frivilous

I tend to agree with Solzhenitsyn’s critics, the fact that he was traded to the west and became a popular dissident. But I also think he was courageous in his decision to write his final book “200 years together” exposing the Jewish tyranny in the Soviet Union and elsewhere. This book has yet to be published officially in english particularly in targeted countries like United States. The complete story of our quest for humanity, including that of Solzenitsyn, has yet to be told.

Le Ruscino
Guest
Le Ruscino

Russia Feed is in dire need of employing some genuine Russian academics & historians to avoid publishing more of this horse manure!

Latest

High-ranking Ukrainian official reports on US interference in Ukraine

It is not usually the case that an American media outlet tells the truth about Ukraine, but it appears to have happened here.

Seraphim Hanisch

Published

on

The Hill committed what may well have been a random act of journalism when it reported that Ukrainian Prosecutor General, Yuriy Lutsenko, told Hill.tv’s reporter John Solomon that the American ambassador to that country, Marie Yovanovitch, gave him a “do not prosecute” list at their first meeting.

Normally, all things Russia are covered by the American press as “bad”, and all things Ukraine are covered by the same as “good.” Yet this report reveals quite a bit about the nature of the deeply embedded US interests that are involved in Ukraine, and which also attempt to control and manipulate policy in the former Soviet republic.

The Hill’s piece continues (with our added emphases):

“Unfortunately, from the first meeting with the U.S. ambassador in Kiev, [Yovanovitch] gave me a list of people whom we should not prosecute,” Lutsenko, who took his post in 2016, told Hill.TV last week.

“My response of that is it is inadmissible. Nobody in this country, neither our president nor our parliament nor our ambassador, will stop me from prosecuting whether there is a crime,” he continued.

Indeed, the Prosecutor General appears to be a man of some principles. When this report was brought to the attention of the US State Department, the response was predictable:

The State Department called Lutsenko’s claim of receiving a do not prosecute list, “an outright fabrication.” 

“We have seen reports of the allegations,” a department spokesperson told Hill.TV. “The United States is not currently providing any assistance to the Prosecutor General’s Office (PGO), but did previously attempt to support fundamental justice sector reform, including in the PGO, in the aftermath of the 2014 Revolution of Dignity. When the political will for genuine reform by successive Prosecutors General proved lacking, we exercised our fiduciary responsibility to the American taxpayer and redirected assistance to more productive projects.”

This is an amazing statement in itself. “Our fiduciary responsibility to the American taxpayer”? Are Americans even aware that their country is spending their tax dollars in an effort to manipulate a foreign government in what can probably well be called a low-grade proxy war with the Russian Federation? Again, this appears to be a slip, as most American media do a fair job of maintaining the narrative that Ukraine is completely independent and that its actions regarding the United States and Russia are taken in complete freedom.

Hill.TV has reached out to the U.S. Embassy in Ukraine for comment.

Lutsenko also said that he has not received funds amounting to nearly $4 million that the U.S. Embassy in Ukraine was supposed to allocate to his office, saying that “the situation was actually rather strange” and pointing to the fact that the funds were designated, but “never received.”

“At that time we had a case for the embezzlement of the U.S. government technical assistance worth 4 million U.S. dollars, and in that regard, we had this dialogue,” he said. “At that time, [Yovanovitch] thought that our interviews of Ukrainian citizens, of Ukrainian civil servants, who were frequent visitors of the U.S. Embassy put a shadow on that anti-corruption policy.”

“Actually, we got the letter from the U.S. Embassy, from the ambassador, that the money that we are speaking about [was] under full control of the U.S. Embassy, and that the U.S. Embassy did not require our legal assessment of these facts,” he said. “The situation was actually rather strange because the funds we are talking about were designated for the prosecutor general’s office also and we told [them] we have never seen those, and the U.S. Embassy replied there was no problem.”

“The portion of the funds, namely 4.4 million U.S. dollars were designated and were foreseen for the recipient Prosecutor General’s office. But we have never received it,” he said.

Yovanovitch previously served as the U.S. ambassador to Armenia under former presidents Obama and George W. Bush, as well as ambassador to Kyrgyzstan under Bush. She also served as ambassador to Ukraine under Obama.

Former Rep. Pete Sessions (R-Texas), who was at the time House Rules Committee chairman, voiced concerns about Yovanovitch in a letter to the State Department last year in which he said he had proof the ambassador had spoken of her “disdain” for the Trump administration.

This last sentence may be a way to try to narrow the scope of American interference in Ukraine down to the shenanigans of just a single person with a personal agenda. However, many who have followed the story of Ukraine and its surge in anti-Russian rhetoric, neo-Naziism, ultra-nationalism, and the most recent events surrounding the creation of a pseudo-Orthodox “church” full of Ukrainian nationalists and atheists as a vehicle to import “Western values” into a still extremely traditional and Christian land, know that there are fingerprints of the United States “deep state” embeds all over this situation.

It is somewhat surprising that so much that reveals the problem showed up in just one report. It will be interesting to see if this gets any follow-up in the US press.

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Continue Reading

Latest

President Putin signs law blocking fake news, but the West makes more

Western media slams President Putin and his fake news law, accusing him of censorship, but an actual look at the law reveals some wisdom.

Seraphim Hanisch

Published

on

The TASS Russian News Agency reported on March 18th that Russian President Vladimir Putin signed off on a new law intended to block distorted or untrue information being reported as news. Promptly after he did so, Western news organizations began their attempt to “spin” this event as some sort of proof of “state censorship” in the oppressive sense of the old Soviet Union. In other words, a law designed to prevent fake news was used to create more fake news.

One of the lead publications is a news site that is itself ostensibly a “fake news” site. The Moscow Times tries to portray itself as a Russian publication that is conducted from within Russian borders. However, this site and paper is really a Western publication, run by a Dutch foundation located in the Netherlands. As such, the paper and the website associated have a distinctly pro-West slant in their reporting. Even Wikipedia noted this with this comment from their entry about the publication:

In the aftermath of the Ukrainian crisis, The Moscow Times was criticized by a number of journalists including Izvestia columnist Israel Shamir, who in December 2014 called it a “militant anti-Putin paper, a digest of the Western press with extreme bias in covering events in Russia”.[3] In October 2014 The Moscow Times made the decision to suspend online comments after an increase in offensive comments. The paper said it disabled comments for two reasons—it was an inconvenience for its readers as well as being a legal liability, because under Russian law websites are liable for all content, including user-generated content like comments.[14]

This bias is still notably present in what is left of the publication, which is now an online-only news source. This is some of what The Moscow Times had to say about the new fake news legislation:

The bills amending existing information laws overwhelmingly passed both chambers of Russian parliament in less than two months. Observers and some lawmakers have criticized the legislation for its vague language and potential to stifle free speech.

The legislation will establish punishments for spreading information that “exhibits blatant disrespect for the society, government, official government symbols, constitution or governmental bodies of Russia.”

Insulting state symbols and the authorities, including Putin, will carry a fine of up to 300,000 rubles and 15 days in jail for repeat offenses.

As is the case with other Russian laws, the fines are calculated based on whether the offender is a citizen, an official or a legal entity.

More than 100 journalists and public figures, including human rights activist Zoya Svetova and popular writer Lyudmila Ulitskaya, signed a petition opposing the laws, which they labeled “direct censorship.”

This piece does give a bit of explanation from Dmitry Peskov, showing that European countries also have strict laws governing fake news distribution. However, the Times made the point of pointing out the idea of “insulting governmental bodies of Russia… including Putin” to bolster their claim that this law amounts to real censorship of the press. It developed its point of view based on a very short article from Reuters which says even less about the legislation and how it works.

However, TASS goes into rather exhaustive detail about this law, and it also gives rather precise wording on the reason for the law’s passage, as well as how it is to be enforced. We include most of this text here, with emphases added:

Russian President Vladimir Putin has signed a law on blocking untrue and distorting information (fake news). The document was posted on the government’s legal information web portal.

The document supplements the list of information, the access to which may be restricted on the demand by Russia’s Prosecutor General or his deputies. In particular, it imposes a ban on “untrue publicly significant information disseminated in the media and in the Internet under the guise of true reports, which creates a threat to the life and (or) the health of citizens, property, a threat of the mass violation of public order and (or) public security, or the threat of impeding or halting the functioning of vital infrastructural facilities, transport or social infrastructure, credit institutions, energy, industrial or communications facilities.”

Pursuant to the document, in case of finding such materials in Internet resources registered in accordance with the Russian law on the mass media as an online media resource, Russia’s Prosecutor General or his deputies will request the media watchdog Roskomnadzor to restrict access to the corresponding websites.

Based on this request, Roskomnadzor will immediately notify the editorial board of the online media resource, which is in violation of the legislation, about the need to remove untrue information and the media resource will be required to delete such materials immediately. If the editorial board fails to take the necessary measures, Roskomnadzor will send communications operators “a demand to take measures to restrict access to the online resource.”

In case of deleting such untrue information, the website owner will notify Roskomnadzor thereof, following which the media watchdog will “hold a check into the authenticity of this notice” and immediately inform the communications operator about the resumption of the access to the information resource.
The conditions for the law are very specific, as are the penalties for breaking it. TASS continued:

Liability for breaching the law

Simultaneously, the Federation Council approved the associated law with amendments to Russia’s Code of Administrative Offences, which stipulates liability in the form of penalties of up to 1.5 million rubles (around $23,000) for the spread of untrue and distorting information.

The Code’s new article, “The Abuse of the Freedom of Mass Information,” stipulates liability for disseminating “deliberately untrue publicly significant information” in the media or in the Internet. The penalty will range from 30,000 rubles ($450) to 100,000 rubles ($1,520) for citizens, from 60,000 rubles ($915) to 200,000 rubles ($3,040) for officials and from 200,000 rubles to 500,000 rubles ($7,620) for corporate entities with the possible confiscation of the subject of the administrative offence.

Another element of offence imposes tighter liability for the cases when the publication of false publicly significant information has resulted in the deaths of people, has caused damage to the health or property, prompted the mass violation of public order and security or has caused disruption to the functioning of transport or social infrastructure facilities, communications, energy and industrial facilities and banks. In such instances, the fines will range from 300,000 rubles to 400,000 rubles ($6,090) for citizens, from 600,000 rubles to 900,000 rubles ($13,720) for officials, and from 1 million rubles to 1.5 million rubles for corporate entities.

While this legislation can be spun (and is) in the West as anti-free speech, one may also consider the damage that has taken place in the American government through a relentless attack of fake news from most US news outlets against President Trump. One of the most notable effects of this barrage has been to further degrade and destroy the US’ relationship with the Russian Federation, because even the Helsinki Summit was attacked so badly that the two leaders have not been able to get a second summit together.

While it is certainly a valued right of the American press to be unfettered by Congress, and while it is also certainly vital to criticize improper practices by government officials, the American news agencies have gone far past that, to deliberately dishonest attacks, based in innuendo and everything possible that was formerly only the province of gossip tabloid publications. The effort has been to defame the President, not to give proper or due criticism to his policies, nor credit. It can be properly stated that the American press has abused its freedom of late.

This level of abuse drew a very unusual comment from the US president, who wondered on Twitter about the possibility of creating a state-run media center in the US to counter fake news:

Politically correct for US audiences? No. But an astute point?

Definitely.

Freedom in anything also presumes that those with that freedom respect it, and further, that they respect and apply the principle that slandering people and institutions for one’s own personal, business or political gain is wrong. Implied in the US Constitution’s protection of the press is the notion that the press itself, as the rest of the country, is accountable to a much Higher Authority than the State. But when that Authority is rejected, as so much present evidence suggests, then freedom becomes the freedom to misbehave and to agitate. It appears largely within this context that the Russian law exists, based on the text given.

Further, by hitting dishonest media outlets in their pocketbook, rather than prison sentences, the law appears to be very smart in its message: “Do not lie. If you do, you will suffer where it counts most.”

Considering that news media’s purpose is to make money, this may actually be a very smart piece of legislation.

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Continue Reading

Latest

US continues to try to corner Russia with silence on Nukes

Moscow continues to be patient in what appears to be an ever more lopsided, intentional stonewalling situation provoked by the Americans.

Seraphim Hanisch

Published

on

TASS reported on March 17th that despite Russian readiness to discuss the present problem of strategic weapons deployments and disarmament with its counterparts in the United States, the Americans have not offered Russia any proposals to conduct such talks.

The Kremlin has not yet received any particular proposals on the talks over issues of strategic stability and disarmament from Washington, Russian Presidential Spokesman Dmitry Peskov told TASS on Sunday when commenting on the statement made by US National Security Adviser John Bolton who did not rule out that such talks could be held with Russia and China.

“No intelligible proposals has been received [from the US] so far,” Peskov said.

Earlier Bolton said in an interview with radio host John Catsimatidis aired on Sunday that he considers it reasonable to include China in the negotiation on those issues with Russia as well.

“China is building up its nuclear capacity now. It’s one of the reasons why we’re looking at strengthening our national missile defense system here in the United States. And it’s one reason why, if we’re going to have another arms control negotiation, for example, with the Russians, it may make sense to include China in that discussion as well,” he said.

Mr. Bolton’s sense about this particular aspect of any arms discussions is correct, as China was not formerly a player in geopolitical affairs the way it is now. The now all-but-scrapped Intermediate Range Nuclear Forces Treaty, or INF, was a treaty concluded by the US and the USSR leaders Ronald Reagan and Mikhail Gorbachev, back in 1987. However, for in succeeding decades, most notably since the fall of the Soviet Union, the US has been gradually building up weaponry in what appears to be an attempt to create a ring around the Russian Federation, a situation which is understandably increasingly untenable to the Russian government.

Both sides have accused one another of violating this treaty, and the mutual violations and recriminations on top of a host of other (largely fabricated) allegations against the Russian government’s activities led US President Donald Trump to announce his nation’s withdrawal from the treaty, formally suspending it on 1 February. Russian President Vladimir Putin followed suit by suspending it the very next day.

The INF eliminated all of both nations’ land based ballistic and cruise missiles that had a range between 500 and 1000 kilometers (310-620 miles) and also those that had ranges between 1000 and 5500 km (620-3420 miles) and their launchers.

This meant that basically all the missiles on both sides were withdrawn from Europe’s eastern regions – in fact, much, if not most, of Europe was missile-free as the result of this treaty. That is no longer the case today, and both nations’ accusations have provoked re-development of much more advanced systems than ever before, especially true considering the Russian progress into hypersonic and nuclear powered weapons that offer unlimited range.

This situation generates great concern in Europe, such that the UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres called on both Moscow and Washington to salvage the INF and extend the Treaty on Measures for the Further Reduction and Limitation of Strategic Offensive Arms, or the New START as it is known.

“I call on the parties to the INF Treaty to use the time remaining to engage in sincere dialogue on the various issues that have been raised. It is very important that this treaty is preserved,” Guterres said at a session of the Conference on Disarmament in Geneva on Monday.

He stressed that the demise of that accord would make the world more insecure and unstable, which “will be keenly felt in Europe.” “We simply cannot afford to return to the unrestrained nuclear competition of the darkest days of the Cold War,” he said.

Guterres also urged the US and Russia to extend the START Treaty, which expires in 2021, and explore the possibility of further reducing their nuclear arsenals. “I also call on the United States and the Russian Federation to extend the so-called New START Treaty before it expires in 2021,” he said.

The UN chief recalled that the treaty “is the only international legal instrument limiting the size of the world’s two largest nuclear arsenals” and that its inspection provisions “represent important confidence-building measures that benefit the entire world.”

Guterres recalled that the bilateral arms control process between Russia and the US “has been one of the hallmarks of international security for fifty years.”

“Thanks to their efforts, global stockpiles of nuclear weapons are now less than one-sixth of what they were in 1985,” the UN secretary-general pointed out.

The Treaty between the United States of America and the Russian Federation on Measures for the Further Reduction and Limitation of Strategic Offensive Arms (the New START Treaty) entered into force on February 5, 2011. The document stipulates that seven years after its entry into effect each party should have no more than a total of 700 deployed intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBM), submarine-launched ballistic missiles (SLBM) and strategic bombers, as well as no more than 1,550 warheads on deployed ICBMs, deployed SLBMs and strategic bombers, and a total of 800 deployed and non-deployed ICBM launchers, SLBM launchers and strategic bombers. The new START Treaty obliges the parties to exchange information on the number of warheads and carriers twice a year.

The new START Treaty will remain in force during 10 years until 2021, unless superseded by a subsequent agreement. It may be extended for a period of no more than five years (that is, until 2026) upon the parties’ mutual consent. Moscow has repeatedly called on Washington not to delay the issue of extending the Treaty.

 

 

 

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Continue Reading

JOIN OUR YOUTUBE CHANNEL

Your donations make all the difference. Together we can expose fake news lies and deliver truth.

Amount to donate in USD$:

5 100

Validating payment information...
Waiting for PayPal...
Validating payment information...
Waiting for PayPal...
Advertisement

Advertisement

Quick Donate

The Duran
EURO
DONATE
Donate a quick 10 spot!
Advertisement
Advertisement

Advertisement

The Duran Newsletter

Trending