PICTURED: Four B-61 nuclear free-fall bombs at Barksdale Air Force Base, the same ones as those currently stationed in Germany.

Story at a glance…

• The new incoming German parliament ran and won on a platform that included removing NATO nuclear weapons from the country.

• Sec.-General Stoltenberg recently pressured Germany to remain a party to the nuclear-sharing responsibility.

• He later admitted they could be moved “east of Germany” potentially onto the border states with Russia.

BERLIN, Germany. November 19th, 2021. NATO is pressing the incoming ruling coalition party in Germany to continue hosting NATO-nuclear weapons, but admitted they could be moved to countries bordering Russia if the Social Democrat/Green Party base follows through on earlier nuclear disarmament commitments.

Both parties’ election platforms called for an end to Germany’s participation in the NATO-sponsored nuclear determent, and key members have previously stated they want to enter into the UN Nuclear Ban treaty as an observer

NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg said at a speech in Berlin that Germany had a “special responsibility” to maintain her position as a lynchpin in European security, and that the 15 or perhaps 20 B-61 nuclear gravity bombs she has stationed at Buchel Airforce Base “provide European allies with an effective nuclear umbrella”.

‘’It is for Germany to decide whether there’s nuclear weapons in [the] country but the alternative is we end up with nuclear weapons in other countries of Europe, also to the east of Germany,’’ he went on to say.

Social Democrat Party parliamentary whip and leader of the party’s leftwing, Rolf Mützenich confirmed on October 31st that he ultimately wants to get “these things” out of Germany – “preferably as soon as possible”.

Among the countries the Sec.-General could be referring to include Latvia, Poland, Lithuania, and Estonia, all of whom border Russia, Romania and Bulgaria are located across the Black Sea from Russia.

East of Germany

“Germany is currently one of five countries that hold U.S. B-61 tactical nuclear weapons; there was a 6th, the UK, and they backed out of that arrangement 20 years ago. So there is a precedent,” says Rick Rozoff, an expert in NATO policy at Anti-bellum.

In June through to July of 2020, the Trump Administration’s foreign policy for the region involved a shift of 9,500 U.S. soldiers out of Germany, which eventually increased to 12,000 soldiers, 5,600 of which were repositioned to Belgium, Italy, and Poland. Polish officials at the time were beaming with the idea of hosting the U.S. forces.

“The real danger lurks across the eastern border, so moving US troops to NATO’s eastern flank will be a security boost to all of Europe,” Mateusz Morawiecki, the country’s prime minister, said in a radio interview according to The Guardian.

By that logic, deploying nuclear weapons to Poland follows. However the situation on the border of Poland and Belarus where the latter, a key Russian ally, has been accused of funneling Syrian migrants into Poland in retaliation for U.S. sanctions, means that the B-61s would be relocated to one of the two most-sensitive regions in Europe.

The Belarusian president Aleksandr Lukashenko recently pointed out to national press: “You have to understand that if we start a war here in Belarus, NATO and Russia will get involved. It will be a nuclear war”.

Meanwhile Prime Minister Morawiecki recently-traveled to Tallinn, Estonia, for a meeting with this Lithuanian and Estonian counterparts, where he claimed his country was the victim of “hybrid attack,” by Russia.

“What might appear on the surface to be a victory for the peace movement—Germany no longer agreeing to allow the basing of nuclear weapons in their territory, might actually be catastrophic if it results in those bombs being relocated closer to Russia,” Rozoff told WaL.

Continue exploring this topic — Nuclear Weapons — Migrant Crisis Leads to Nuclear-Capable Bombers Prowling NATO/Belarus Border

Continue exploring this topic — China — Apathetic Taiwanese Military Unready and Unwilling to Defend Against China

Continue exploring this topic — Military Industrial Complex — $14 Trillion Spent on “Defense” Since the Start of Afghanistan War — $4.4 Trillion to Arms Firms