Washington has made Brussels another offer the Europeans are too slavish to refuse even if it paints a giant target on their backs

There's an old treaty that, if you have signed up to it, says that you can't spread nuclear weapons. So, if you don't have any nukes and you sign the treaty, you can't get any. Simple as that. You'd think.

But leave it to the West, with all its 'values' and 'rules-based order' to, you know, not really break the rules. Just bend them a little. Bend them so much, in fact, that just breaking them would be more honest and less embarrassing.

The agreement we are talking about is, of course, the 1968Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT), according to theInternational Atomic Energy Agency"the centerpiece" - no less - of much that is good, beautiful, and eminently reasonable. Namely "global efforts to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons, to promote cooperation in the peaceful uses of nuclear energy and to further the goal of nuclear disarmament and general and complete disarmament." Germany, for instance, is a long-standing signatory.

And yet, Germany and five other NPT signatories who belong to America's NATO client system have nuclear gravity bombs on their (formally, at least) sovereign territory, and their air forces stand ready to carry them to targets which would be - surprise, surprise - in Russia. The little piece of shyster-level legal sophistry used to cover for this obvious breach of the Non-Proliferation Treaty is called - wait for it - "Nuclear Sharing." Sweet, isn't it? The world - or, perhaps, just Europe - may end in a man-made big bang of fire and fallout, but, as they say in kindergarten 'sharing is caring.'

By the way, it is obvious - and would have been to men such as Clausewitz,York(both with some serious delay,admittedly), or Bismarck - that, for instance, German officers worth their salt would have to prepare secret emergency plans for rapidly seizing those nuclear weapons on German territory from our American 'allies.' Without bloodshed, if possible; or with, if necessary.

One very bad day, that may well be the only way to save Germany from getting its very own 'end of history' by being burned to irradiated cinders in a 'limited' nuclear war waged on behalf of one or another set of madmen - or women or whatever non-binary option then in power, of course - in Washington. A quietly kept drawer with such last-resort plans in one paper copy only would be the bare minimum genuine German national interest requires. If that's too bold for you as a German soldier, maybe don't join the military - or just be honest, change your citizenship, and sign up with the US already.

But back to thespecific arrangementsadding up to this great sharing in anticipated self-annihilation. They are quite complicated; this is modern life, after all. If we go, we go with a bang and a lot of bureaucracy. But their essence is simple: You, sort-of-sovereign country X (say, Germany), station US nukes on your territory, which inevitably makes you a target for retaliation in (nuclear) kind. But while you are making yourself a target, those nukes remain under the full control of Washington (so much for that sovereignty).

Guarded by American troops - whose real mission is, of course, to keep the compliant clients from laying their grubby hands on them - these nukes sit ready for American orders to be used. Yes, formally, there's some mumbo-jumbo about a 'dual key,' but everyone not badly dropped on their head when in their nappies knows that's BS.As a French officer has just confirmed to Le Figaro, France's conservative paper of record, in reality, "there's only one key" and -as in every decent organized-crime outfit- only one man will decide: the US president.

Then, in case the American capo di tutti capi gives his end-of-days order, you, country X, will have the privilege to take these American nukes to Russia. Once your - not American - planes drop American nukes on Russian troop concentrations and bases or, say, Kaliningrad or St. Petersburg, just sit tight and wait for the response. It would come, even if it were the last thing they ever did. Because that's the way the world works. Also,they have told us so.

There arevariationsto the 'nuclear sharing' shtick: Greece for instance, has a nifty little deal which means it doesn't host US nuclear bombs but maintains a unit for helping deliver such bombs to Russia. Poland, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Hungary, "and two unknown countries" are riding nuclear shotgun, as it were, by participating in the SNOWCAT (Support of Nuclear Operations With Conventional Air Tactics) program. So sneaky!

With things set up so neatly to cheat the NPT, you would think that everybody is hunky-dory, as that old mafiosiTony Sopranowould have said. Yet far from it. In reality, the US isloudly considering expanding the "nuclear sharing" scheme, and several European states - including some for whom mere SNOWCAT-ing clearly is just not good enough - seem eager to get their own local pile of US nukes.

At the same time, as everyone acknowledges frankly, these fresh nukes for Europeare supposed to make up for Washington withdrawing its conventional forcesfrom the old continent. What a message: "Dear Euro vassals, we won't stay around to fight and die with you, but we are happy to make more of you bases and delivery boys for our nukes. Hope you feel safer now. (Oh, and also, we'd love to sell you more of our overpriced F-35s, US kill switches included, that you'll need for your bombing runs against Russia when we whistle. Deal?)"

In a normal world - or to be precise, a normal Europe - the answer to such American generosity would have to be a resounding 'f*ck off' (in plain American English). But Europe's elites are not sane and so Europe is very far from normal. There seems to be a real eagerness to keep doing what America wants, European interests be damned.

That's why the so-called 'NATO 3.0' project associated in particular with 'brain-of-the-Pentagon'Elbridge Colbyis likely to proceed just fine. Its essence is simple: Fewer US troops, key capacities, and conventional arms for Europe, so that Washington can shift its weight against China. Apart from the grandly strategic, there's the personal: That Colby's father, while working for the CIA, helped lose the Vietnam War may play a role in shaping his son's priorities.

Russia, if things ever went that far, is extremely unlikely to play along with this NATO 3.0 strategy, obviously. On the contrary, once US nukes land on its troops, bases, and cities, whether launched from and through European vassals or the American mainland, Moscow is likely to hit back at both.

Yet the real mystery here is not how Washington has arrived at adopting such a transparently fragile strategy. Looked at from the big, group-think blob on the Potomac, it may appear worth a try. What is truly baffling is why anyone in Europe would agree. The catastrophic disadvantages are just too obvious. Painting more targets on Europe's back, distributing nuclear weapons further east when NATO's eastward expansion is precisely what caused the Ukraine War, sending yet another antagonizing signal to China that Europe is straining to do what it can just to help the US pressure Beijing, and, last but not least, setting Europe up for a large-scale re-run of what the West has just done to Ukraine: a devastating proxy war.

Europe does not need even more "nuclear sharing" with the unreliable, irrational, and aggressive US. It needs decoupling from its abusive and exploitative masters in Washington. If its leaders wish to share, how about doing some hard thinking about the economic and security interests their countries clearly share with both Russia and China? But then, Europe's leaders don't think. And when they do, then not on behalf of their own peoples. What a shared misery.

(RT.com)