By Louis ‘Barok‘ C. Biraogo
As the world stands at the precipice of a renewed nuclear arms race, the echoes of past dangers reverberate with chilling clarity. On June 29, 2024, President Vladimir Putin’s declaration that Russia may resume deploying intermediate and shorter-range nuclear-capable missiles, ostensibly in response to the United States’ actions, marks a stark and alarming departure from decades of painstaking arms control efforts. This move threatens to dismantle the remnants of a Cold War-era accord that once symbolized hope for a safer world.
The Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty, inked by Mikhail Gorbachev and Ronald Reagan in 1987, was a landmark achievement in the annals of arms control. It was the first accord to eliminate an entire category of nuclear weapons, representing a crucial step towards reducing the global nuclear threat. However, the Trump administration’s 2019 withdrawal from the INF Treaty, citing alleged Russian violations, set in motion a chain of events that now culminates in Putin’s ominous proclamation.
Putin’s rationale, steeped in a narrative of defensive necessity, belies the broader implications of his actions. By resuming the production and potential deployment of these missiles, Russia not only defies the spirit of the INF Treaty but also escalates the specter of a new arms race. Historically, arms control agreements like the INF Treaty and the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START) have been instrumental in curbing the proliferation of nuclear weapons and fostering strategic stability. Abandoning these frameworks, as Putin suggests, imperils global security and revives the darkest days of Cold War brinkmanship.
Critically, Putin’s decision contravenes international legal provisions enshrined in various treaties. The Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT), for instance, obliges nuclear-armed states to pursue disarmament negotiations in good faith. By escalating the nuclear arms race, Putin not only undermines this obligation but also disregards the ethical imperative to prevent the horrors of nuclear conflict. His actions erode the fragile trust that underpins international arms control regimes and jeopardize the global non-proliferation architecture.
Yet, the blame does not rest solely with Russia. The United States’ deployment of intermediate-range missiles to Europe and Asia, including Denmark and the Philippines, is equally provocative and destabilizing. By positioning these weapons closer to Russian borders and in the volatile regions of Asia, the US has exacerbated tensions and contributed to the erosion of arms control treaties. This move disregards the historical lessons of mutual restraint and the necessity of diplomatic engagement in managing nuclear arsenals.
The deployment in the Philippines is particularly contentious. The 1987 Philippine Constitution explicitly prohibits the presence of nuclear weapons on its soil. By facilitating the arrival of US missiles, the Philippines not only violates its own legal framework but also becomes an unwitting participant in the escalating arms race. This act contravenes the ethical principles of sovereignty and non-aggression, further destabilizing the regional security environment.
In light of these developments, it is imperative to chart a course toward de-escalation and renewed commitment to arms control. First, Russia and the United States must re-engage in diplomatic negotiations to resurrect and modernize the INF Treaty, ensuring it encompasses emerging technologies and threats. Both nations should commit to verifiable measures that prevent the deployment of intermediate-range missiles in Europe and Asia, thereby reducing the immediate risk of confrontation.
Second, the international community, through the United Nations and relevant multilateral forums, must reinforce the norms and legal frameworks governing nuclear weapons. This includes strengthening the NPT and pursuing new treaties that address contemporary challenges, such as cyber threats and space-based weapons.
Finally, countries like the Philippines should adhere to their constitutional provisions and international legal obligations, refraining from actions that escalate regional tensions. Instead, they should advocate for peaceful resolutions and engage in dialogue that promotes stability and security.
In conclusion, the world stands at a dangerous crossroads. The decisions made by global leaders today will shape the security landscape for generations to come. It is a moment that demands wisdom, restraint, and a steadfast commitment to the principles of disarmament and peace. Anything less would be a tragic disservice to the lessons of history and the hopes for a safer future.
- ₱75 Million Heist: Cops Gone Full Bandit
- ₱6.7-Trillion Temptation: The Great Pork Zombie Revival and the “Collegial” Vote-Buying Circus
- ₱1.9 Billion for 382 Units and a Rooftop Pool: Poverty Solved, Next Problem Please
- ₱1.35 Trillion for Education: Bigger Budget, Same Old Thieves’ Banquet
- ₱1 Billion Congressional Seat? Sorry, Sold Out Na Raw — Si Bello Raw Ang Hindi Bumili
- “We Will Take Care of It”: Bersamin’s P52-Billion Love Letter to Corruption
- “Skewed Narrative”? More Like Skewered Taxpayers!
- “Robbed by Restitution?” Curlee Discaya’s Tears Over Returning What He Never Earned
KWEBA ni BAROK 
Leave a comment