Several participants in a email discussion about a statement from the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN) thought that its statement about the collapse of the INF Treaty should have put the blame on the USA, and not on both the USA and Russia. Below, I copy my opinion as I expressed it in that same discussion:

It seems to me that the essence of ICAN's statement about the situation after the USA has withdrawn from the INF Treaty, is the question: what is to be done now? And ICAN's answer is that the European leaders, and leaders all around the world, should step up and join the UN Treaty on the prohibition of the nuclear weapons (TPNW). With this I fully agree. (In order to convince yourself that this is what ICAN said, you may want to take a second look here.)

The Swedish Socialdemocratic+Greens government recently (13 July) announced that it will not ratify the TPNW. This was actually as bad news as the breakdown of the INF, at least for us in the Nordic countries. For decades, we believed in the good spirit (in favour of nuclear disarmament) of the Swedish governments, but look how they put us down! Yet the Swedish people is certainly in favour of ratifying the aforementioned UN Treaty. Almost 9 out of 10 Swedes actually said so in an opinion poll 2017. So it is this contradiction between the sound and rational instinct in favour of nuclear abolition on the side of the people, and the sick and irrational behaviour of the political system and its media, that we need to understand and develop.

Perhaps the time has come for social and political movements, including the peace movement, to focus more on abolishing the nuclear weapons than on reducing the emissions of carbon dioxide? Above all, it is necessary to explain the extent to which the ecological crisis is a consequence of the global war economy, of which the nuclear wepons systems are like the top of the iceberg.

Greetings from Finland,