With the uncomfortable situations in Ukraine and Syria, animosity between Russia and the US has reached levels unseen since the Cold War. Last Monday, Putin further curtailed cooperation with Washington with the decision to suspend the Plutonium Management and Disposition Agreement.
Many believe that former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s controversial and corrupt Uranium One deal – which gave the Kremlin control of 20% of the uranium in the US – is linked to Putin’s decision.
The 16-year-old plutonium deal, which aimed to make arms reductions irreversible, forced Russia and the US to collectively clean up 34 tons of weapons-grade plutonium (enough for 17,000 nuclear weapons). According to estimates, the US currently has about 95 tons of weapons-grade plutonium; Russia has 128.
In a statement released by the Kremlin on October 3rd, President Putin blamed the treaty’s demise on “Washington’s unfriendly actions towards Russia,” including NATO actions in Europe and US support for right-wing groups in Ukraine.
Putin asked that the US compensate Russia for the sanctions imposed after the annexation of the Crimean Peninsula in 2014 and demanded that we repeal the Magnitsky Act – a controversial law that sanctioned 18 Russians after a massive tax-fraud scheme in 2012.
But that’s not all. Putin has also decided to suspend a nuclear and energy-related research agreement (signed in 2013) and terminate one on uranium conversion (signed in 2010).
“We can no longer trust Washington in such a sensitive area as the modernization and security of Russian nuclear facilities,” stated the Russian Foreign Ministry.
“This is the latest in a series of steps by Russia to end long-standing cooperation on nuclear security and disarmament,” said State Department spokeswoman Elizabeth Trudeau. “It’s disingenuous of Russia to cite the United States’ ‘threat to strategic stability’ as the reason for this decision. The United States seeks a constructive dialogue with Russia on strategic issues but it is Russia instead who continues to engage in destabilizing activities and to suspend cooperation under existing agreements like this one that benefit international security.”
Hillary Clinton and the Uranium One Deal
Hillary Clinton’s role in the Uranium One scandal is a serious matter of national security as well as a blatant example of bribery, and the public deserves to know more before election day.
As Senate Judiciary Committee chairman Charles Grassley (R-IA) pointed out in a 2015 letter to Attorney General Loretta Lynch, the uranium deal was approved very quickly considering its massive importance to national security.
The deal “resulted in the acquisition of Uranium One, owner of U.S. based uranium assets, by Atomredmetzoloto (ARMZ), a subsidiary of Rosatom, a Russian government owned company… The transaction raised a number of national security concerns because it effectively ceded 20% of U.S. uranium production capacity to the Russian government.”
As it turns out, the Clinton Foundation had close ties with a number of investors involved in the secret deal (big surprise!).
“When millions of dollars flow to decision makers who have substantial discretion to provide support for or against approval of controversial transactions, public confidence in the integrity of the process requires a commitment to transparency and responsiveness to oversight inquiries,” wrote Grassley.
Hillary’s actions here clearly show that she values money and power over national security. According to State Department memos and Clinton emails released by WikiLeaks earlier this year, Hillary received numerous warnings that Russia was preparing to flex its muslces, so to speak, in regards to the global uranium market.
According to a Russian strategy paper obtained by State Department officials in Europe, Russia was planning to gain a “long-term supply of nuclear fuel” in order to “shut” Westinghouse (a US company) out of the nuclear market and expand Moscow’s influence over Europe.
Secretary Clinton also received warnings from several members of Congress, including Wyoming Senator John Barrasso, who wrote a letter to President Obama explaining that the deal “would give the Russian government control over a sizeable portion of America’s uranium production capacity.”
“Equally alarming,” said Barrasso, “this sale gives ARMZ a significant stake in uranium mines in Kazakhstan.”