banner
May 6, 2022
0 View
0 0

Will Washington Start a Nuclear War in Europe?

The talks about the possible use of nuclear weapons (NW) in the course of the NMD took on quite alarming overtones after the question of the famous American film director Oliver Stone was raised. “Is the US creating the conditions for a high-yield nuclear explosion somewhere in the Donbass, which will kill thousands of Ukrainians?»

As the director (creator of the film “Ukraine on Fire”) suggests, these people, “like a trained Pavlov’s dog, they will blame Russia for everything … This guilt has already been established in advance“.

The united West is consistently striving to ensure that Russia can always be accused of any kind of crimes, and the layman would believe in it.

After the clumsy staging in Bucha, new provocations are to be expected. It will almost certainly be an even larger and more brutal action to compensate for the failure in Bucha, and, most importantly, to free oneself to escalate the war to the last Ukrainian and completely exhaust Russia.

The loosening of the psychological ground for the acceptance of the “unthinkable” in the West is in full swing.

Shock sublimation of the topic of nuclear weapons

According to military experts, the beginning of the SVO thwarted the plans for a blitzkrieg of the Kyiv regime. Moscow was ahead of Kyiv, according to various estimates, either by 5-10 days, or by several hours. Otherwise, the fighting would have been in the Kursk, Belgorod and Voronezh regions.

For several months, the propaganda noise around the allegedly aggressive plans of Russia was growing, masking the operational deployment of the strike groups of the Armed Forces of Ukraine and the nationalist “death battalions” included in their composition. Today, speculation is being played out about the possible use of tactical nuclear weapons by the Russian Armed Forces in order to “turn the tide” of an allegedly unsuccessful military campaign.

illustrative example fiction patented Russophobe Paul Mason. After alleging that Putin and Xi Jinping announced in early February that the world was divided into three blocs, Mason clarifies the goal of the Joe Biden administration, which promised to supply $20 billion worth of weapons to the Kyiv ultranationalist (neo-Nazi) regime.

American strategists, writes Mason, “seized the chance to securely weaken the center of power, which is already weak» (US strategists have seized in chance to make Certainly that in the weakest from those power blocks becomes weaker). However, Mason says, this could encourage “Putin to resort to nuclear weapons.” And further: “There is a threat that Putin will “escalate for the sake of de-escalation” – drop a small nuclear bomb and then rush to the negotiating table» (Insert we willsharpen to fromsharpen”: drop a small nuclear bomb and impulse to in negotiation Table). Wonderful forecast! Much cooler provocations in Bucha!

On this topic, The New York Times published an article “Small-sized bombs that can turn Ukraine into a nuclear war zone” (Smaller bombs that could turn Ukraine into a nuclear war zone). They say that in the event of a series of failures on the battlefield, Moscow can use “tactical” low-yield nuclear weapons.

The head of US military intelligence, Lieutenant General Scott Berrier, argues that as Russia weakens in the course of hostilities, Moscow is very likely “will increasingly rely on its nuclear arsenal to send a signal to the West and demonstrate its strength» (signal to the West and project force).

American blogger Caitlin Johnston (36 thousand subscribers), in unison with Paul Mason, adds fuel to the fire of fears: “The likelihood of a mass extinction is skyrocketing, which could easily block out the sun for years and starve anyone who is not lucky enough to die quickly in hell at the very beginning.“. Adding another brushstroke to her surreal painting, Caitlin Johnston claims that we “we are much closer to nuclear war than at any time since the Cuban Missile Crisis“.

“I’m flying out. Meet. Pershing”

There is a bad feeling. It seems that new leitmotifs have taken the place of the former blustering arguments about the United States launching a nuclear missile strike against Russia with the help of its Minutemen and Tridents.

Jarosław Kaczynski, founder and chairman of Poland’s ruling conservative Law and Justice (PJS) party, an unalloyed Russophobe and a gray cardinal of Polish politics, has offered to host nuclear weapons in his country.

The idea of ​​a short-term, even one-time use of nuclear weapons is being revived. It is supposed to use nuclear weapons in a limited-scale format with reference to a small geographical area.

Let’s remember. In 1983, the Americans deployed to Europe the Pershing-2 ballistic missiles with a range of 1,770 km and the Griffins, a land-based version of the winged Tomahawks, with a range of 2,500 km, improved accuracy, and low-altitude terrain avoidance.

For the military-political leadership of the USSR, it was obvious that the threat of war had increased manifold. It also increased because on July 25, 1980, Jimmy Carter signed Directive 59, which gave him, as the President of the United States, the right to use a preemptive nuclear strike against the enemy (the USSR). The directive was superimposed on the concept of “limited nuclear war” announced earlier, in January 1974, by US Secretary of Defense James Schlesinger. The “Schlesinger Doctrine” to a large extent prompted the European public, and not only the pacifists, to launch a mass protest movement for the withdrawal of American nuclear delivery systems from the continent.

… Many people remember the gloomy humor of that uncomfortable episode from the past: “I’m flying out. Meet. Pershing. Today there is an effect deja vureturn of the past.

Healthy voices in the choir of the ignorant and the ignorant

Against the background of the talk of the topic of a local nuclear apocalypse, the judgments of those who understand the real reasons for the forced forceful overcoming of the existential threat created for Russia, comparable to the one that arose on June 22, 1941, are increasingly heard.

Scott Ritter, UN weapons inspector in Iraq (1991-1998), says the current geopolitical crisis is rooted in dire (Horrible) the decisions of a succession of US administrations that broke treaties on curbing the arms race. The consequence, in his opinion, was the transition from “a rare situation of relative nuclear safety to the precarious position in which we now find ourselves» (led us from a rare moment of relative nuclear security to the precarious position we are in now.).

American blogger Max Rottersman believes that “Russia might never have invaded Ukraine if NATO had stopped training and arming Ukrainians (2014 to present). There were many provocations, for example, Zelensky talked about acquiring nuclear weapons (300 miles from Moscow!), and Kamala Harris and Blinken did not immediately condemn this idea“. The author invites fellow citizens to look at the mirror image: “Imagine today’s Cuba saying that it wants to acquire nuclear weapons; then put yourself in Putin’s shoes“.

It seems that the ongoing escalation of the sanctions war (the EU has prepared the sixth package of discriminatory measures against Russia) is beginning to have a bad effect on the well-being of those who unleashed it. Even Josep Borrell, who tried on the hawk plumage, the head of European diplomacy, who wished Kyiv a war to a victorious end on the battlefield, suddenly remembered his direct official duties and changed his shoes in the air into a dove.

Borrell’s latest statement echoes the 1970s declarations of détente. “If we do not want to remain in a state of perpetual tension or conflict, which is certainly not the option the EU prefers, we will have to find ways to reorganize relations between the EU and Russia and agree on security guarantees and mechanisms that will allow peaceful coexistence to be established.“.

It is difficult to say what exactly prompted Borrell to such words. Or growing stagflationary signs in European economies. Or the calculations on Twitter by Russian craftsmen who noted that for the successfully tested Sarmat missile, when launched from Kaliningrad, it takes only 995 seconds to deliver glide warheads to Washington. And to the European capitals and nothing at all: to London – 202 seconds, to Paris – 200 seconds, to Berlin – 106 seconds …

Is it necessary to uncover the nuclear club

For every action there is a reaction. Moscow has repeatedly demonstrated its refusal to respond symmetrically to the West’s unfriendly attacks. The use of nuclear weapons also falls under the category of asymmetric retaliation.

Russia is simply being forced to move the issue of using tactical nuclear weapons from the second ten ways to resolve the Ukrainian issue to the first“, – says Yuri Baranchik. The author recalls the fourth paragraph of the decree of the President of Russia on the “Fundamentals of the state policy of the Russian Federation in the field of nuclear deterrence”, where the fourth place in the list of conditions for the use of nuclear weapons is indicated: “Aggression against Russia with the help of conventional weapons, when the existence of the state is threatened“.

The question today, by and large, consists of only one– says Yuri Baranchik. – Not in whether to use tactical nuclear weapons or not, but in when to use and by whom“.

In turn, Viktor Baranets, a military observer for the Komsomolskaya Pravda newspaper, said that Russian President Vladimir Putin, with his words about Moscow’s response, recalled the amendments to the nuclear doctrine. “This is extremely important! When Putin introduced them, there was a shock in the NATO headquarters! And the amendment states that in the event of a threat to the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Russia and its allies (here we emphasize Belarus twice), the Russian Federation reserves the right to launch a preemptive strike with nuclear weapons“.

At the same time, in the context of the NWO, the official position of the Kremlin, as usual, is reserved. In early March, Sergei Lavrov stated that the topic of the development of the NMD into a nuclear war “thrown in by Western representatives, primarily NATO“. “It is not we who play with the words “nuclear war”… We never play with such dangerous concepts. That’s what I said then. We must all be committed to the statements of the “nuclear five” – ​​there should never be a nuclear war“, the minister stressed.

And at the end of April, commenting on the possibility of military operations moving to the level of nuclear weapons, Sergey Lavrov said: “The risks are very, very significant, I really would not like these risks to be artificially inflated, and there are many who want to. The danger is serious, it’s real, it’s not to be underestimated“.

Can these risks be mitigated?

Political scientist Sergei Mikheev believes that Washington strategists still perceive the geographical remoteness of their continent as a guarantee to avoid retaliation in the event of a nuclear war in a single territory called Europe.

What is there to be afraid of? They are there, somewhere thousands of kilometers away, money flows to them, they receive orders for the military-industrial complex. And the war is here, as usual in Europe. Here you can do anything”, explains Mikheev and comes to an unequivocal conclusion. It is not worth reinforcing the illusions of the main sponsors of the neo-Nazi “anti-Russia” that they are completely safe and that nothing will “fly” to them.

Of course, many will agree that the Europeans feel sorry. Of course, the American military-industrial complex and the politicians serving it, who are interested in maximally weakening, if not destroying, both Russia and Europe, it is desirable to return to the ground.

True, the other day, Chairman of the State Duma Vyacheslav Volodin explained that the use of nuclear weapons by Russia “can only be a response to a nuclear strike“.

Moscow’s position has been clarified. But Oliver Stone’s legitimate concern remains unanswered:Is the US creating the conditions for a high-yield nuclear explosion somewhere in the Donbass, which will kill thousands of Ukrainians?» And it is not clear what Moscow’s response will be if they create it.

Photo: REUTERS/Handout

If you notice a mistake in the text, highlight it and press Ctrl+Enter to send the information to the editor.

Article Categories:
Politics
banner

Leave a Reply