The dumbass West really only wants a final confrontation that will end all life on Earth. The West is being led by evil forces.
GOODBYE
Xi: “Now there are changes that haven’t happened in 100 years. When we are together, we drive these changes.
” Putin: “I agree.”
Xi: “Take care, dear friend.”
Putin: “Have a safe trip.”
https://www.rt.com/russia/572117-medvedev-nuclear-ukraine-apocalypse/
Feb 26, 2023
Russia’s nuclear-capable Topol intercontinental ballistic missile system. © Sputnik / Alexandr Kryazhev
The West is endangering the very existence of human civilization by threatening Moscow, former Russian president Dmitry Medvedev has claimed. Continued support for Ukraine from the US and its allies could result in a nuclear “apocalypse,” he warned.
A great achievement of the Soviet and Russian leadership in the early 1990s was that it was able to preserve the country’s nuclear potential after the collapse of the USSR, Medvedev argued in an article published in Izvestia newspaper on Monday.
The West is “delusional” if it thinks that, “after putting the Soviet Union to rest, it’ll be able to also bury modern Russia without significant problems for itself, by throwing the lives of thousands of people involved in the conflict [in Ukraine] into the furnace,” he wrote.
“Those are extremely dangerous misconceptions,” added Medvedev, who is now the deputy chair of the Russian Security Council.
Former Russian president sends warning to US
“If the issue of the very existence of Russia is raised seriously, it won’t be decided on the Ukrainian front. [It’ll be decided] together with the issue of the further existence of the entire human civilization,” he warned.
The US and its allies, who continue to pump Ukraine with weapons and prevent all attempts to restore peace talks between Moscow and Kiev, “refuse to understand that their goals are bound to lead to a total fiasco; the defeat for everyone; a collapse. An apocalypse when the former life would have to be forgotten for centuries, until the smoky debris ceases to emit radiation,” the former president said.
“Russia will not allow this to happen,” Medvedev wrote. He noted that the West and its “satellites” represent only 15% of the world’s population, while the rest of the world “is greater in numbers and a lot stronger.”
“The calm power of our great country and the credibility of its partners are the key to preserving the future for the entire world,” he concluded.
READ MORE: Ex-Russian president explains how ‘trophy’ weapons are used
During the conflict in Ukraine, Russia warned that it was ready to use its nuclear arsenal in the event it faced an existential threat from nuclear or conventional weapons. However, Moscow denied Western claims that it was planning to deploy nuclear weapons on Ukrainian territory.
https://www.rt.com/news/570269-chomsky-irreversible-nuclear-war/
Jan 21,2023
The world is teetering on the brink of the abyss due to an increased risk of nuclear war, failure to address environmental challenges, and diminished ability to tackle problems rationally, world-renowned philosopher and linguist Noam Chomsky told RT on Saturday.
During the interview, Chomsky, who is a Laureate Professor of Linguistics at the University of Arizona, was asked to expand on his remark that humanity could be pathologically dedicated to self-destruction.
The philosopher recalled that in recent years the Doomsday Clock, which reflects how close humanity is to Armageddon, has moved closer to midnight, which symbolizes the extinction of humanity. He suggested that in several days it could be set even closer to this mark.
According to the philosopher, humanity’s main concerns are “an increasing threat of nuclear war” and “a very severe and growing threat of destruction of the climate.” The latter problem persists because “states are not doing what they know they must do to solve this crisis,” he said.
The third issue, Chomsky continued, is “the deterioration of an arena of rational serious debate and deliberation” combined with “the collapse of democratic forces” around the world. The professor admitted that while it might seem that this point has nothing to do with the threat of nuclear war and climate change, rational debate is “the only hope for dealing with the first two.”
“All three have gotten considerably worse during the past year, and unless there’s a sharp reversal, we’ll simply be heading for a precipice, falling over, irreversible, and not in the long distant future,” he warned.
His comments come after earlier this week, former Russian president Dmitry Medvedev said that those who want to see Moscow defeated in Ukraine, ignore the fact that “a loss by a nuclear power in a conventional war may trigger the start of a nuclear war.” Moscow believes the Ukraine conflict to be a proxy war waged against it by the US and its allies.
However, Russia has repeatedly said that a nuclear war should never be fought, with its military doctrine allowing the use of atomic weapons only if the very existence of the state is threatened.
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2023/1/19/medvedev-warns-of-nuclear-war-if-russia-defeated-in-ukraine
Published On 19 Jan 2023
Dmitry Medvedev, an outspoken former Russian president who is close to Vladimir Putin, has warned NATO that Moscow’s defeat in Ukraine could trigger a nuclear war.
“The defeat of a nuclear power in a conventional war may trigger a nuclear war,” Medvedev, who serves as deputy chairman of Putin’s powerful security council, said in a post on the Telegram messaging app.
“Nuclear powers have never lost major conflicts on which their fate depends,” said Medvedev, who served as president from 2008 to 2012.
He warned that NATO and other Western defence leaders, due to meet at Ramstein Air Base in Germany on Friday to discuss support for Ukraine, should consider the risks of their policy.
The Kremlin was quick to endorse Medvedev’s remarks, saying they were in full accordance with Moscow’s principles.
Moscow’s doctrine allows for a nuclear attack after “aggression against the Russian Federation with conventional weapons when the very existence of the state is threatened”.
Medvedev, 57, who once presented himself as a reformer who was ready to work with the United States to liberalise Russia, has recast himself as the most publicly hawkish member of Putin’s circle.
Since Russia invaded Ukraine almost a year ago on February 24, Medvedev has repeatedly raised the threat of nuclear chaos and used insults to describe the West.
https://omny.fm/shows/the-take/will-russias-vladimir-putin-go-nuclear/embed
Russia and the United States, by far the largest nuclear powers, hold about 90 percent of the world’s nuclear warheads.
Russia has 5,977 nuclear warheads while the United States has 5,428, China 350, France 290 and the United Kingdom 225, according to the Federation of American Scientists.
As president, Putin is Russia’s ultimate decision-maker on the use of nuclear weapons.
Washington has not detailed what it would do if Putin ordered what would be the first use of nuclear weapons in war since the United States unleashed the first atomic bomb attacks on the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945.
While NATO has conventional military superiority over Russia, when it comes to nuclear weapons, Russia has nuclear superiority over the alliance in Europe.
Putin casts Russia’s “special military operation” in Ukraine as an existential battle with an aggressive and arrogant West and has said that Moscow will use all available means to protect itself.
Russia’s February 24 invasion of Ukraine has triggered one of the deadliest European conflicts since World War II and the biggest confrontation between Moscow and the West since the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis.
The United States and its allies have condemned the invasion of Ukraine as an imperial land grab, while Ukraine has vowed to fight until the last Russian soldier leaves its territory.
Since a grim New Year’s Eve message describing the West as Russia’s true enemy in the war on Ukraine, Putin has sent several signals that Moscow will not back down.
He has dispatched hypersonic missiles to the Atlantic and appointed his top general to runRussia’s war effort.
Putin said on Wednesday that Russia’s powerful military-industrial complex was ramping up production, and was one of the main reasons why his country would prevail in Ukraine.
SOURCE: NEWS AGENCIES
https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/escobar-news-natostan-imposed-meat-grinder
BY TYLER DURDEN
SUNDAY, DEC 18, 2022
Authored by Pepe Escobar
Somewhere in her private pantheon, Pallas Athena, Goddess of Geopolitics, is immensely enjoying the show.
No one ever lost money capitalizing on the unlimited nonsense spewed out by the collective deer-caught-in-the-headlights also known as Western mainstream media – complete with showering Person of the Year awards on a megalomaniac, cocaine-fueled lousy actor impersonating a warlord.
The non-stop trashy parade of Western military analysts is now “assessing” that the first targets of an incoming, joint Russia-Belarus attack on the 404 black hole formerly known as Ukraine will be Lviv, Lutsk, Rivne, Zhytomyr, and why not throw Kiev in the mix straight out of a second axis.
The Russian General Staff is attentively monitoring all the action and may even follow the advice of such “analysts”.
And then there’s outright panic, as the Ministry of Defense announced that the Strategic Missile Forces have loaded two Yars ICBMs into their intended silos. Cue to widespread shrieks of horror of the “Russia Readies Nuclear Missile Capable Of Striking Deep Into US” variety.
Some facts though never change. Number One is NATO as a figment of the collective West’s – extremely impaired – imagination. If push ever came to shove – as Straussian/neo-con armchair warriors hope and pray – Russia can conveniently defeat the whole of NATO as there is hardly anything “there”.
That, of course, would require a massive Russian mobilization. As it stands, Russia may look feeble in a few quarters as they activated at best 100,000 troops against possibly 1 million Ukrainian troops. It’s as if Moscow was not exactly seduced by the idea of “winning” – which may be the case, in a quite twisted way.
Even now, Moscow has not mobilized enough troops to occupy Ukraine – which, in theory, would be imperative to completely “denazify” the Kiev racket. The operative concept though is “in theory”. Moscow in fact is busy demonstrating a completely new theory – irrespective of the fact that a few exalted souls have been peddling that Putin should be replaced by the FSB’s Alexander Bortnikov.
With its array of hypersonic missiles, Russia can knock out all NATO bridges, ports, airports as well as power stations, oil and natural gas storage, Rotterdam oil and natural gas installations, in a matter of a few hours. All energy production equipment across NATOstan would be destroyed. Europe would be shut off from natural resources. A dazed and confused Empire would be unable to move troops, any troops, to Europe.
And still provocations run unabated. The recent attack by Tu-141 Ukrainian drones against Engels-2 airbase was blamed by Moscow on Kiev – which predictably denied all responsibility. Yet what really mattered was Moscow’s strategic messaging to US/NATO, with Putin flirting with the notion that sooner or later the response may be up a serious notch in case US/NATO weaponry supplied to Kiev is used to strike deep into sensitive Russian Federation territory.
The current Russian doctrine even allows Moscow to respond with nuclear strikes; after all Engels-2 airbase is home to nuclear-capable bombers, prime strategic assets.
The drones were certainly launched by infiltrated agents inside Russian territory. If they had originated from outside Russia, and interpreted as nuclear missiles, that could have triggered the launch against NATOstan of hundreds of Russian nuclear missiles.
Putin himself made it – ominously – quite clear at the Eurasia Economic Council summit in Bishkek, Kyrgyzstan, a week ago:
“I assure you, after the early warning system receives a signal of a missile attack, hundreds of our missiles are in the air (…) It is impossible to stop them (…) There will be nothing left of the enemy because it is impossible to intercept a hundred missiles. This, of course, is a deterrent – a serious deterrent.”
Not, of course, to the stupidity-corroded Straussian-neocon gang who are actually running American foreign “policy”.
It’s no wonder reliable Russian intel sources established that the missiles that hit Engels-2 were locally launched, though the Kiev regime desired it to be believed otherwise.
And that turns the whole charade into a Dadaist farce – with a dazed and confused Empire still bound to a maniac in Kiev who still believes that the Ukrainian S-300 that hit Poland came from Russia. Cue to the whole world – and not only Washington – as hostage to a “Person of the Year” maniac with the – virtual – power of provoking a worldwide nuclear war.
Meanwhile, on the ground, Russia has gone Deep Operations Strategy, big time. In several spots along the extensive frontline, they attack the points that are most likely to draw out poor Ukrainian reserves hiding in the second line of defense. When reserves come out through barren, muddy lands and terrible roads to the rescue of frontline units, entire battalions are massacred.
Russians never go deep into the third line – where command and control may be located. What’s in play is attrition warfare under Deep Operations Strategy, straight out of the playbook of the legendary “Red Napoleon”, Field Marshall Mikhail Tukhachevsky.
Russia saves soldiers, personnel and equipment. The whole thing works wonders in difficult terrain where vehicles get bogged down in rainy roads. This rinse and repeat tactic, day in day out, for months on end has led to (at least) 400,000 Ukrainian casualties. Call it the epitome of Attritional Warfare.
Historians will relish that the whole scenario resembles the Battle of Agincourt – where wave after wave of French Knights (playing the role of present day Ukrainians, and Polish/NATO mercenaries) kept running uphill against English archers and knights who just stood still and let them come, hitting the second line again and again.
The difference, of course, is that Russians are employing attritional warfare tactics day after day for six months now, while Agincourt was just one battle in a single day. By the time this meat grinder is over an entire generation of Ukrainians and Poles will have gone to meet their maker.
The collective West’s myth of a Ukrainian “victory” against the Russian war of attrition does not even qualify as cosmic delusion. It’s a lousy, lethal joke. The only way out would be to sit down at the negotiating table, now, before the hammer (the next Russian offensive) comes down on the anvil (the existing frontline).
But NATO, of course, as Stultifying Stoltenberg keeps reminding the world, does not do negotiations.
Which, in a sense, may be a blessing, as NATO may end up breaking up in myriad pieces, totally humiliated on the ground despite all its elaborate warmongering plans.
Andrei Martyanov has been peerless tracking the collective West’s complete economic, moral, intellectual – and most of all military – degradation, everything drenched in lies, lousy P.R. twists and “stupefying incompetence across the board.”
All this while Russia prepares “for yet another ‘defeat’, like retaking all of Donbass and then… Who knows what then. A quick win for Russia would be a loss because NATO would still exist. No, Russia has to pace this so as it sucks in NATO into the grinder.”
Somewhere in her private pantheon, Pallas Athena, Goddess of Geopolitics, is immensely enjoying the show. Oh, wait; she’s actually reincarnated, and her name is Maria Zakharova.
The US/UK/EU/NATO alliance of evil is pushing for this. We might as well know what will happen to us.
It looks like Ukraine is salivating at the thought of nuclear war.
https://www.rt.com/russia/567469-lavrov-risk-nuclear-war/
Dec 1, 2022
FILE PHOTO: A Yars mobile intercontinental ballistic missile launcher drives along Red Square in Moscow during the military parade. © Sputnik / Ilya Pitalev
Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov has warned that any conflict between nuclear states is likely to escalate into an all-out nuclear war, and thus should be avoided at all costs.
“Аny war between nuclear powers is unacceptable. Еven if someone decides to start it using conventional means, there will be a huge risk of it escalating into a nuclear one,” Lavrov stated during a press conference on Thursday.
The diplomat was asked about Moscow and Washington’s joint efforts to reduce their strategic capabilities. Lavrov responded by pointing out that in September 2021 the US had essentially frozen the bilateral talks on reaching an agreement on the limitation of strategic offensive arms, long before Russia launched its military operation in Ukraine.
“It’s not hard to figure out what their reasoning was,” Lavrov noted. He admitted, however, that Washington and Moscow’s responsibilities as the two largest nuclear powers in the world do not change, and recalled a joint statement made by Russian and American leaders that a nuclear war cannot be won by anyone and therefore must not be allowed to start.
The minister added that Russia was willing to take that statement further and stressed that any conflict between nuclear states is unacceptable, as even a conventional war has a “huge” risk of escalating into a nuclear altercation.
“This is also why we are so anxiously watching the rhetoric the West spews out accusing us of preparing some alleged provocations using weapons of mass destruction,” Lavrov said, noting that the West, including the USA, France and the UK, are doing everything to increase their almost direct participation in the conflict in Ukraine, where he says they are essentially waging war against Russia through the hands of the Ukrainians.
US-Russia talks on arms control postponed
“This is a dangerous trend,” Lavrov warned.
The threat of a nuclear war has been a hot topic recently since Putin vowed in late September to defend Russia’s territory and people using “all the forces and resources we have.” His remarks were then widely interpreted by Western pundits and officials as a veiled nuclear warning. Putin clarified his statement later by saying that Moscow has not even mentioned tactical nuclear weapons, let alone threatened to use atomic weapons.
During Thursday’s press conference, Lavrov reiterated Moscow’s nuclear doctrine, under which the use of WMDs is permitted only as a retaliatory response to enemy nuclear strikes or to conventional strikes that put the Russian state at risk.
29 Nov 2022
Freddie Sayers meets political scientist John Mearsheimer, the world-famous proponent of realism in international relations. Recorded in London on Monday 28th November 2022.
Listen to the podcast: https://shows.acast.com/lockdowntv-wi…
I highly recommend that you invest 1 hour to understand where the US proxy war in Ukraine is heading. Prof. John Mearsheimer explains what the likely outcome is: Escalation upon escalation until nuclear war. The west is playing Russian roulette in Ukraine. Kim Dotcom
Michael Snyder
Nov 20, 2022
If you had to choose between living under an extremely oppressive world government or living through a nuclear war, which one would be your choice? Personally, I don’t like either of those two options, but in recent days western leaders have been trying to convince us that we will either have one or the other. According to them, either we can submit to a “global order” that is dominated by the values and the agenda of the western elite or we can accept a multipolar world which will eventually lead to widespread chaos and nuclear war. Needless to say, western politicians are going to try very hard to get us to choose the former.
On Friday, French President Emmanuel Macron delivered a speech at the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) Summit in Bangkok even though France is not actually a member.
During that speech, Macron lamented the fact that rapidly deteriorating relations between the U.S. and China are tearing the world apart, and he boldly declared that what we really need is “a single world order”…
French President Emmanuel Macron called for world government in a speech Friday, claiming it would avoid conflicts between competing superpowers.
“We need a single world order,” Macron told the audience at the ongoing Asian-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) summit in Bangkok, Thailand.
“Are you on the U.S. side or the China side?” Macron asked rhetorically. “Because now, progressively, a lot of people would like to see that there are two orders in this world.”
“This is a huge mistake — even for both the U.S. and China,” he added after comparing the two superpowers to “big elephants” in the geopolitical “jungle.”
Of course when he says that we need a “single world order” he is not suggesting one in which nations such as China and Russia are equal partners.
What Macron and other western leaders envision is a global system that is governed by western rules and western values.
As he delivered his line about a “single global order”, Macron slowed down and pronounced each of the words with special emphasis.
I have a feeling that Macron can picture himself leading a “single global order” someday.
Such delusions of grandeur can be extremely dangerous.
Meanwhile, other western leaders such as U.S. Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin are warning that a truly multipolar world would be one that would inevitably lead to nuclear confrontation and nuclear conflict…
U.S. Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin warned Saturday Russia’s invasion of Ukraine offers a preview of a world where nuclear-armed countries could threaten other nations and said Beijing, like Moscow, seeks a world where might makes right.
Austin made the remarks at the annual Halifax International Security Forum, which attracts defense and security officials from Western democracies.
Politicians all over the western world have been talking a lot about the threat of nuclear war lately.
I think that they are trying to use the threat of nuclear war as a scare tactic in order to advance their agenda because if they were truly concerned about nuclear war they would be working really hard to stop one from happening.
But instead of pursuing peace with China and Russia through diplomatic means, western leaders seem to have decided that now is the time to get really tough with China and Russia.
Ultimately, our leaders would love to see both regimes collapse and be replaced by governments that are ready to embrace western values and a “single global order” that is led by the western nations.
Western politicians keep hoping that the war in Ukraine will lead to such an outcome in Russia, and I am sure that they are trying to figure out how to use the coming Chinese invasion of Taiwan to bring about such an outcome in China.
We have seen so many governments get toppled over the decades, and now the western elite are going after the two biggest fish in the pond.
But by being so aggressive, they are literally bringing us to the brink of nuclear conflict.
Earlier this year, a study was released that concluded that a full-blown nuclear exchange between the United States and Russia would result in billions of deaths.
But only about 360 million people would be killed by the original nuclear exchange.
That is the good news.
The bad news is that about 5 billion people would starve to death during the nuclear winter that would follow…
According to a peer-reviewed study published in the journal Nature Food in August 2022,[139] a full-scale nuclear war between the United States and Russia, which together hold more than 90% of the world’s nuclear weapons, would kill 360 million people directly and more than 5 billion indirectly by starvation during a nuclear winter.[140][141]
In the aftermath of a full-blown nuclear exchange between the United States and Russia, global temperatures would plunge dramatically because of all the soot that is injected into the atmosphere…
“A war between the United States, its allies and Russia — who possess more than 90% of the global nuclear arsenal — could produce more than 150 teragrams of soot and a nuclear winter,” the study reads.
A teragram is a unit of measurement equal to 1 trillion grams and models show that soot injections into the atmosphere larger than 5 teragrams would lead to mass food shortages in almost all countries.
In such an environment, very little would be able to be grown, and so global food production would soon fall to only a small fraction of what it is today…
In the scenario of a war between the United States and Russia, the global average calorie production from crops would decrease by around 90% within four years after the nuclear war. Nuclear war would also reduce the global fish supply.
People in most nations would consume fewer calories than their bodies burn at rest and more than 5 billion people would die by the end of the second year.
Western leaders are trying to convince us that the way to avoid such a fate is to embrace their vision of a “single world order” that is led by them.
And the truth is that there are a whole lot of people out there that would be more than willing to give up their freedoms for the security of a one world government.
Such people are just like the mindless sheep that were recently spotted “walking around in a circle for 12 days straight”…
Dozens of sheep have been eerily walking around in a circle for 12 days straight in northern China’s Inner Mongolia region.
The bizarre behavior, captured on surveillance video, shows the large flock continuously marching clockwise in a nearly perfect circle on a farm.
My hope is that we can get more “sheeple” to wake up while there is still time to do so.
We don’t want world government.
And we don’t want nuclear war either.
Unfortunately, we don’t always get what we want.
The western elite are really making a mess of things, and we are all going to suffer the consequences of their incredibly reckless decisions.
“Best thing Twitter did for the world, in general, was to allow anyone to yell directly at rich and powerful people, which drove many of them insane, including the richest guy on earth.”
https://caitlinjohnstone.substack.com/p/the-atlantic-is-a-shitty-propaganda
Nov 12, 2022
Listen to a reading of this article:
The Atlantic, which is owned by billionaire Laurene Powell Jobs and run by neoconservative war propagandist Jeffrey Goldberg, has published a pair of articles that are appalling even by its own standards.
Virulent Russiagater Anne Applebaum argues in “Fear of Nuclear War Has Warped the West’s Ukraine Strategy” that the US and its allies should escalate against Russia with full confidence that Putin won’t respond with nuclear weapons.
“Here is the only thing we know: As long as Putin believes that the use of nuclear weapons won’t win the war—as long as he believes that to do so would call down an unprecedented international and Western response, perhaps including the destruction of his navy, of his communications system, of his economic model—then he won’t use them,” Applebaum writes.
But throughout her own essay, Applebaum also acknowledges that she does not actually know the things she is claiming to know.
“We don’t know whether our refusal to transfer sophisticated tanks to Ukraine is preventing nuclear war,” she writes. “We don’t know whether loaning an F-16 would lead to Armageddon. We don’t know whether holding back the longest-range ammunition is stopping Putin from dropping a tactical nuclear weapon or any other kind of weapon.”
“I can’t prove this to be true, of course, because no one can,” says Applebaum after confidently asserting that more western aggression would actually have deterred Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.
These are the kinds of things it’s important to have the highest degree of certainty in before taking drastic actions which can, you know, literally end the world. It’s absolutely nuts how western pundits face more scrutiny and accountability when publicly recommending financial investments than when recommending moves that could end all terrestrial life.
On that note it’s probably worth mentioning here that Applebaum’s husband, European Parliament member Radoslaw Sikorski, recently made headlines by publicly thanking the United States for sabotaging the Nord Stream gas pipelines.
The Atlantic has also published an article titled “The Age of Social Media Is Ending,” subtitled “It never should have begun.” Its author, Ian Bogost, argues that the recent management failures in Twitter and Facebook mean the days of just any old schmuck having access to their own personal broadcasting network are over and that this is a good thing.
Bogost’s piece contains what has got to be the single most elitist sentence that I have ever read:
“A global broadcast network where anyone can say anything to anyone else as often as possible, and where such people have come to think they deserve such a capacity, or even that withholding it amounts to censorship or suppression—that’s just a terrible idea from the outset.”
Nothing enrages the official authorized commentariat like the common riff raff having access to platforms and audiences. That’s why the official authorized commentariat have been the most vocal voices calling for internet censorship and complaining about the rise of a more democratized information environment. These elitist wankers have been fuming for years about the way the uninitiated rabble have been granted the ability to not just talk, but to talk back.
Hamilton Nolan of In These Times posted a recent observation on Twitter which makes the perfect counter to The Atlantic’s snooty pontifications.
“The best thing Twitter did for journalism was to show everyone there are thousands of regular people who are better writers than most professionals which is why the most mediocre famous pundits have always been quickest to dismiss it as a cesspool,” Nolan writes, adding, “Best thing Twitter did for the world, in general, was to allow anyone to yell directly at rich and powerful people, which drove many of them insane, including the richest guy on earth.”
Of course, the imperial narrative managers at The Atlantic would be opposed to normal people getting a voice in public discourse. When your job is to control the narrative, the bigger a monopoly you hold over it the better.
Evil always tells you what it is about to do.
(WW3) It will be the result of specific choices made by the managers of the empire. It will be the result of the US choosing escalation over de-escalation, brinkmanship over detente — not just once but over and over again, while declining off-ramp after off-ramp. It will be the result of real material decisions made by real material people who live in real material houses while collecting real material paychecks to make the choices they are making.
Global Research, November 10, 2022
7 November 2022
Region: Europe, Russia and FSU, USA
Theme: Intelligence, US NATO War Agenda
In-depth Report: UKRAINE REPORT
***
The commander of the US nuclear arsenal has stated unequivocally that the war in Ukraine is just a warmup exercise for a much larger conflict that’s already in the mail.
Antiwar’s Dave DeCamp reports:
The commander that oversees US nuclear forces delivered an ominous warning at a naval conference last week by calling the war in Ukraine a “warmup” for the “big one” that is to come.
“This Ukraine crisis that we’re in right now, this is just the warmup,” said Navy Adm. Charles Richard, the commander of US Strategic command. “The big one is coming. And it isn’t going to be very long before we’re going to get tested in ways that we haven’t been tested [in] a long time.”
Richard’s warning came after the US released its new Nuclear Posture Review (NPR), which reaffirms that the US doctrine allows for the first use of nuclear weapons. The review says that the purpose of the US nuclear arsenal is to “deter strategic attacks, assure allies and partners, and achieve US objectives if deterrence fails.”
Not only does Richard appear to believe that a hot war between major world powers is a foregone conclusion, he has also previously stated that a nuclear war with Russia or China is now “a very real possibility.”
Again, this is not some armchair warrior opining from his desk at a corporate newspaper or DC think tank, this is the head of STRATCOM. Richard would be personally overseeing the very warfare he is talking about.
What I find most striking about remarks like these is how passive they always make it sound. Richard talks about “The Big One” like other people talk about California earthquakes, as though a hot war with China would be some kind of natural disaster that just happened out of nowhere.
This type of rhetoric is becoming more and more common. Describing an Atomic Age world war as something that would happen to the US empire, rather than the direct result of concrete A-or-B decisions made by the empire, is becoming its own genre of foreign policy punditry.
This passive, oopsy-poopsy narrative overlay that’s placed atop the US empire’s militarism is nothing new. Back in 2017 Fair.org’s Adam Johnson documented the way western media are always describing the United States as “stumbling” into wars and getting “sucked in” to military interventions, like a cheating spouse making up bad excuses after getting caught:
China: “No one wants a third world war”
This framing serves to flatter two sensibilities: one right and one vaguely left. It satisfies the right-wing nationalist idea that America only goes to war because it’s compelled to by forces outside of its own control; the reluctant warrior, the gentle giant who will only attack when provoked to do so. But it also plays to a nominally liberal, hipster notion that the US military is actually incompetent and boobish, and is generally bad at war-making.
This is expressed most clearly in the idea that the US is “drawn into” war despite its otherwise unwarlike intentions. “Will US Be Drawn Further Into Syrian Civil War?” asked Fox News (4/7/17). “How America Could Stumble Into War With Iran,” disclosed The Atlantic (2/9/17), “What It Would Take to Pull the US Into a War in Asia,” speculated Quartz (4/29/17). “Trump could easily get us sucked into Afghanistan again,” Slate predicted (5/11/17). The US is “stumbling into a wider war” in Syria, the New York Times editorial board (5/2/15) warned. “A Flexing Contest in Syria May Trap the US in an Endless Conflict,” Vice News (6/19/17) added.
So let’s get real clear about this here and now: if there is a hot war between the US and a major power, it will not be because that war was “stumbled into”. It will not be like an earthquake or other natural disaster. It will not be something that happens to or is inflicted upon the US empire while it just passively stands there in Bambi-eyed innocence.
It will be the result of specific choices made by the managers of the empire. It will be the result of the US choosing escalation over de-escalation, brinkmanship over detente — not just once but over and over again, while declining off-ramp after off-ramp. It will be the result of real material decisions made by real material people who live in real material houses while collecting real material paychecks to make the choices they are making.
Another thing that strikes me about comments like those made by Charles Richard is how freakish and insane it is that everyone doesn’t respond to them with, “Okay, well, then let’s change all of the things we are doing, because that’s the worst thing that can possibly happen.”
And make no mistake: that absolutely is an option. The option to turn away from the collision course with potentially the most horrific war of all time is available right now, and it will remain available for some time into the future. This isn’t 1939 when war is already upon us; if anything it’s more like the early 20th century precursors to World War I and all the stupid aggressions and entanglements which ultimately gave rise to both world wars.
One of the many ways our cultural fascination with World War II has made us stupid and crazy is that it has caused us to forget that it was the worst single event in human history. Even if a hot war with Russia and/or China didn’t go nuclear, it would still unleash unspeakable horrors upon this Earth which would reverberate throughout our collective consciousness for generations.
That horror should be turned away from. And the time to start turning is now.
Meanwhile, President Vladimir Putin has on several occasions hinted at the possibility of a nuclear strike while Kremlin officials repeatedly said Russia’s military doctrine permits the use of nuclear weapons if the country’s territorial integrity is under threat.
He also said the U.S. created a precedent at the end of World War II when it dropped two atomic bombs on Japan.by: Mary Villareal
Monday, November 07, 2022
The world’s five nuclear-armed states are “on the verge of a direct armed conflict,” according to Russia’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Moscow has warned of catastrophic repercussions and insisted that averting a fight is its top priority.
On November 2, the Kremlin released a statement that said Western nations are “encouraging provocations with weapons of mass destruction.” The Kremlin recently accused Kyiv of planning to use a radioactive “dirty bomb,” which authorities have denied.
Western powers, on the other hand, have also accused Moscow of issuing repeated threats to use nuclear weapons to pressure Kyiv into accepting concessions.
Following the attack on Russia’s Black Sea fleet in Crimea, Russia’s foreign ministry issued a statement warning the United Kingdom of “unpredictable and dangerous consequences ” after accusing London of helping Kyiv orchestrate a drone attack on its ships in the port of Sevastopol.
“Such confrontational actions by the British pose the threat of an escalation and can lead to unpredictable and dangerous consequences,” the ministry said.
Russia also accused the U.K. of being involved in the Nord Stream pipeline explosions in September as it is one of the world’s five major nuclear powers.
In a statement dated November 2, Russia’s foreign ministry said it sees avoiding armed conflict between nuclear powers as a key objective amid simmering tensions over the Ukraine conflict.
“We are strongly convinced that in the current complicated and turbulent situation, caused by irresponsible and imprudent actions aimed at undermining our national security, the most immediate task is to avoid any military clash of nuclear powers,” it said.
The Kremlin also noted that it continues to stand by a joint declaration issued in January, in which China, France, Russia, and the United States pleaded to do everything in their power to avoid a nuclear war. (Related: Survey finds that more than one-third of Americans are willing to risk nuclear war with Russia over Ukraine.)
The January declaration stated: “We affirm that a nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought. As nuclear use would have far-reaching consequences, we also affirm that nuclear weapons – for as long as they continue to exist – should serve defensive purposes, deter aggression and prevent war.
On the same day that the Kremlin issued the warning that the five nuclear powers are teetering on the verge of armed conflict, the Pentagon said the United States has not seen any signs that Russia is preparing to use nuclear weapons.
However, Pentagon spokesperson John Kirby denounced Russia’s rhetoric around the potential use of nuclear weapons.
“We’ve been clear from the outset that Russia’s comments about the potential use of nuclear weapons are deeply concerning and we take them seriously. We continue to monitor this as best we can, and we see no indications that Russia is making preparations for such use,” Kirby said.
Meanwhile, President Vladimir Putin has on several occasions hinted at the possibility of a nuclear strike while Kremlin officials repeatedly said Russia’s military doctrine permits the use of nuclear weapons if the country’s territorial integrity is under threat.
He also said the U.S. created a precedent at the end of World War II when it dropped two atomic bombs on Japan.
Ramzan Kadyrov, the leader of the Chechnya region, called for Russia to use a low-yield nuclear weapon in Ukraine.
Moscow has sought to portray its actions in Ukraine as preemptive by accusing the West of seeking to establish Ukraine as a military power against Russia, but NATO and Kyiv have denied such claims.
The foreign ministry also previously reported that senior Russian military leaders have discussed when and how they would use tactical nuclear weapons in Ukraine. The officials involved talked about scenarios in which they would use nuclear weapons, showing how frustrated the generals are about setbacks on the battlefield in Ukraine.
They did not talk about using the weapons with Putin, although the conversation has heightened concerns about the prospect of a nuclear Armageddon.
U.S. government officials also learned about the discussions in mid-October as Moscow’s nuclear rhetoric intensified just after Putin “joked” about the prospect of a nuclear war.
Back then, he was asked to reassure an audience at the Valdai Discussion Club think-tank that the world is not on the verge of nuclear annihilation – to which he chose to respond with a long pause.
Host Fyodor Lukyanov pointed out his silence was “alarming,” but Putin, with a smirk, responded: “I did that on purpose so you would be on your guard. The effect has been achieved.”
Visit WWIII.news for more information about diplomatic relations among countries.
Watch the video below for more information about Putin’s warning of “dangerous” times ahead.
https://www.brighteon.com/embed/ec9508d5-004f-4cc8-9193-9931e49a77b7
This video is from the Chinese taking down EVIL CCP channel on Brighteon.com.
NATO pushing for Kaliningrad CATASTROPHE by provoking Russia into global nuclear war.
Russia warns that NATO’s proxy war in Ukraine poses “serious, real” threat of NUCLEAR war.
Pentagon lusts after nuclear war, says it will “nuke Russia” if Putin doesn’t pull out of Ukraine.
Sources include:
In an interview with CNN, President Biden declared that he has “no intention” of meeting with Vladimir Putin at the upcoming G20 summit. “I’m not about to, nor is anyone else prepared to negotiate with Russia,” Biden said.
https://www.globalresearch.ca/endless-proxy-war-by-design/5797364
By Aaron Mate
Global Research, October 28, 2022
Translate WebsiteShqipአማርኛالعربيةՀայերենAzərbaycan diliEuskaraБеларуская моваবাংলাBosanskiБългарскиCatalàCebuanoChichewa简体中文繁體中文CorsuHrvatskiČeštinaDanskNederlandsEnglishEestiFilipinoSuomiFrançaisქართულიDeutschΕλληνικάગુજરાતીKreyol ayisyenHarshen Hausaעִבְרִיתहिन्दीHmongMagyarÍslenskaIgboBahasa IndonesiaItaliano日本語Basa Jawaಕನ್ನಡҚазақ тіліភាសាខ្មែរ한국어كوردیКыргызчаພາສາລາວLatviešu valodaLietuvių kalbaМакедонски јазикMalagasyBahasa Melayuമ
***
Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has presented the White House with a geopolitical crisis that it played a critical role in creating. In February 2014, Victoria Nuland, a current senior State Department official and former Dick Cheney advisor, was caught on tape plotting the installation of a new Ukrainian government – a plan, she stressed, that would involve Biden and his then-top aide, and current National Security Advisor, Jake Sullivan. Weeks later, the democratically elected Ukrainian president Viktor Yanukovych was ousted and replaced by Washington-backed leaders – including a prime minister selected by Nuland.
The regime change in Kiev made Biden the most influential US political figure in Ukraine, as underscored by the lucrative Burisma board seat gifted to his son Hunter. While the Biden family and other well-connected players profited, Ukraine fell into civil war.
In the eastern Donbas region, Kremlin-backed Ukrainian rebels took up arms against a fascist-infused coup government that cracked down on Russian culture and countenanced murderous assaults on dissidents. Rather than promote the 2015 Minsk II accords — the agreed-upon formula for ending the Donbas conflict – the US fueled the fight with a weapons and training program that turned Ukraine into a NATO proxy. Influential US politicians left no doubt about their intentions. As the Donbas war raged, lawmakers declared that they were using Ukraine to “fight Russia over there” (Adam Schiff) and vowed to “make Russia pay a heavier price,” (John McCain). In February of this year, Russia invaded to bring the eight-year fight to an end, leaving Ukraine to pay the heaviest price of all.
The Biden administration shunned multiple opportunities to prevent the Russian assault. When Russia submitted draft peace treaties in December 2021, the White House refused to even discuss the Kremlin’s core demands: a pledge of neutrality for Ukraine, and the rollback of NATO military forces in post-1997 member states that neighbor Russia. At the final round of talks on implementing Minsk II in early February, the “key obstacle,” the Washington Post reported, “was Kyiv’s opposition to negotiating with the pro-Russian separatists.” Siding with Ukraine’s far-right, which had threatened to overthrow Volodymyr Zelensky if he signed a peace deal, the US made no effort to encourage diplomacy. Emboldened to escalate its war on the Donbas, the Ukrainian government then massively increased shelling on rebel-held areas in the days immediately preceding Russa’s February 24th invasion.
Looking back at the pre-invasion period, Jack Matlock, the US ambassador to the Soviet Union under Bush I, now concludes that “if Ukraine had been willing to abide by the Minsk agreement, recognize the Donbas as an autonomous entity within Ukraine, avoid NATO military advisors, and pledge not to enter NATO,” then Russia’s war “probably would have been prevented.”
For Washington, preventing the war would have interfered with longstanding objectives. As US policymakers have openly recognized, Ukraine’s historical, geographical, and cultural links to Russia could be used as a tool to achieve regime change in Moscow, or, at minimum, leave it “weakened.”
As Ukraine enters another winter of war, this time facing an intensified Russian assault, the Biden administration is apparently in no mood to end a crisis that it helped start.
The Growing Chorus for Peace in Ukraine
In an interview with CNN, President Biden declared that he has “no intention” of meeting with Vladimir Putin at the upcoming G20 summit. “I’m not about to, nor is anyone else prepared to negotiate with Russia,” Biden said.
A recent account in the Washington Post details the White House’s prevailing mindset:
Privately, U.S. officials say neither Russia nor Ukraine is capable of winning the war outright, but they have ruled out the idea of pushing or even nudging Ukraine to the negotiating table. They say they do not know what the end of the war looks like, or how it might end or when, insisting that is up to Kyiv.
“That’s a decision for the Ukrainians to make,” a senior State Department official said. “Our job now is to help them be in absolutely the best position militarily on the battlefield … for that day when they do choose to go to the diplomatic table.”
If the US knows that its ally Ukraine is not “capable of winning the war”, why would it choose to prolong it? The stated aim to put Kiev “in absolutely the best position militarily on the battlefield,” has been offered for months. Yet during this time Russia has held on to about 20% of Ukrainian territory and positioned itself for a major escalation. The Russian army is preparing to deploy some 300,000 reservists, and has recently conducted its most ferocious missile barrages to date, causing serious damage to Ukraine’s civilian infrastructure, as US officials had predicted.
While Ukraine has scored some battlefield successes, there is no indication that its strategic position has significantly improved. The counter-offensive in Kharkiv reportedly came at the cost of high Ukrainian casualties, a type of victory that is unsustainable. The Russian pullback, a Western official told Reuters, was more likely a “withdrawal, ordered and sanctioned by the general staff, rather than an outright collapse… the Russians have made some good decisions in terms of shortening their lines and making them more defensible, and sacrificing territory in order to do so.” The most audacious of Ukraine’s counter-attacks – the bombing of the Kerch bridge – “did not appear to have done permanent damage to the bridge — or to Russia’s war effort,” the New York Times reported. Instead, it only triggered a far more destructive Russian retaliation.
The stated White House position of treating diplomacy as “a decision for the Ukrainians to make” is also based on a false premise. For one, when Ukraine previously did “choose to go to the diplomatic table,” with Russia and even made significant progress, its Western backers in London and Washington sabotaged it, according to multiple accounts.
And whether Ukraine wants to negotiate, the US is not obligated to supply the weaponry and intelligence that sustains the fight. The US role as a co-belligerent in the US conflict is a political choice, not a law of nature. And given that US officials privately admit that Ukraine is not “capable of winning the war,” that would seemingly obligate them all the more to use their considerable leverage to bring this un-winnable war to a speedy end.
Yet another imperative for resolving the conflict is the nuclear threat that it continues to fuel. According to Leon Panetta, the former CIA director and defense secretary, “intelligence analysts now believe that the probability of the use of tactical nuclear weapons in Ukraine has risen from 1-5 percent at the start of the war to 20-25 percent today.” In this “proxy war between Washington and Moscow,” former State Department official Jeremy Shapiro warns, both sides “are locked in an escalatory cycle that, along current trends, will eventually bring them into direct conflict and then go nuclear, killing millions of people and destroying much of the world.” Even if these warnings are overblown, the very fact that they are even being articulated by well-placed former US officials should obligate all parties to demonstrate an effort for peace.
In both the US and Russia, the only apparent response to the threat of terminal conflict is to fuel it. This week, NATO has kicked off its annual nuclear exercises, featuring a fleet of aircraft including U.S. long-range B-52 bombers. Russia is slated to hold its own maneuvers as well.
Meanwhile, rather than negotiating, the US and its partners are devoted to global arms dealing. To procure the Russian-style weapons that Ukrainian soldiers are trained to use, “the United States and other allies have been scouring the globe,” the New York Times reports. Relieved of any need to attempt diplomacy, Secretary of State Antony Blinken has visited Asia, Africa, and Latin America “in a painstaking, behind-the-scenes diplomatic campaign to countries that have demonstrated support for Ukraine but are still reluctant to supply lethal aid.” Over the long-term, a senior NATO official told Politico, the Western goal is “to get Ukraine fully interoperable with NATO.”
Lost in this “painstaking” scramble to find weapons for the Ukraine proxy war is the question of whether there will be any of Ukraine left behind. “[T]he longer the war continues,” Matlock, the former US ambassador to the USSR, writes, “the harder it is going to be to avoid the utter destruction of Ukraine.” A prolonged war also threatens a “winter of de-industrialization” in Europe, along with increased hunger and impoverishment around the globe.
Despite his experience as a US diplomat who helped negotiate an end to the Cold War, Matlock’s opposition to the current cold war has left him banished from establishment US media outlets. In this militaristic climate, it is only on rare occasions that voices of restraint can break the sound barrier.
Speaking recently to ABC News, retired Admiral Mike Mullen, the nation’s top military officer under both Bush II and Obama, urged the White House to find an off-ramp. Of Biden’s warning of a nuclear “Armageddon,” Mullen said: “I think we need to back off that a little bit and do everything we possibly can to try to get to the table to resolve this thing… The sooner the better as far as I’m concerned.”
The Biden administration has taken the inverse position: for their proxy war against Russia, the longer the better, no matter how many more lives in Ukraine are sacrificed by policies designed in Washington.
Tales from the Conspiratum 
