“Biden quietly moves world closer towards armageddon. Finland ready to host nukes” U.S. plan to trap Russia by positioning its nuclear missiles about 500 miles or 7 minutes of missile-flying distance from The Kremlin
A “checkmate” (a beheading of Russia’s central command so that Russia won’t have enough time to launch its retaliatory missiles) and demand Russia’s surrender (since there is no way that Russia’s central command would be able to assess the situation within only 7 minutes and get its missiles launched).
Swedish JAS 39 Gripens with a Norwegian F-35 and a US B-52 over Andøya in northern Norway, August 18, 2022. Norwegian Armed Forces
There is a history to this plan, and the U.S. Government decision to do this seems to have been made in or around 2006, when America’s two most prestigious national security academic journals, Foreign Affairs and National Security, both recommended (though ever so tactfully) replacing the idea (actually meta-strategy) of “Mutually Assured Destruction” or “M.A.D.” (that nuclear weapons exist only in order to prevent a WW III), by the new U.S. meta-strategy, of “Nuclear Primacy” — that America will use them so as to win a nuclear war, WW III, against Russia.
“Ruling the world is what the so-called West has staked in this game, which is certainly dangerous, bloody, and – I would say – dirty. It denies the sovereignty of countries and peoples, their identity and uniqueness, and disregards any interests of other states,” the Russian president explained. In their so-called “rules-based world order,” only those making the “rules” have any agency, while everyone else must simply obey.
Positioning those missiles in Ukraine was supposed to be the way to do this, but, since that is looking increasingly unlikely now, it is to be Finland (the second-nearest nation to The Kremlin) which is taking on this function (if Turkiye’s President Tayyip Erdogan will allow it into NATO, which will be his most fateful decision ever).
Then, on 1 March 2017, two leading American experts on nuclear-arms control published in the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists saying that a new type of nuclear fuse that was being installed on U.S. missiles “creates exactly what one would expect to see, if a nuclear-armed state were planning to have the capacity to fight and win a nuclear war by disarming enemies with a surprise first strike.” That strike now is expected to be coming from Finland, instead of from Ukraine.
On October 28th, Russia’s RT News bannered “Biden backtracks on nuclear pledge: The Pentagon has failed to impose a limit on use of the atomic option despite president’s promise”, and reported that President Biden had switched his policy because of advice from The Pentagon, which says that America will need to have an option to start nuclear war with Russia — not merely to respond to it from Russia. Russia’s policy on nuclear first-use is very clear — and is NO Russian version of America’s Nuclear-Primacy policy:
US pours in Arms, Bases, War-games promoting far-right nationalist vassals on Russian borders/ videos..https://thefreeonline.com/2021/10/
There are four scenarios in which Russia reserves the right to use nuclear weapons, that is, to go beyond nuclear deterrence.
- obtaining reliable information about the launch of ballistic missiles attacking Russia;
- the use of nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction against Russia;
- some impact on objects, the failure of which will lead to the disruption of the response of nuclear forces;
- aggression against Russia with the use of conventional weapons, when the very existence of the state is threatened..
Of course, there is also the possibility that the situation in Ukraine could develop into one in which condition #4 might be the one that would spark a Russian first-strike against America and its allies. But that now seems less likely than a U.S. first-strike from Finland does. (Also: Finland was part of Hitler’s Operation Barbarossa invasion of the Soviet Union — it allied with Hitler. This time, it would be allied with Biden.)
*******
via thefreeonline
What Is A Dirty Bomb And Will Ukraine Use It Against Russia?
US controlled States rejected Russia’s accusations as ridiculous, laughable, impossible… But Zelensky himself threatened to make a Nuclear Bomb (April 16 2021) unless Ukraine were admitted to NATO. His nuclear threat was repeated just before Russia invaded, and many considered it ‘the last straw’ that forced Russia to act. Ukraine had Nuclear Armaments in the Soviet era, and has both the ingredients and skilled technicians to make Nuclear Arms. A ‘Dirty Bomb’ for them is a simpler construction, merely lacing conventional explosives with radioactivity, and can reportedly be delivered by standard Tocha missiles.
US should learn lessons from ‘Cuban Missile Crisis’ – Russian ambassador
Putin oversees retaliatory nuclear strike drills
Biden’s Broken Promise to Avoid War with Russia May Kill Us All —
Oct 2022 by Medea Benjamin and Nicolas J.S. DaviesAdmin, at Toward Freedom shared with thanks
Editor’s Note: The following represents the writers’ analysis.
On March 11, 2022, U.S. President Joe Biden reassured the U.S. public and the world that the United States and its NATO allies were not at war with Russia. “We will not fight a war with Russia in Ukraine,” said Biden. “Direct conflict between NATO and Russia is World War III, something we must strive to prevent.”
It is widely acknowledged that U.S. and NATO officers are now fully involved in Ukraine’s operational war planning, aided by a broad range of U.S. intelligence gathering and analysis to exploit Russia’s military vulnerabilities, while Ukrainian forces are armed with U.S. and NATO weapons and trained up to the standards of other NATO countries.
On October 5, Nikolay Patrushev, the head of Russia’s Security Council, recognized that Russia is now fighting NATO in Ukraine. Meanwhile, Russian President Vladmir Putin has reminded the world that Russia has nuclear weapons and is prepared to use them “when the very existence of the state is put under threat,” as Russia’s official nuclear weapons doctrine declared in June 2020.
It seems likely that, under that doctrine, Russia’s leaders would interpret losing a war to the United States and NATO on their own borders as meeting the threshold for the use of nuclear weapons.
Biden acknowledged on October 6 that Putin is “not joking” and that it would be difficult for Russia to use a “tactical” nuclear weapon “and not end up with Armageddon.” Biden assessed the danger of a full-scale nuclear war as higher than at any time since the Cuban missile crisis in 1962.
Yet despite voicing the possibility of an existential threat to our survival, Biden was not issuing a public warning to the U.S. public and the world, nor announcing any change in U.S. policy. Bizarrely, the president was instead discussing the prospect of nuclear war with his political party’s financial backers during an election fundraiser at the home of media mogul James Murdoch, with surprised corporate media reporters listening in.
In an NPR report about the danger of nuclear war over Ukraine, Matthew Bunn, a nuclear weapons expert at Harvard University, estimated the chance of Russia using a nuclear weapon at 10 percent to 20 percent.
How have we gone from ruling out direct U.S. and NATO involvement in the war to U.S. involvement in all aspects of the war except for the bleeding and dying, with an estimated 10 percent to 20 percent chance of nuclear war? Bunn made that estimate shortly before the sabotage of the Kerch Strait Bridge to Crimea. What odds will he project a few months from now if both sides keep matching each other’s escalations with further escalation?
Pilots from the 388th and 419th fighter wings taxi nuclear capable F-35As on the runway in preparation for a combat power exercise at Hill Air Force Base, Utah. (Senior Airman Justin Fuchs/U.S. Air Force)
‘Smart’ US nukes for ‘Nuclear First Strike’ coming now to Italy, Belgium, Germany, Netherlands… July 16, 2022
The irresolvable dilemma facing Western leaders is that this is a no-win situation. How can they militarily defeat Russia, when it possesses 6,000 nuclear warheads and its military doctrine explicitly states that it will use them before it will accept an existential military defeat?
And yet that is what the intensifying Western role in Ukraine now explicitly aims to achieve. This leaves U.S. and NATO policy, and thus our very existence, hanging by a thin thread: The hope that Putin is bluffing, despite explicit warnings that he is not. CIA Director William Burns, Director of National Intelligence Avril Haines and Defense Intelligence Agency Director Scott Berrier, have all warned that we should not take this danger lightly.
The danger of relentless escalation toward Armageddon is what both sides faced throughout the Cold War, which is why, after the wake-up call of the Cuban missile crisis in 1962, dangerous brinkmanship gave way to a framework of nuclear arms control agreements and safeguard mechanisms to prevent proxy wars and military alliances spiraling into a world-ending nuclear war. Even with those safeguards in place, there were still many close calls—but without them, we would probably not be here to write about it.
Today, the situation is made more dangerous by the dismantling of those nuclear arms treaties and safeguards. It is also exacerbated, whether either side intends it or not, by the 12-to-1 imbalance between U.S. and Russian military spending, which leaves Russia with more limited conventional military options and a greater reliance on nuclear ones.
But there have always been alternatives to the relentless escalation of this war by both sides that has brought us to this pass. In April, Western officials took a fateful step when they persuaded Ukrainian President Volodomyr Zelensky to abandon Turkish- and Israeli-brokered negotiations with Russia that had produced a promising 15-point framework for a ceasefire, a Russian withdrawal and a neutral future for Ukraine.
That agreement would have required Western countries to provide security guarantees to Ukraine, but they refused to be party to it and instead promised Ukraine military support for a long war to try to decisively defeat Russia and recover all the territory Ukraine had lost since 2014.
U.S. Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin declared that the West’s goal in the war was now to “weaken” Russia to the point that it would no longer have the military power to invade Ukraine again. But if the United States and its allies ever came close to achieving that goal, Russia would surely see such a total military defeat as putting “the very existence of the state under threat,” triggering the use of nuclear weapons under its publicly stated nuclear doctrine.
On May 23, the very day that Congress passed a $40 billion aid package for Ukraine, including $24 billion in new military spending, the contradictions and dangers of the new U.S.-NATO war policy in Ukraine finally spurred a critical response from The New York Times Editorial Board. A Times editorial, titled “The Ukraine War is Getting Complicated, and America Is Not Ready,” asked serious, probing questions about the new U.S. policy:
“Is the United States, for example, trying to help bring an end to this conflict, through a settlement that would allow for a sovereign Ukraine and some kind of relationship between the United States and Russia? Or is the United States now trying to weaken Russia permanently? Has the administration’s goal shifted to destabilizing Putin or having him removed? Does the United States intend to hold Putin accountable as a war criminal? Or is the goal to try to avoid a wider war…? Without clarity on these questions, the White House… jeopardizes long-term peace and security on the European continent.”
The NYT editors went on to voice what many have thought but few have dared to say in such a politicized media environment, that the goal of recovering all the territory Ukraine has lost since 2014 is not realistic, and that a war to do so will “inflict untold destruction on Ukraine.” They called on Biden to talk honestly with Zelenskyy about “how much more destruction Ukraine can sustain” and the “limit to how far the United States and NATO will confront Russia.”
The newly upgraded B61-12 nuclear gravity bomb
A week later, Biden replied to the Times in an op-ed titled, “What America Will and Will Not Do in Ukraine.” He quoted Zelensky saying that the war “will only definitively end through diplomacy,” and wrote that the United States was sending weapons and ammunition so that Ukraine “can fight on the battlefield and be in the strongest possible position at the negotiating table.”
Biden wrote, “We do not seek a war between NATO and Russia… the United States will not try to bring about [Putin’s] ouster in Moscow.” But he went on to pledge virtually unlimited U.S. support for Ukraine, and he did not answer the more difficult questions the Times asked about the U.S. endgame in Ukraine, the limits to U.S. involvement in the war or how much more devastation Ukraine could sustain.
As the war escalates and the danger of nuclear war increases, these questions remain unanswered. Calls for a speedy end to the war echoed around the UN General Assembly in New York in September, where 66 countries, representing most of the world’s population, urgently called on all sides to restart peace talks.
The greatest danger we face is that their calls will be ignored, and that the U.S. military-industrial complex’s overpaid minions will keep finding ways to incrementally turn up the pressure on Russia, calling its bluff and ignoring its “red lines” as they have since 1991, until they cross the most critical “red line” of all.
If the world’s calls for peace are heard before it is too late and we survive this crisis, the United States and Russia must renew their commitments to arms control and nuclear disarmament, and negotiate how they and other nuclear armed states will destroy their weapons of mass destruction and accede to the Treaty for the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons, so that we can finally lift this unthinkable and unacceptable danger hanging over our heads.
Medea Benjamin and Nicolas J.S. Davies are the authors of War in Ukraine: Making Sense of a Senseless Conflict, available from OR Books in November 2022.
Medea Benjamin is the cofounder of CODEPINK for Peace, and the author of several books, including Inside Iran: The Real History and Politics of the Islamic Republic of Iran.
Nicolas J.S. Davies is an independent journalist, a researcher with CODEPINK and the author of Blood on Our Hands: The American Invasion and Destruction of Iraq.
*************
Steps towards multilateral nuclear disarmament – but media silence
An even more momentous UN vote occurred during the same session, when 124 member states affirmed their support for the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW).
Once again, all the nuclear-armed powers (the US, Russia, Britain, France, China, Israel, India, Pakistan and North Korea) opposed the aim of a nuclear weapons-free world. They were joined for the first time by Finland and Sweden, now pledged to enter Nato together.
Once upon a time, we would have heard Labour voices at Westminster speaking out against Britain’s nuclear weapons and Nato’s war-mongering.
THE “international community” has spoken. Twice in the past three days, a very large majority of United Nations member states have made clear their position on two vital issues of life and death.
Unfortunately, this was not the “international community“ comprising the United States, Britain, other major Western powers and those other countries they can bribe, bully or bamboozle to fall into line.
Hence the shroud of silence that has fallen over most of Britain’s mass media when it comes to reporting two significant votes at the UN.
Last Friday, the general assembly’s first committee decided by 152 to five that Israel should sign up to the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons Treaty (NPT).
From left, Bonnie Urfer, Steve Baggarly, Susan Crane, John LaForge all of the US, and Gerd Buentzly of Germany, entered Büchel Air Base in Germany to challenge U.S. nuclear weapons deployment. (Photo by Ralph Hutchison)
The resolution on “the risk of nuclear proliferation in the Middle East” noted that Israel is the only country in the Middle East — and one of the few among the 193 UN member states — not to accede to the NPT.
Accession to the treaty would oblige Israel to submit its nuclear facilities to Atomic Energy Agency safeguards and not to develop, produce, test or acquire nuclear weapons.
Israel refuses to admit its possession of the atomic bomb and kidnapped, drugged, abducted and imprisoned nuclear scientist Mordechai Vanunu who spilled the beans to the British press 36 years ago.
Freed after 18 years and subsequent short incarcerations, he survives under severe restrictions in Israel.
While some of Israel’s accusers are also serial abusers of human rights, this should not detract from the sheer weight of world opinion against nuclear proliferation.
Only the US, Canada and the US military protectorates of Micronesia and Palau joined Israel in opposing the NPT resolution. Britain, India and most European countries abstained.
An even more momentous UN vote occurred during the same session, when 124 member states affirmed their support for the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW).
Once again, all the nuclear-armed powers (the US, Russia, Britain, France, China, Israel, India, Pakistan and North Korea) opposed the aim of a nuclear weapons-free world. They were joined for the first time by Finland and Sweden, now pledged to enter Nato together.
This backward step is yet another consequence of Russia’s disastrous decision to invade Ukraine, which has strengthened reactionary forces across Europe, Ukraine and — at least for the time being — Russia itself.
On a brighter note, Australia turned towards sanity by abstaining on the TPNW for a change. The US Pentagon is not happy, but Australia’s vigorous peace movement can celebrate this symbolic blow against the US-UK-Oz anti-China military pact.
Naturally, this decision by most of the “international community” to accelerate the drive to multilateral nuclear disarmament has been ignored by the mainstream media in Britain.
There will be no US or EU sanctions against those rogue states — such as themselves — who brazenly flout UN resolutions and international law when it suits them.
Once upon a time, we would have heard Labour voices at Westminster speaking out against Britain’s nuclear weapons and Nato’s war-mongering.
Alas, silence now reigns as the ghosts of Sydney Silverman, Ian Mikardo, Joan Maynard, SO Davies and Emrys Hughes look on in despair.
Related
How to STOP WW3: Reducing Tensions, Building Trust, De-escalating
US gives no response to Russia’s proposal to return nuclear weapons to its soil – MF
Britain’s military facilities being enhanced to host new US nukes: ReportApril 13, 2022
Hypocrisies and successes at UN meeting to ban nuclear weapons June 29, 2022
US ‘urges’ countries to withdraw from UN nuke ban treaty to block imminent ratification
Joy as Treaty banning nuclear weapons to enter into force. 9 Nuclear States stay away.October 25, 2020
NATO Blockades Russian area of Kaliningrad by Rail:- Playing ‘Chicken’- with Nuclear Oblivion. |
The Free 
One thought on “U.S. Prepares surprise Nuclear Strike At Kremlin -Biden’s Broken Promise May Kill Us All —STOP NATO NOW!-”