What will happen if Russia and Ukraine go to war in the next year?

  https://antibellum679354512.wordpress.com/2022/01/05/guest-contribution-what-will-happen-if-russia-and-ukraine-go-to-war-in-the-next-year/ Don Hank, MA Russian, Kutztown University of Pennsylvania 

The not-so-carefully crafted narrative in the West is that Ukraine is the victim of the cruel aggressive Russian regime that enjoys watching others suffer, like a sadistic boy pulling the legs off grasshoppers and watching them squirm.

The coming war would all be an amusing little computer game except for the fact that the psychopathic US manipulators who indulge in this Russophobic/Sinophobic passtime are gambling with the very future of planet earth. 

These reptilian predators inhabit the rarefied stratosphere of intrigue where reality and fantasy are blurred beyond usefulness. They are so far down the road of believing the product of their own overheated imagination that they have forgotten the simplest of realities, like the fact that millions of people would die instantly and half that many would watch their skin slowly peel off and their hair fall out in thick clumps after a nuclear attack. Major cities would become forests of twisted steel in a desert of glass. Military bases would be gone and aircraft carriers would sink to Davy Jones’ locker. 

The war — all 30 minutes of it — would engulf the entire earth, compromising most of human, animal, plant and even microbial life. At least COVID might be conquered. Should we put that fact on the asset side of the ledger in defense of US foreign policy? Maybe not. 

If the West happened to get the upper hand — killing a billion or so Eastern people (ie, Russians, Chinese, Iranians, for example), and the East killed only a half-billion Westerners, there would not be any certifiably non-radioactive champagne to uncork and sip in celebration of the “victory.” Nor would there be an intact country to host the festivities. 

The sociopathic politicians whose thoughtless words and deeds triggered the conflagration would hardly be congratulated by their peers, who would turn on them with an unquenchable visceral hate. 

People who understand the Kremlin and its designs don’t fall for this malarkey, but there is an army of gullible Westerners who enjoy this sort of fiction and they help perpetuate it. It is on display on these very boards. 

But mercifully, most Washington politicians would not survive because the White House and capitol building would be the first targets of the Russian or Chinese ICBMs. 

Of course, there are many other things that could happen if Ukraine and Russia go to war, but the main thing that the Westerner must know is that, should this happen, Russia will not be the aggressor. 

It never was. The Western aggressor is setting a trap for Russia. But will it like the ending of its narrative?

It’s all explained here: 

Don Hank, Editor-in-Chief at New Silk Strategies (2016-present) 

January 6, 2022 Posted by Christina Macpherson | 2 WORLD, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Five world powers vow to prevent spread of nuclear weapons

Five world powers vow to prevent spread of nuclear weapons
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/1/3/five-world-powers-vow-to-prevent-spread-of-nuclear-weapons

In a joint statement, permanent members of UN Security Council pledge
to ensure a nuclear war is never fought, amid rising world tensions.

Five global nuclear powers have pledged to prevent atomic weapons from
spreading and to ensure a nuclear war is never fought, in a rare joint
statement ahead of a review of a key nuclear treaty later this year.

The statement on Monday said that the United States, United Kingdom,
Russia, China and France – who are the permanent members of the United
Nations Security Council – consider it their primary responsibility to
avoid war between the nuclear states and to reduce strategic risks,
while aiming to work with all countries to create an atmosphere of
security.

“We believe strongly that the further spread of such weapons must be
prevented,” it said, adding, “A nuclear war cannot be won and must
never be fought.”

The Russian-language version of the statement read, “We declare there
could be no winners in a nuclear war, it should never be started.

“As the use of nuclear arms would have far-reaching consequences, we
also confirm that nuclear arms – as long as they exist – should serve
defensive aims, deterrence against aggression and prevention of war.”

Russia hopes the pledge will reduce world tensions, while saying a
summit of permanent UN Security Council members remains necessary.

“We hope that, in the current difficult conditions of international
security, the approval of such a political statement will help reduce
the level of international tensions,” Moscow’s foreign ministry said
in a statement.

Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov told the RIA Novosti news agency that
Moscow still considered a summit between the world’s major nuclear
powers to be “necessary”.

The foreign ministry also said it hoped the agreement will “help build
confidence and form the foundations of future control over offensive
and defensive arms”.

France also released the statement, underscoring that the five powers
reiterated their determination for nuclear arms control and
disarmament. They would continue bilateral and multilateral approaches
to nuclear arms control, it said.

China said the pledge will “increase mutual trust” and reduce the risk
of nuclear conflict.

“The joint statement issued by the leaders of the five nuclear-weapon
states will help increase mutual trust and replace competition among
major powers with coordination and cooperation,” the official Xinhua
news agency quoted vice foreign minister Ma Zhaoxu as saying.

Tensions between Russia and the West have sky-rocketed in recent
months over Ukraine, with the US and its allies warning Moscow of a
massive coordinated sanctions response if it invades its ex-Soviet
neighbour.

January 4, 2022 Posted by Christina Macpherson | 2 WORLD, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Threat of nuclear war: Not a thing of the past

Threat of nuclear war: Not a thing of the past, Daily Star,   António Guterres, Sun Jan 2, 2022 ”……………………. the existential threat that cast a shadow over the first half of my life no longer receives the attention it should. Nuclear weapons have faded from headlines and Hollywood scripts. But the danger they pose remains as high as ever, and is growing by the year. Nuclear annihilation is just one misunderstanding or miscalculation away—a sword of Damocles that threatens not only suffering and death on a horrific scale, but the end of all life on earth. 

Through a combination of luck and judgement, nuclear weapons have not been used since they incinerated Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945. But with more than 13,000 nuclear weapons held in arsenals around the world, how long can our luck hold? The Covid-19 pandemic has brought a new awareness of the catastrophic impact of a low-probability event.

Following the end of the Cold War, nuclear arsenals were dramatically reduced and even eliminated. Entire regions declared themselves nuclear-weapons free zones. A deep and widespread repudiation of nuclear testing took hold. As the prime minister of my country, I ordered Portugal to vote for the first time against the resumption of nuclear testing in the Pacific.

But the end of the Cold War also left us with a dangerous falsehood: that the threat of nuclear war was a thing of the past.

Nothing could be more mistaken. These weapons are not yesterday’s problem. They remain today’s growing threat.

The risk that nuclear weapons will be used is higher now than at any point since the duck-and-cover drills and fallout shelters of the Cold War…………

The nuclear landscape is a tinderbox. One accident or miscalculation could set it alight.

Our main hope to reverse course and steer our world away from nuclear cataclysm is the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons—better known as the NPT—which dates from the height of the Cold War in 1970.

The NPT is one of the main reasons why nuclear weapons have not been used since 1945. It contains legally binding commitments to achieve nuclear disarmament, including by the five largest nuclear-armed countries. It is also a catalyst for disarmament—the only way to eliminate these horrendous weapons once and for all…………..

We must seize the opportunity of January’s NPT Review Conference to reverse dangerous and growing trends and escape the long shadow cast by these inhumane weapons.

The review conference must take bold action on six fronts: 1) Chart a path forward on nuclear disarmament; 2) Agree new measures of transparency and dialogue, to reduce the risk of nuclear war; 3) Address simmering nuclear crises in the Middle East and Asia; 4) Work to strengthen the global frameworks that support non-proliferation, including the IAEA; 5) Promote the peaceful use of nuclear technology for medical and other uses – one reason why the NPT has won the adherence of non-nuclear-weapons states; 6) And remind the world’s people—especially its young people—that eliminating nuclear weapons is the only way to guarantee they will never be used. 

I urge governments to approach the conference in a spirit of solidarity, frank dialogue, and flexibility.

What happens in the NPT negotiating rooms in January matters to everyone—because any use of nuclear weapons will affect everyone.

The fragility of our world has never been clearer.

I hope people everywhere will push governments to step back from the abyss and create a safer, more secure world for all: a world free of nuclear weapons.

 Antonio Guterres is the secretary-general of the United Nations. https://www.thedailystar.net/views/opinion/news/threat-nuclear-war-not-thing-the-past-2930251

January 3, 2022 Posted by Christina Macpherson | 2 WORLD, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Why a U.S.-Russia War Would Inevitably Be a Globe-Annihilating Nuclear War

https://moderndiplomacy.eu/2021/12/31/why-a-u-s-russia-war-would-inevitably-be-a-globe-annihilating-nuclear-war/ December 31, 2021, By Eric Zuesse     Even Russia acknowledges that any conventional war between the U.S. and Russia would destroy Russia but not destroy the U.S. Consequently, for Russia, any such war will not be waged. Only idiots would choose to engage in a war that they are certain to lose, and which would utterly destroy themselves. This means that if the U.S. strikes Russia by a conventional (i.e., non-nuclear) invasion, then Russia has only two options: (1) to respond with conventional weapons and assuredly be destroyed while achieving nothing; or, else (2) promptly release at least enough of its 6,255 nuclear warheads so as to maximally weaken the U.S.A.-and-allied retaliatory capability so as to be able then to go into a “Round Two” nuclear attack against the U.S.-and-allied side by having a much stronger military position than all of its many enemies (America and its allies) do.

That second option would leave BOTH SIDES, and (because of the then-inevitable nuclear winter) actually the entire planet, either doomed or else being close to being so. However, the U.S. and its many allies would be in far worse condition than Russia would be (because they’d have been greatly weakened by Russia’s nuclear first-strike); and then, MAYBE, Russians could survive that war by having lives that might be worth living.

The second option, for Russia, would be enormously less horrible than the first option; and here is why:

First of all: Russia would still retain its sovereign independence, not become a slave-nation (which the survivors in any U.S.-and-allied nation would then be: slaves, then, to Russia).

Secondly: Russia wouldn’t need to worry any longer whether the U.S.-and-allied side would be the first to go nuclear. Instead, the war would be over.

This is the reason why, ever since at least 2006, the U.S. has been planning and building its war against Russia for the U.S. side to be the first to go nuclear. (That plan is called “Nuclear Primacy,” and it replaces the previous system, which still continued on in Russia, and which was called “M.A.D” for “Mutually Assured Destruction.”)

Consequently: any idea that Russia would likely respond to a non-nuclear invasion of Russia without promptly going nuclear against the invading powers is stupid. Russia now knows how voracious America’s rulers (America’s billionaires) are. Ever since 24 February 1990, the U.S. had been secretly informing its allies that though the Soviet Union would soon end, and Soviet communism would soon end, and the Soviets’ Warsaw-Pact that they had built up in response to America’s NATO military alliance would also soon end, the U.S. side of the Cold War was to be secretly continued against Russia, until Russia itself becomes conquered and swallowed-up by the U.S. side, and the U.S. thereby becomes the unchallengeable dictator over the entire world.

Russia’s recent demand that all U.S.-and-allied weaponry that is less than a ten-minute flying-distance from Moscow be removed, and that NATO expansion be permanently halted, is a desperate attempt by Russia to avoid becoming yet-another slave-country to the U.S. regime. Russia doesn’t have good options. But, given the insatiably voracious appetite for expanding yet further America’s power that America’s rulers have, neither does any other country. And even Russia’s enormous nuclear force can’t protect Russians against so evil an enemy. But, perhaps, Russia’s nuclear force will be able to prevent Russians from becoming slaves to the U.S. regime. And that would be something worthy of achieving.

This entire matter was brought to a head because Barack Obama perpetrated in 2014 a coup-takeover of Ukraine, which has the longest European border with Russia. He had planned to seize Russia’s largest naval base, which was (and remained) on Crimea, but Russia was able to block that part of Obama’s plan. (Obama’s team had started by no later than 23 June 2011 to plan that coup.)Attachments areaPreview YouTube video Ukraine Crisis – What You’re Not Being ToldUkraine Crisis – What You’re Not Being Told

January 1, 2022 Posted by Christina Macpherson | 2 WORLD, weapons and war | Leave a comment