RISKING TOTAL WAR....

The US changed its nuclear strategy a few years ago to include the possibility of a pre-emptive strike. Is it planning one?

There have been attacks on Russia's nuclear strike force (in the Ukrainian Operation Spiders web) and by Ukrainian drones on the early warning system in southern Russia. These are areas that the US and Russia have always kept away from. What was the point in doing this?

The targetting has to have been informed with the use of US intelligence.

Trump 'moving' two Ohio class submarines 'closer' to Russia could be used as an initial strike force according to former National Security Advisor John Bolton who is a die-hard war hawk who is still largely sane but has nothing but contempt for Trump who he believes (correctly) is an ignoramus.

Why is this important now? It's my belief that if Trump doesn't achieve a 'ceasefire' in Ukraine on his terms he will escalate threats - quite a number of escalatory actions have already been taken - more nuclear weapons to bases around Europe including Lakenheath and the USA's now tested and deployed hypersonic missiles to Germany. (They finally came on stream in Nov 2024). The kit is in place.

Trumps threats are meant to intimidate precisely because the USA is losing the war in Ukraine - the USA is NOT a neutral party. It is the main orchestrator of the Ukraine proxy war which is part of a global struggle to maintain its declining hegemony.

The only alternative to this he would have to 'save face' is to say 'I tried to help Ukraine but they're now on their own' and walk away (sensible) - or (what I think he will do if there is not an acceptable result for him) - really increase the threats.

I can't see the USA conceding 'defeat' in Ukraine or anything that looks like it. It would be equivalent to 'throwing in the towel' in geopolitical terms and would do enormous damage to its international standing and declared aim of maintaining its global dominance against rising global competitors that is embodied in its National Defence Strategy.

So the aim is to 'freeze the conflict and buy time for Ukraine to re-arm and start the conflict again in the future. Russia is winning on the battlefield and is will not want to accept anything that doesn't get rid of any long term threats to its security.

I have seen that the conditions that Ukraine MAY agree to are a ceasefire (but NOT peace); ceding the 4 Donbas provinces to Russia for a period of 49 or 99 years; no to NATO.

This is (as the deal I have seen says) not 'peace'. It is just Trumpian window dressing for a freeze.

If no deal arises expect Trump to either walk away (possible); escalate with more sanctions and more money for weapons (despite the reality that the main problems are to do with the type and availability of them because of lack of US productive capacity) - (probable) - or using the nuclear threat (possible BUT could become a reality if things escalate which they ALWAYS do in circumstances such as this).

Thank God Putin is sane. But Russia has a predicament. It will win the war - but could provoke a weakened USA into over-reacting. There are big risks here.

'The principle of “mutual assured destruction” (MAD) is central to the nuclear strategy of the US (and other nuclear powers). A potential enemy must know that a nuclear attack will not go unanswered without devastating retaliation. Ohio-class submarines are the most reliable means of ensuring this, as they are highly likely to survive even a surprise attack and strike back. This is why they are also referred to as classic second-strike weapons...

'And as I said, while the ballistic missile submarines are core to our second strike capability, they are also perfectly capable of being part of a first strike on Russia. So you could see people in the Kremlin obviously always nervous about our capabilities, believe that Trump is trying to insinuate that he may be considering a first strike, which is even more dangerous.“

John Bolton





Popular posts from this blog

THE AGE OF 'ADMINISTRATIVE' POWER.

Image
Warwick Powell explains  how the administrative state has taken over in Europe... 'Regulatory authorities now determine which organisations qualify as legitimate civil society actors, which media outlets are “trusted,” which research bodies are acceptable partners and which narratives are “foreign-influenced.” These classifications carry decisive material consequences - access to funding, platforms and institutional recognition - yet are framed as neutral, technical assessments... Regulatory authorities now determine which organisations qualify as legitimate civil society actors, which media outlets are “trusted,” which research bodies are acceptable partners and which narratives are “foreign-influenced.” These classifications carry decisive material consequences - access to funding, platforms and institutional recognition - yet are framed as neutral, technical assessments.... In countries such as Georgia and Moldova, the EU has increasingly positioned itself not merely as an obser...
Read more

CHINA....AND WESTERN 'LIBERAL ORIENTALISM'.

Image
  Warwick Powell argues that when we in the west look at China we do so in a patronising way he calls 'Liberal Orientalism'. In doing so we dismiss the Cultural Revolution as an aberration rather than a crucial break with the past. He contrasts China with India - the so-called 'worlds largest democracy' where the form of Government was inherited from British Colonialism and is chaotic. This raises the whole idea of governance. If the aim is effective government, India simply doesn't compare to China.  And so is western democracy the ONLY way in which good governance can be achieved? It clearly is not - especially in the days of mass propaganda dominated by wealth and associated corruption. What the festishisation of western democracy does is place 'democracy' above effective government. People are increasingly irritated by the so-called deomocratic process because it frequently fails to address their needs. 'Liberal Orientalism  differs from classical Or...
Read more