Defcon Watch: The nuclear paradox
Putin all-in, on the nuke "threat"
“That’s the funny thing about the nuclear paradox,” a retired intelligence officer, a man who had served in both military and civilian spook units, once said: “Talking about it is just as dangerous as not talking about it.”
And we sure are talking about it a lot lately.
Rightfully so. It would be just as dangerous not to.
The day after 9/11, Vladimir Putin was reportedly the first world leader to call President George W. Bush to offer Russia’s full support in the new global war on terror; then, as a gesture of solidarity and in the interests of mutual security, he stood down a scheduled exercise of his nuclear forces. The same forces that he has now placed on “high alert,” in an attempt to intimidate NATO against intervention in Ukraine—to warn of the strategic implications: the possibility of nuclear war. Tread lightly. You’re moseying through a minefield. An atomic one.
As Putin’s invasion drags on, sapping the strength of his conventional forces, Russia “likely will increasingly rely on its nuclear deterrent to signal the West and project strength to its internal and external audiences,” says Lieutenant-General Scott Berrier, director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, in a recent summary of global threats.
But a threat only. For now. A reminder of where a direct clash between NATO and Russian forces would likely land us.
Notwithstanding Russia’s “escalate-to-de-escalate” nuclear doctrine, or the “enhanced potential for miscalculation, unintended escalation,” especially in the age of cyber-warfare, the likelihood of Putin employing a tactical nuke to end the war in Ukraine still remains slim. If only because: why risk the gamble with NATO, when conventional weapons can do the same job? “Demolish” Ukraine’s cities. Bomb its people into submission.
Putin doesn’t need to go nuclear. But will he?
9/11 was a long time ago.”
My friend,
Alex Holstein, author of this
Subscribe, if you wish.
The feckless, inept, and corrupt US govt., with willing assistance from the EU, purposefully and willfully put us in the situation in which we now find ourselves. The release of the pathogen, and events subsequent to that release, failed to achieve the desired goal. Put more simply, too many of us failed to submit. Especially here in the US. Hence, a new plan. With a new threat. And a new bogeyman. Although the new one is not really new, they’ve had it waiting in the wings for decades. They are all scum.
Was it ‘wrong’ for Putin to go into Ukraine in an effort to stop the encroachment from the West? Let’s stipulate that it was, although I could argue that point. Was it therefore more, or less, wrong for our own government to fund the development of a deadly pathogen, facilitate (if not outright do it) its release on its citizens, harvest co-morbidities in order to claim a million deaths, pay the media billions to sell the narrative, and then deploy a ‘solution’ that is proving to be more deadly than the pathogen itself?
I’m not defending Putin. But here’s the thing. While Putin’s actions are clearly killing people and destroying infrastructure in Ukraine, one can make an effective and rational argument that his actions are designed to protect the sovereignty and citizens of Russia. No such argument can be made about what our own government has done to us over the past 2 years…as they have killed of 100s of 1000s of their own citizens and allowed destruction of our infrastructure via lockdowns and a wide open southern border.
This is bullshit take, it's propaganda. Russian forces aren't being depleted. Putin is being strategic.
And, in every way, this is the most justified military action taken - in perhaps 40 years.
The West was encircling Russia with conventional weapons, and bioweapons labs ( at least 26 in Ukraine and other nearby states) ...
To let that go on one day longer was a direct threat to 230 million Russians.