Tag: nuclear war

Ukrainian Neo-Nazi Claims Nuclear War will be GOOD for Ukraine

Ukrainian Neo-Nazi Evgeny Karas claimed during in an interview on Tuesday with the Ukrainian broadcaster Radio Bayraktar that Russia striking Ukraine with nuclear weapons would in fact be good for Ukraine. The man is the leader of the ‘S14’ terrorist group, whose members have a record of harassing minorities and have been accused of high-profile political murders, according to RT.

”Nuclear war is good,” Karas said in the interview, according to RT on Wednesday. “When it happens, we’ll have no more reasons to whine. Nothing worse could happen after a nuclear strike.”

While the aforementioned statement may indicate a nonsensical bloodlust, Karas went so far as to claim that nuclear fallout in Ukraine may even be good for evolution.

“A nuclear war may help us evolve in a way that we could see through an official and tell whether he is a thief or not,” he said according to RT.

While the Neo-Nazi may think nuclear war will be enjoyable, the Japanese who actually experienced it did not.

Keep reading

No Nuclear War: A Call for Reason

The threat of a nuclear war between the US and Russia is real—on this point, there is rare bipartisan agreement in Congress.

The question which emerges is what can Congress do to reduce this threat. Here the potential paths toward a solution become clogged with political obstacles.

There is a House Resolution that has been introduced by Congressman Higgins, R-Louisiana which is, from the perspective of preventing a nuclear war, the proverbial “cure for cancer.”

HR 10218 (“To prohibit the transfer of Army Tactical Missile Systems to Ukraine, and for other purposes”) (see text) is a carefully—indeed masterfully—crafted piece of legislation which condenses the potential trigger for a US-Russian nuclear conflict down to its most basic component—the use of ATACMS missiles by Ukraine to strike Russian territory. As has been explained in detail elsewhere, the Ukrainian ATACMS attacks on Russia are seen as an attack by the US, making the US a direct participant to the conflict.

If the attacks stop, then the US will no longer be seen by Russia as engaging in offensive military operations against Russian territory.

And as such, the trigger for the release of Russian nuclear weapons will not be pulled.

“Cancer” is cured—there will be no nuclear war.

Keep reading

WWIII Warning! UK Military Head Says We’re In “A Third Nuclear Age”

Admiral Sir Tony Radakin, the most senior officer in the British Armed Forces, warned the world this week that humanity has entered a “third nuclear age” where the threat of an all-out thermonuclear war is more possible than ever before.

Speaking to the Royal United Services Institute for Defence and Security Studies (RUSI) think tank on Wednesday, Radakin discussed the current state of England’s nuclear security.

“The security outlook is more contested, more ambiguous and more dangerous than we have known in our careers,” he stated, telling members of RUSI that “a third nuclear age is upon us.”

Radakin, who currently serves as the UK’s Chief of the Defence Staff, described the Cold War as the “first nuclear age” that was allegedly managed by leaders with “the logic of deterrence.”

The “second nuclear age” came in the 1990s when “nuclear non-proliferation” contributed to a safer world, according to the UK admiral.

He then blamed Russian President Vladimir Putin for the current nuclear age, saying, “From Russia we have seen wild threats of tactical nuclear use, large scale nuclear exercises and simulated attacks against NATO countries, all designed to coerce us from taking the action required to maintain stability… Putin believes in a historic fiction.”

However, Radakin suggested Russia would likely not launch a direct attack on the UK because the NATO retaliation would be “overwhelming.”

Keep reading

Russia Using Nuclear Weapon in Ukraine Would Collapse Global Economy, Warns Declassified Intel Document

The use of a nuclear weapon by Russia in Ukraine would plunge the global economy into chaos, leading to food insecurity and high inflation, according to a declassified national security document.

The National Intelligence Council’s (NIC) memorandum from November 2022, titled “Potential Global Economic Consequences of a Use by Russia of Nuclear Weapons in Ukraine,” was declassified by Director of National Intelligence Avril Haines in September.

The NIC, established in 1979, reports to the Office of the Director of National Intelligence and bridges the Intelligence Community with policy makers in the United States.

Unsurprisingly, the document states that a nuclear attack on Ukraine would trigger long-term global financial instability, push emerging markets into default, and lead to food insecurity.

Keep reading

Russia’s New Nuclear Doctrine: What Has Changed?

Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov earlier said that the update of the doctrine was necessary due to heightened tensions around Russian borders and nuclear nations supporting Kiev in its conflict with Russia.

Russian President Vladimir Putin has authorized the country’s updated nuclear doctrine, bringing into force changes that he first announced in September. What are the updates about?

The previous version singled out four situations in which the Russian head of state may decide on the use nuclear weapons: a ballistic missile attack on Russia; an attack on the country using weapons of mass destruction; an attack on Russian state or military facilities; and an aggression against Russia with the use of conventional weapons when “the very existence of the state is at risk.”

Under the current doctrine, in addition to the aforementioned clauses, Russia can also press the red button if:

There is an attack with the use of conventional weapons against Russia and (or) Belarus as members of the Union State, which poses “a critical threat to their sovereignty and (or) territorial integrity” (“the very existence of the state is at risk” term has been omitted).

There is “reliable information about a mass launch of means for an aerospace attack” (strategic and tactical warplanes, cruise missiles, unmanned aerial vehicles, as well as hypersonic and other systems) and their crossing of Russia’s state border.

Keep reading

Departing Russian ambassador to Washington warns of escalating U.S.-Russian tensions and rising risk of nuclear conflict over Ukraine

Russia’s former top envoy to the United States has concluded his term with a dire warning about the escalating risk of deteriorating tensions between Moscow and Washington that could potentially lead to a nuclear confrontation.

Ambassador of the Russian Federation to the U.S. Anatoly Antonov has been relieved after seven years of serving as Moscow’s top diplomat in the country. In an exclusive interview with Newsweek, Antonov shared his concerns before stepping down after seven years of service.

During his tenure, Antonov became a prominent voice for the Kremlin’s stance on U.S.-Russia relations, which have steadily worsened amid the conflict in Ukraine and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization’s increased military support for Kyiv.

In his final interview in the U.S., Antonov expressed concern that the ongoing conflict was drawing American leaders deeper into a dangerous situation. (Related: Preparing for WWIII? Thousands of French soldiers to join military exercise in Romania next year for simulated war with Russia.)

“‘Project Ukraine’ is dragging American politicians further into an abyss, from which it is increasingly difficult to escape,” Antonov told Newsweek. He criticized U.S. officials for responding to Russian military gains in the contested Donbas region and Ukraine’s incursion into Russia’s Kursk Oblast with repeated commitments to continue supporting Ukraine “as long as we can.”

Antonov lamented that Washington had not signaled any interest in negotiations or attempts to reconsider its stance. “There are zero signals to [Ukraine] about the need to think over their position and sit down at the negotiating table,” he said. “Nor are there any hints about stopping the senseless flow of weapons at the expense of the local taxpayer.”

He further warned that U.S. discussions about potentially allowing Ukraine to use American-supplied ballistics to conduct long-range missile strikes in Russian territory were particularly dangerous due to recent warnings from Russian President Vladimir Putin that such actions would amount to NATO’s direct involvement in the conflict.

Keep reading

Ex-Russian Ambassador to D.C. Yeah Warns of Nuclear Risk, Says U.S. Won’t be Protected by Oceans

Russia announced last week that it has pulled its ambassador to the U.S. and the outgoing diplomat warned the West, again, of the growing risk of a nuclear confrontation between the countries.

Anatoly Antanov served in the post since 2017 and told reporters the relationship between countries was “arguably at the lowest point in their history.”

He said that there would be an “uncontrolled nosedive” if Kyiv get the green light from the U.S. to use long-range missiles to strike targets deep inside Russia, the Daily Mail reported.

He said a global nuclear “catastrophe would affect everyone” and the U.S. “will not be able to sit it out across the ocean.”

Keep reading

Russia Elevates Nuclear Threat: Implications for Ukraine and the Global Power Balance

In what the Kremlin has labeled a warning to Western nations, Russian President Vladimir Putin has announced plans to lower the nuclear threshold, allowing for nuclear retaliation in response to large-scale air assaults and treating attacks by non-nuclear states, when supported by nuclear powers, as joint offensives.

Moscow aims to raise the stakes and discourage further support for Ukraine.

Meanwhile, both the Concept of the Foreign Policy of the Russian Federation and the Kremlin’s 2024 National Threat Assessment call for displacing the U.S. and the West as global leaders, with the fall of Ukraine viewed as a crucial step in reshaping the international order under Moscow and Beijing.

As the cost of supporting Ukraine rises, the cost of allowing its collapse may be even greater.

Russia’s Defense Ministry is set to gain the power to assess whether conditions for deploying nuclear weapons are met, as part of upcoming changes to the country’s nuclear doctrine, according to Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov.

The revisions are being made in response to increased involvement of nuclear powers in the war in Ukraine and NATO’s expanded presence near Russia.

Keep reading

Media Urge Expansion of Ukraine War—Nuclear Risk Be Damned

Ukraine has for months been asking the Biden administration for permission to use long-range US, British and French weapons to strike deeper in Russian territory, which would be a clear escalation in the war. Meanwhile, Russian President Vladimir Putin warned that the move would cross a red line for him, and recently announced that he was loosening Russia’s nuclear doctrine for using nuclear weapons.

Despite the risks of such escalation—and a lack of evidence that it would shift the war in Ukraine’s favor—Biden’s public reluctance to loosen his limits has been met in the war-hungry media primarily with derision.

The US, Britain and France have all supplied Ukraine with long-range missiles, including Army Tactical Missile Systems (ATACMS). But Biden has thus far limited their use to border areas. Britain and France are following Biden’s lead on range limitations.

Last month, in response to further advances by Russia into Ukraine, Ukraine launched a surprise invasion into Russian territory in Kursk. Since then, as Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy has pressed the US for more and longer-range missiles, Putin has increasingly raised the specter of nuclear retaliation.

Under its 2020 nuclear doctrine, Russia could respond with nuclear strikes to nuclear or conventional attacks it deemed a “threat to its existence,” if they came from a nuclear power. His new doctrine lowers the bar, so that a “critical attack” on Russia carried out with the “participation or support of a nuclear power” would be grounds for launching a nuclear response—including against the supporting power.

In other words, if Ukraine used long-range missiles supplied by a NATO power to launch an attack on Russia that it deemed “critical,” Putin could respond with a nuclear strike, against either Ukraine or against that NATO country.

Keep reading

Why Kamala Harris Will Kill at Least 5 Billion People if She Becomes President

Kamala Harris said on September 26th that the United States is at war with Russia in Ukraine, and that Donald Trump would “surrender” to Russia if he becomes President again. She made clear that the war between Russia and Ukraine is also war between Russia and America — it is America’s war, just as-if Ukraine were a U.S. state. Here is how this was reported by France’s Agence France-Presse, under the headline “Harris meets Zelensky and slams Trump’s ‘surrender policy’ for Ukraine”:

Harris did not mention Trump by name but said there were “some in my country who would instead force Ukraine to give up large parts of its sovereign territory.”

“These proposals are the same of those of (President Vladimir) Putin. And let us be clear, they are not proposals for peace. Instead, they are proposals for surrender,” she said, referring to the Russian leader.

She was virtually repeating President Joe Biden’s statement on the same day, that Ukraine must and will win this war against Russia with America’s help, and must never yield any of the territory in Ukraine that Russia now occupies. “Russia will not prevail, Ukraine will prevail, in this war”, he said. He made this commitment there, in the presence of, and to, Ukraine’s leader, Volodmyr Zelensky. In other words: If WW3 is necessary in order defeat Russia in Ukraine, then America will do it.

On the night of September 25th, CNN headlined “Republicans follow Trump’s lead of icing out Zelensky”, and reported that,

Former President Donald Trump on Wednesday criticized Volodymyr Zelensky and claimed the Ukrainian president “refuses to make a deal” amid Russia’s war in Ukraine, marking Trump’s most explicit criticism of Zelensky’s handling of the war to date. 

“Those cities are gone, they’re gone, and we continue to give billions of dollars to a man who refused to make a deal, Zelensky. There was no deal that he could have made that wouldn’t have been better than the situation you have right now. You have a country that has been obliterated, not possible to be rebuilt,” Trump said during a campaign speech in Mint Hill, North Carolina. …

 Republican leaders are so far declining to meet Zelensky while he is in Washington, DC, while Democrats are embracing the opportunity. Trump and House Speaker Mike Johnson are not currently scheduled to meet with the Ukrainian president, sources told CNN, while House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries and Vice President Kamala Harris are scheduled to have meetings. …

“Every time he came to our country, he’d walk away with $60 billion. He’s probably the greatest salesman on Earth,” Trump said of Zelensky on Wednesday.

Trump says Ukraine should have given up territory to stop the war earlier

In his speech, Trump blamed Biden and Harris for Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and claimed they “caused this situation by the stupidity of what they said, by every move they make, but they caused the situation and now they’re locked in.”

“They just don’t know what to do. They’re locked into a situation. It’s sad, they just don’t know what to do. Because Ukraine is gone, it’s not Ukraine anymore. You can never replace those cities and towns, and you can never replace the dead people, so many dead people,” Trump said.

He said making a deal earlier in the conflict to cede some territory to the Russians would have prevented more catastrophe. Trump argued Biden should have been able to orchestrate a deal between Russia and Ukraine that avoided any bloodshed and argued that even a “bad deal” and one where Ukraine had “given up a little bit,” would’ve been preferable to the war.

Joe Biden, Kamala Harris, and the Democratic Party, have made clear, again and again, that the U.S. will never allow Russia to win in Ukraine. Everyone by now agrees that Russia is winning in Ukraine. Zelensky is asking Biden for permission to use U.S. weapons in order to strike deep into Russia, including The Kremlin itself — with U.S. weapons.

Keep reading