Posted on 09/29/2022 10:20:32 PM PDT by Cathi
September 28, 2022
Cuban Missile Crisis 2.0 Over Ukraine?
It is safe to assume that any use of nuclear weapons could quickly lead to an escalation of a local or regional conflict into a global one.
by Anatoly Antonov, Russian ambassador to the United States.
As Henry Kissinger wrote in 2014, “The demonization of Vladimir Putin is not a policy; it is an alibi for the absence of one.”
I have commenced my work on this article for two reasons. Firstly, this October will mark sixty years since the Cuban Missile Crisis when the USSR and the United States were on the verge of a nuclear conflict. This is an occasion to look closer at the foreign policy lessons that the two great powers have learned from that dramatic time. I believe that any American will see eye-to-eye with me that we must not allow the explosive situation of the 1960s to repeat. It is important that not only Russia and the United States, but also other nuclear states, confirmed in a common statement that a nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought.
Secondly, we are witnessing a surge of concern from the international community and U.S. experts about the possibility of a nuclear conflict between Moscow and Washington. This issue has become even more acute in recent days when senior officials of the U.S. administration began sending us direct signals warning against the use of nuclear weapons in the Russian special military operation in Ukraine. Moreover, threats against us have started to be heard from the official establishment.
Princeton University has even made predictions that millions of Americans and Russians would perish in the exchange of nuclear strikes. Sometimes it feels like we are returning to the years of McCarthyism in this issue. One hardly can forget former U.S. secretary of defense James Forrestal who jumped out of the window yelling “the Russians are coming.”
The U.S. media is abounding in publications by pseudo-experts who are ignorant of history and misinterpret the current state of affairs. They erroneously compare today’s situation with the Cuban Missile Crisis.
The statements by certain politicians and the media that U.S.-Russian relations are living through an unprecedented crisis may well be accepted. Let me remind you that just a couple of years ago we talked about a difficult stage in the bilateral dialogue. However, no one could have even imagined that it would come to such a perilous point. Everything created over many years of hard work, including political, economic, cultural, scientific, and educational ties, has been written off to the dustbin of history.
We see a deplorable, deserted picture in arms control. The ABM and INF treaties have sunk into oblivion. The Open Skies Treaty has virtually ceased to exist. The New START Treaty is approaching the end of its duration and, as we have repeatedly said, is not fully implemented by the American side. The NPT is experiencing serious shocks. No one can foretell what will happen next.
I have to remind readers that all of this is a result of U.S. policy. Let me elaborate on my point. Washington withdrew from the treaties in order to gain security advantages, especially in confronting Russia. It is in a constant search for opportunities to achieve global military dominance.
Over previous decades, the NATO military machine has approached Russia’s borders in several “waves”—where a powerful striking fist was raised over my Motherland. How should we have reacted? We warned our colleagues that such steps were counterproductive, increased the risk of an arms race, and we could not ignore the aggravating threats along the perimeter of the Russian boundaries, especially our western boundaries. I remember long-hour gatherings at NATO headquarters where I had to participate repeatedly in discussions on the harmfulness of global missile defense, the importance of respecting international commitments on strategic stability, and the danger of deploying shorter- and intermediate-range missiles in Europe. Russian exhortations turned out to be in vain.
The last straw that broke the camel’s back was NATO’s attempt to launch the military-technical exploitation of Ukraine and cultivate in Kiev a regime desiring to wage a bloody war against Russia.
Today our country is accused of all sins. They claim that we have unleashed an armed conflict in Europe. I have to wonder: what did the United States do to ensure the implementation of the Minsk agreements? Why did Washington keep silent for eight years and not pull Kiev up when Ukrainians and Russians were killed in Donbas?! How could it ignore the terrible tragedy in Odessa when several dozen people were burned alive?! Where were the international humanitarian institutions?! Why did the administration prioritizing human rights allow such crimes?! We have repeatedly asked American politicians these questions. Nothing but beautiful slogans were the answer. Ukraine has continued to be pitted against Russia.
Today it is obvious that the United States is directly involved in the military actions of the Kiev regime. Washington is openly building up the supply of lethal weapons to Ukraine and provides it with intelligence. They jointly plan military operations against the Russian Armed Forces. Ukrainians are being trained to use NATO military hardware in a fight.
It feels like Russia is being tested to see how long it will remain patient and refrain from responding to blatantly adversarial actions and attacks. In fact, Washington is pushing the situation towards a direct confrontation of the major nuclear powers fraught with unpredictable consequences.
U.S. officials continue to escalate the situation, intimidating the American and international public with sham Russian “nuclear threats.” Such rhetoric twists the statements of the Russian leadership.
I would like to stress that there has been no change in the conditions when our country would use nuclear weapons. In this regard, we continue to strictly adhere to the 2014 Military Doctrine and 2020 Basic Principles of State Policy on Nuclear Deterrence. Moscow has never mentioned an expansive interpretation of these documents which can be found in the public domain.
We are not threatening anyone. But we confirm that, as President Vladimir Putin said on September 21, Russia is ready to defend its sovereignty, territorial integrity, and our people with all weapon systems we have. What is so aggressive about this statement? What is unacceptable? Would the United States not do the same if faced with an existential threat?
I would like to add that certain American politicians are under a delusion if they think that our readiness to defend our territory does not apply to Crimea or to territories that may become part of Russia on the basis of a free expression of popular will.
I would like to warn American military planners about the fallacy of their assumptions that a limited nuclear conflict is possible. They apparently hope that the United States would be able to take cover behind the ocean if such a conflict happens in Europe with British and French nuclear weapons. I would stress that this is an extremely dangerous “experiment.” It is safe to assume that any use of nuclear weapons could quickly lead to an escalation of a local or regional conflict into a global one.
I want to believe that, despite all the difficulties, we and the Americans have not yet approached a dangerous threshold of falling into the abyss of nuclear conflict. It is important to stop threatening us.
Today, it is difficult to predict how far Washington is ready to go in exacerbating relations with Russia. Will the U.S. ruling circles be able to give up their plans aimed at wearing out our country with the prospect of its dismemberment?
The recent Shanghai Cooperation Organization summit and the high-level week of the 77th UN General Assembly session have proved that a considerable part of the planet is not satisfied with the world order that was created after the collapse of the Soviet Union. We are witnessing the majority of the global community trying to find ways to establish an equitable system of international relations which would have neither first- nor second-tier states. We firmly support such a world order based on international law, the UN Charter, and the principle of the indivisibility of security.
Anatoly Antonov is the Russian ambassador to the United States.
Worse. JFK woke up every day knowing what day it was, who he was, and how to use both the emergency hotline and the nuclear codes.
The current resident, not so much.
“Expect two things to happen...”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ygo_5Pbp5Lc
The war in Ukraine is about one corrupt dictator on the other other side of the world invading the land of another corrupt dictator on the other side of the world. We're already tanking the world economy over it, so glad this is the thing we might end the world over. Aint globalism grand?
You pro Ukrainian people are lunatics. They are not worth one drop of American blood or 1 penny from the treasury. Let the Russians and Ukrainians slaughter eachother. They certainly are not worth a nuclear exchange.
That’s true however it does rather suggest that Biden on his own couldn’t trigger WW3 even if he wanted to. There’s a chain of command for launching nukes, and word would get out if it was going to happen.
Putin can’t either, but we are completely dependent on some low rank underling refusing to follow orders if he decides to launch. And there’s such a tight wall of security that the launch would most likely go unreported.
Cathi, you do know that when Henry Kissinger wrote in 2014, “The demonization of Vladimir Putin is not a policy; it is an alibi for the absence of one”, it was in the context of Russia not threatening to use nukes (openly, e.g. by Duma deputies appearing on their own state-run, Kremlin scripted TV news station) on a weekly if not daily basis since February 2022.
Kissinger originally came from the Weimar Republic, and he wrote that in 2014. His thinking comes from a similar background to Schwab and Soros.
Globalism only works if there’s one or more superpower locked in conflict; Soros NEEDS a warm if not on-fire level of conflict between the WEF and BRICS to kick off the next phase of the Great Reset.
Soros needs Putin fixated on building his interpretation of “multipolarism” to achieve it. Defending multipolarism in the form Putin is pushing for, is Soros enablement.
If Kissinger has been watching Rossyia 1 for the last six months he can’t have missed the weekly complaints by Duma guest speakers that Putin wasn’t going all out, that Russia’s nukes could take four American cities out on top of wiping out France and Britain.
If he sees it he must understand it - and if he understands it but won’t acknowledge it, then that tells you he is in Soros’ pocket.
“Anatoly Antonov, Russian ambassador to the United States.”
Mongoloid morons. Go ahead, and see what happens!
Time for the “Powell Doctrine”:
1) Is a vital national security interest threatened?
2) Do we have a clear attainable objective?
3) Have the risks and costs been fully and frankly analyzed?
4) Have all other non-violent policy means been fully exhausted? Is there a plausible exit strategy to avoid endless entanglement?
5) Have the consequences of our action been fully considered?
6) Is the action supported by the American people?
7) Do we have genuine broad international support?
🇺🇲🇷🇺⚡️There were two explosions at Nord Stream with a total capacity of almost 1 thousand kg of TNT, - The Wall Street Journal
How many more BILLIONS do we have to give Ukraine befor a declaration of war is made. US gubmint has made it’s choice. Time for you to make yours.
1. Yes. Russia keeps threatening to use nukes if Ukraine fights on in the occupied region. Their on-message Duma deputies keep going on national TV talking about nuking Europe and America. All it takes is a fallout cloud to drift over Poland and Article 5 gets triggered.
2. Yes. Russia and Ukraine must accept partition of the densely populated Ukrainian held areas of the contested oblasts from rhe coastal areas held by Russia, and create new Checkpoint Charlies. The alternative is Russia committing to the aerial and possibly nuclear destruction of large, densely populated cities like Zaporizhzhia.
3. The cost, long term consequences, and likelihood of a nuclear weapons exchange is worst case scenario, the rebuild cost of the entire Crimean District is another. No matter which way you cut it, a total victory for Russia will cost trillions over decades.
4. Yes. “Ignore it” didn’t work in 2008 when Russia first violated the political independence of Ukraine and Georgia, appeasement after Georgia motivated Russia to repeat in Crimea and the Donbas, and Russia has delivered not one element of any commitment in any peace process.
5. Consequences of inaction as well as actions need to be considered. Risk assessments look at cause, effect, immediate impact, effects, likelihoods, and “crystallization”.
6. They’re split. Hold a referendum.
7. There’s far more condemnation of Russia’s actions than condemnation of UK, USA and NATO members in the region for defending Ukraine.
Finally, our joint obligations to defend the self determination, sovereignty and territorial integrity of not just Ukraine but all signatories to the CIS members and Budapest Memorandum signatories based on borders agreed at the end of the Cold War is embedded in multiple multilateral treaties.
That Russia is also a signatory to.
Russia is violating the UN Charter, the Budapest Memorandum, Minsk 1 and 2, the CIS Charter, and multiple security guarantees.
We are complying with them.
Even countries that are pro Russia and no friends of the West are on the list of nations condemning Russia’s actions.
Overall conclusion: this is like Gulf War 1. Even countries that liked Saddam Hussein and didn’t like America knew the invasion of Kuwait crossed lines. Maybe the answer is for an international coalition comprised of countries not acting in America’s interests, working with the UK and USA....
Oh, wait. That’s already happened. America and the UK are not isolated.
I don’t see how it escalates.
Vlad knows the US Mid-Terms are coming and the liberals are going to lose at least the House, maybe both. All he has to do is wait out the winter until the US Congress is seated, with his newly-minted army of 300K.
And he wins the whole enchilada with 4 new provinces added to the federation, and a US Congress that isn’t going to approve another dime for Ukraine. Then add to that the impeachment of Chairman Xiden.
All he has to do is wait out the winter while Europe freezes.
I think what worries a lot of people around the world is that America is currently led by a cabal of warmongers who are also infested with globalist “ten per centers” already on record multiple times as favoring a drastic reduction of the world’s population. We all know what means are available to bring about that end result, and the few people in NATO countries at least who could survive such a thing are the elites who don’t care whether we live or die, and hope we die.
When did the USA ever have a government before that was committed to policies that could lead to a drastic reduction of the population of not only the nation but the world?
Some involved may have limited vision and may see only a bit of good being done, others may simply not care, figuring either Putin backs down, or they get to the grand reset involved in being the only people left to rebuild our countries.
I don’t trust them because they stole the election and everybody knows it.
I don’t know why people still think there can be something like a limited nuclear exchange. Once the nuclear war is set off, it’s use ‘em or lose ‘em, and that’s been the doctrine for decades.
Do not believe *anything* until the Kremlin denies it™️
yep
Everyone who is for war with Russia over Ukraine should be drafted, sent to Ukraine with a rifle and a one way ticket.
We’re you referring to the Jupiter IRBMs in Turkey in your first paragraph?
I’m thinking not. But perhaps you should.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.