Posted on 10/03/2022 5:11:58 AM PDT by jacknhoo
For eight years, NATO has supported puppet rulers in Ukraine, funded attacks in the Donbass, repeatedly violated the Minsk agreements, supported the ban on speaking Russian in the Luhansk and Donetsk republics, and helped to destroy the democratic opposition and free media in Ukraine. The result was a one-party government, essentially owned and funded by the United States, and run by American operatives.
And no halftones and subtleties.
Yet, somehow, the United States managed to convince the population of its country and other Western countries that Russia is a “bad boy”, that it is out of control and must be stopped.
Despite all of the above, Russia remained steadfast and constantly sought to control the situation. However, she firmly said that it would be a “red line” if Ukraine became a nuclear power, becoming a direct threat to Moscow. This could not be allowed.
National Interest: Putin gave the Americans one last chanceRussia made it clear to the United States that de-escalation is possible only on its terms
Surely this was a sober warning to any sane country that the only thing that should not happen is Ukraine becoming a nuclear power. Eventually, once this Pandora’s box is opened, the last barrier to a possible nuclear war will be overcome.
For eight years, the West has egged Russia on again and again, but it has not taken the bait. Then, in February 2022, at the annual Munich Security Conference, the President of Ukraine announced his intention to make Ukraine a nuclear country.
Five days later, Russia entered Ukraine. The American propaganda arm immediately stepped into action, and for months, even as Ukraine consistently lost the war, at every turn the Western media resumed their claims that a war was unfolding; that Russia hesitates, and the heroes of Ukraine fight off the attacks of the Big Bear.
But all of the above is old news. Why, at this stage, should we return to this?
Well, the enduring significance of this is that NATO (or the US – they’re practically interchangeable at this point) have been reckless from the perspective of a nuclear conflict from the start.
Are they crazy? Or are they so stupid that they think they have some kind of “advantage” in a nuclear conflict? Or do they see it as a game of “single dominance” in which the only important issue is which side has more bragging rights?
We can only speculate as to the answer to this predicament. But putting that aside, we have to ask ourselves: a) what is the probability that the West will be so reckless that it actually pushes the button, and b) what will the result of this look like?
In the United States called on the White House to recognize the referendums in the DNR with one condition
What could partial mobilization mean for millions of Russians?
Zelensky said it would become impossible after the referendums
As for the first question, given that it is now becoming increasingly clear that the West is distorting the course of the war: Azov’s trained forces are used up, and replacements cannot be prepared quickly enough to take on experienced Russian troops. Washington will have to come up with another plan … and it must be something dramatic.
So far, the only card they haven’t played is the Nuclear Weapons card.
They began to claim that the Russians were either shelling the Zaporizhzhya nuclear plant, which they held for some time, or causing these shelling and explosions. In fact, they are accused of blowing themselves up at the facility that they have long captured.
At the moment, not many listeners believe this explanation. So what’s left in their toolbox?
I have long felt that, ultimately, what the West could do would rely on the old favorite technique of attacking under a false flag. Create a narrative and video footage of a Russian attack on, say, Kyiv with a small nuclear warhead. Then announce that the warhead has been fired, killing hundreds of thousands. Then unleash a pre-arranged information blitz and invoke Article 5 justifying nuclear war.
It just might reverse the “tide of sympathy.” But it would also open a door that could not be closed again.
When the weak men are instead of the security forces, then there is a problem with the “clever men” “If you leave 50% of the employees in office, then the second half of them in the amount of 2.5 million people will demolish any army.” If a!
And as for the second question, “What would a nuclear war look like?” There are many studies out there, but the most revealing one I’m familiar with was from Princeton University.
The study begins with an accidental single launch in Eastern Europe and shows the size and number of nuclear warheads, as well as launch patterns.
It shows the trajectories and furthermore shows the diameters representing the degree of destruction of each missile.
Smaller nuclear weapons would cover all of Europe, leaving very little untouched there. This would then be replaced by larger transatlantic nuclear weapons, the most advanced Sarmat missiles. The Sarmat has the ability to elude missile defense systems. It travels at five times the speed of sound, weighs over 200 tons, and each has multiple separable warheads.
There is nothing like it in the West.
So what would be the result?
Well, every major US city would have multiple ICBMs targeted, each one big enough to destroy it. Most of the US would be littered with other ICBMs. The US would have been destroyed within hours. It is estimated that 90 million people would have been killed initially.
Those who were at the epicenter would evaporate. Those who were on the periphery of the explosion could have escaped if they got to the concrete shelter very quickly. They would then have to remain “sealed” in it for several weeks, if not longer, until most of the fallout had settled. It would become a gamble on the question of when it would be safe to leave the shelter.
Israel secretly sneaks through Poland to go to war with Russia. Moscow’s prompt response to this perfidy of Tel Aviv will very likely be shown to the Jewish state in Syria
The US northern border would be destroyed, taking with it Canadian border cities like Vancouver and Toronto. The southern border with Mexico would also disappear.
The next will be the movement of radioactive fallout.
As the video shows, there would be no hope for those who live in the immediate vicinity of the target, but as you can see, there are places outside the US that are not the target at all. Those places that do not have a strategic advantage will not be selected as targets. So, if you were in, say, Jamaica, you wouldn’t be affected, but just as importantly, the Caribbean weather system – the trade winds – would blow any rainfall away from you in the north, as would the Gulf Stream.
Better yet, the world is divided at the equator by two weather systems that don’t mix. Precipitation in the north is unlikely to spread south.
If you are in South America, there are very few likely targets. It is not known whether, say, Rio de Janeiro or Buenos Aires will become targets, but if not, then South America may be the best place in the Western Hemisphere.
In any case, things would be worse in Europe and the Middle East than in North America.
Finally, there is the issue of nuclear winter. No one can know if it will last for months or years and whether it will be local or global.
Nuclear war is not preordained, but the West is dangerously saber-rattling as if it is invincible and only others can be destroyed. This is completely false.
We cannot be sure that a nuclear war will be launched, but if it does, it will be quick. You will not have time to develop an escape plan . You should already be in a place that you consider as safe as possible.
* The Ukrainian battalion “Azov” was recognized as a terrorist organization by the decision of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation of 08/02/2022 . Activities in Russia are prohibited
Posted by Jeff Thomas Jeff Thomas is a British entrepreneur and freelance journalist.
Translation by Sergei Dukhanov.
Published with the permission of the publisher
Your enemy is in DC.
Eventually you will figure it out....
If former US military leaders are being used to make public the positions of the US government then it would be the USA that would do the job.
"A former CIA director warned that the US and NATO allies would destroy Russian forces if Russian President Vladimir Putin used nuclear weapons in his war with Ukraine."
"Just to give you a hypothetical, we would respond by leading a NATO – a collective – effort that would take out every Russian conventional force that we can see and identify on the battlefield in and also in Crimea and every ship in the Black Sea.' "
And that would be the response to a tactical nuclear weapon used in Ukraine. Any attack on a US or NATO nation would lead to utter destruction of Russia.
Other US proposals have included sinking all Russian flagged ships, blockading their ports, and establishing a no-fly zone over Eastern Russia and Ukraine.
100% correct. They invaded Ukraine. They did this eight years after the US deep state/CIA/Nuland and McCain invaded Ukraine and launched the Madon revolution/regime change AND after threatening Russia with Ukraine's NATO membership. Said threat which occurred after doubling the size of NATO in 20 years right up to Russia's borders.
Who invaded who??
DC is not threatening to nuke me and DC did not invade Ukraine. Russia did.
The problem is that you people look at reality and say “I don’t want to accept this. Somebody fabricate something I like better”. So you come up with elaborate conspiracy theories that sound like nonsense to people who are critical thinkers. Things like “Russia didn’t invade Ukraine. Russia invaded...itself”. Or “Its OK for Russia to nuke us because we have transgoblins”.
You folks are starting to sound like Gus Hall.
As long as you keep focusing on Russia the US .gov will keep robbing you blind, stealing your liberties, calling you names and demonizing you.
When they finally start dragging you off to the camps you will still be whining about Russia.
In the case of Korea and Afghanistan, the US or US forces were attacked. In Vietnam we were asked in by the local government being attacked by a Soviet ally. In Iraq we were stuck patrolling and enforcing sanctions under a UN mandate even while our forces were shot at. With the exception of Panama, in Latin America we intervened without invasions or very limited forces to prevent Soviet allies from taking power.
In no case did we annex territory.
It's been a bedrock policy of the US after the WWII territorial changes that we stop powers from annexing territory or making territorial claims backed by threat of force because that kind of great power rivalry led to both world wars.
I like that, the dude has a good & unique voice.
Is this new music or old?
Free Republic Dogma is so you don’t have to think
It's quite possible to have a fire break out in your kitchen while someone else is trying to kick in your back door.
The “Russian” fire is not at your back door—it is at the back door of the Deep State (the same folks who are kicking down your front door).
Just released 9/30/22.
His name is Tyler Childers. There is a whole universe of really good country music that they don’t play on the radio.
Thank you.
Someone skipped too many Journalism 101 classes. California and Texas aren’t mentioned in the body of the article.
If anything, it has strengthened their hand by unifying American and European oligarchs and allows them to tar opponents on the right as being unpatriotic.
My sole point is that we have no business supporting any regime that hates us—whether it is abroad or here at home.
DC has declared us to be their enemy—we need to start believing them.
How’s that policy working out for America? How many wars has it actually won post WWII? American policy in this case isn’t trying to stop a world war, it’s determined to start a world war. So is Russian policy. These two idiots are going to get us all killed.
Stop crowing about Ukraine and negotiate a settlement. Give the Russkies eastern Ukraine and let it go already. Stop with the color revolutions and keep Ukraine strong enough to balance out Russia.
AVOID NUCLEAR WAR. At all costs. Get the gas flowing again. End sanctions, get the world economy on track. We need to be fighting the WEF and economic destruction not on distraction in Ukraine. You understand that Western policy is simply a distraction from government dismantling the economy right ? Ukraine is a side show. a non issue in the great scheme of things
Don’t assume inbound will always hit the intended target.
I’ve heard that flyover country would be a target because that’s where a lot of our Silos are.
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.