APOCALYPSE NOW Nuclear World War 3 is now a ‘REAL DANGER’ and Britain and Nato would be a ‘legitimate’ target, warns Putin chief

A NUCLEAR world war is now a "real" danger and Britain and Nato would be a "legitimate" target, Russia's foreign minister has warned.

In a chilling message, Sergei Lavrov said the risk of World War Three is now "considerable" and must not be "underestimated".

Lavrov accused Nato forces of "pouring oil on the fire" by supplying arms to Ukrainian troops - and claimed Russia wanted to prevent a nuclear war at all costs.

In an interview with Russian news agencies, he said: "This is our key position on which we base everything. The risks now are considerable.

"I would not want to elevate those risks artificially. Many would like that. The danger is serious, real, And we must not underestimate it."

And the war hawk said Britain and other Nato countries "would be a legitimate target" after "pumping weapons into Ukraine".

MAD almost didn’t work during the Cuban Missile Crisis. What most Americans think is that the Russians simply placed missiles in Cuba and expected the US to “Suck it up”.

I think what can be concluded from the Cuban Missile Crisis is that the US politically and culturally concluded the nuclear superiority we had at the time didn’t matter because neither side would win.

The Russians, on the other hand, realized that by not being number 2 in perceived nuclear capability you don’t have to back down.

MAD during the Cold War era.

This was back in the days the leaders of the Soviet Union were (1) secure in power, (2) had a much more massive conventional military force, and (3) believed in communism.

Khrushchev’s famous statement “we will bury you” meant in kitchen appliances, cars, good schools and medical care. Keynesian economists here in the US projected the day when the Soviet Union GDP would surpass the US GDP. Why would Khrushchev risk the end of the world when eventually he was going to win because of economic growth?

So, when Fidel Castro asked Khrushchev to attack the US with the nuclear missile on Cuba (they WERE ready to launch, we Americans either didn’t know, or the government knew and kept this a secret), Khrushchev said no. Indeed, he said he had to get those missiles off the island and away from that crazy man Castro. And, he and Kennedy made a face-saving deal whereby they got rid of the missiles they had in Cuba and we, “on our own,” got rid of our missiles in Turkey.

Then, we conducted the great experiment to see which system would win economically.

Now, things are different. Nobody thinks Russia is going to have a vibrant economy. Its economy is collapsing. Its population is also shrinking, perhaps a lot faster than they’re letting on. And, they’ve cut back on education, so that the population is increasingly stupid and many of them are drunk all the time.

This may sound strange, but Russia is more dangerous today than it was during the Cold War because it is falling apart. It is desperate as opposed to confident of eventual victory. It is lead by kleptocrats, each out for what they can get while the getting is good. They are a like a cornered rat with no way out. Only, they have with 6,000 nukes.

“I think what can be concluded from the Cuban Missile Crisis is that the US politically and culturally concluded the nuclear superiority we had at the time didn’t matter because neither side would win.

The Russians, on the other hand, realized that by not being number 2 in perceived nuclear capability you don’t have to back down.”

It could be. It may also be that the Russians during the Cuban Missile Crisis era may well have justifiably thought we were crazy as we say Putin is today because we initiated the staging of missiles at Russia’s border. Would it not be reasonable to conclude that we cannot be trusted, even today, from the Russians perspective when we threaten to do the exact same thing 60 years later?

I do not trust Putin to do the right thing, but I also do not trust Biden/Austin/Milley and our political intel agencies to do the right thing either. Where is the diplomacy that seeks to de-escalate the nuclear engagement rhetoric?

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.