When I learned that the Biden-Starmer-Harris crew were considering giving permission to Ukraine to attack Russia with N.A.T.O. long range missiles Friday the 13th (does that increase the gravity or the irony) that was the first time in my life that I had considered the prospect that nuclear war could follow Saturday. The Harris-Biden-Starmer team is playing nuclear chicken with Russia; a game at a higher level with potential for liberal deaths for all.
Following several years of top hand on the baseball bat mode of escalation with Russia in the use of conventional weapons to turn the tide of war there way, the Harris-Biden-Starmer entity failed to recognize the different context having nearly reached the W.M.D. level. It is a glass ceiling completely opaque to the Starmer-Harris-Biden entity. They should not aspire to reach that top floor.
I could think about the second weekend of NFL football games and the lesser, peripheral concern of potential global thermonuclear war brought to the U.S.A. and the rest of the world thanks to the historically illiteracy of the Harris-Biden-Starmer entity as a multi-tasking venture. When the first N.B.A. game is played in late October concerns about nuclear war will be muted with remote control. For most Americans it is more convenient to focus on important issues such as football, and not on unrewarding ones like terrorists with nuclear, biological or chemical weapons.
The Ukraine-the borderlands, have been a target of western conquest for centuries. Poland, France and Germany among others have invaded Russia to seize land. The gamble that Russia won’t use nuclear and other weapons of mass destruction to defend its historical region of existence when pummeled by a vast array of western military power is a bad one. It is a paradox that mothers against drunk driving would probably advocate Harris for President if they did such endorsements yet would not have a concern about candidate Harris’ full-bodied support of war with Russia over Ukraine. The Democrat feminine vote evidently does not regard nuclear war as anything more than externality or a bluff, yet it isn’t.
If N.A.T.O. begins attacking deep within Russia with Ukrainian cut outs the premise is that Russia cannot retaliate on the west because all of the N.A.T.O. nations would attack en mass because of treaty obligations. There are numerous cut outs available for Russia to use to attack London, Paris, Amsterdam and Los Angeles with nuclear, chemical and biological weapons. ISIS, Hezbollah, Taliban and other Muslim groups in contact with Russia’s Iranian allies come to mind; they might be too happy to supply clandestine infiltrators to deliver a gallon of novachuck nerve agent, a suitcase nuke in a homeless guy’s backpack or a designer virus. Plausible deniability would cover each as the nuclear weapons could have been stolen during the era following the end of the Soviet Union when they were left unsecured across former Soviet territories.
India and China’s leaders met recently with President Putin perhaps to discuss what response should be taken to a war upgraded to an existential threat on Russia’s existence by the Biden-Harris-Starmer entity. Tactical nuclear weapons- perhaps neutron bombs with the beryllium sheathing absent, might be employed to counter Ukrainian advances into Russia along with or without full-bodied N.A.T.O. invasions of Russia after the initial round of weapons fo mass destruction are deployed. Russia hasn’t proven ability to defeat conventional western attack on Russia. Candidate Harris called Candidate Trump ‘weak’ at the debate and said that Putin would ‘eat his lunch’. Ms. Harris is a completely enthusiastic votary of Democrat Kool-Aid narratives on Russian-Ukraine-Clinton history. She is determined that conventional war to recover all of Ukraine for western power need proceed. Plainly Candidate Harris is incompetent with global economics, history and military affairs and acts with a cognitive deficit in failing to perceive the likelihood of nuclear war with her partisan, one-sided war policy. The war is harmful to U.S. economic interests and is an existential and possibly Eleatic ,Empirical, Metaphysical and even pluralist threat as well. No matter how hard Ms. Harris acts to spend hundreds of billions more on that war it will fail militarily syncopation even though she may intend to litigate nuclear war and win.
I should point out the the late Harvard historian Henry Kissinger was against the war, and other professors of Russian history realized that Russia would not accept the loss of all of Ukraine and the Crimea without a fight. The political insanity of the Democrat party is barely making a ripple on their political pond of thought. Drunk with power Democrats believe they cannot lose and need not share Ukraine with its historical Russian owner, and in that regard they are probably wrong. It is bad risk to gamble on world civilization not ending with nuclear brinkswomanship continuing year to year.
Before closing this post I will try presenting the conflict from a Russian point of view so far as I understand it. Russia regards the Ukraine as part of Russia stolen by the west repeatedly and lately at the end of the Cold War. Because President Clinton stole Ukraine once more by levering the last Soviet President Boris Yeltsin into giving it up to an independent status instead of insisting that Russia keep it, Democrat Presidents ever since have reinforced the theft and developed a belligerent attitude toward Russia by building up N.A.T.O. membership after the end of the Cold War when peace and economic development should have made that unnecessary. For Russia the west plainly was intending something that wasn’t good, and preparing for a war that it probably realized would need to occur eventually when Russia recovered from the break up of the Soviet Union and was militarily stronger.
Western leadership has historically made war on Russia to take as much of the country as it could, usually without success, Hitler and Napoleon among others. They are pretending with false consciousness that Ukraine is historically an independent nation like that of Germany, England and Poland etc and that Russia is simply waging a war of aggression. That is a dissimulation of historical truth, yet a dissimulation they would assert so far as to bring the world to the brink of nuclear conflict over Ukraine. Sharing Ukraine perhaps with a border along the Dnepr would be a practical political adjustment yet is one that so far the west has eschewed in preference to war.
The United States has sent hundreds of billions of dollars of weapons to Ukraine and that was partially matched by N.A.T.O. members. The unelected President of Western Ukraine wants to use U.S. and N.A.T.O weapons to attack old Russia as well as recovered Russian Ukraine targets like the Donbas and Crimea. Russian leadership apparently will stipulate and tolerate
to a certain extent N.A.T.O. weapons being used in Ukraine, because Russia too can use third party supplied weapons in Ukraine. Yet N.A.T.O. weapons used to attack outside Ukraine; to attack old Russia would be different. For Russia to be equal it would need to attack N.A.T.O. members in retaliation. Ukraine is the bone of contention and N.A.T.O. members and old Russia should be left out of targeting with missiles for parity. Evidently the British P.M. and other leaders want to argue against parity and equanimity and claim that Ukraine is already an independent nation that Russia is attacking and therefore N.A.T.O. weapons can be used to attack Russia. That is itself is a new doctrine with the premise that any nation regarded by N.A.T.O. as having invaded another can be targeted with N.A.T.O. missiles. The nuclear war at the end of the road is not a civil argument over property among lawyers.
Cause for World War III simplified
No comments:
Post a Comment