I agree with that. And yes, both Russia and China are building up their arsenal. Especially after the US pulled out of the non-proliferation treaties.
I think what Russia and China are doing here (besides defending themselves) is to apply pressure on the US to return to the treaties.
I don’t think we should be correlating nuclear capability with conventional military power.
Yeah, the US military is on the decline. They have shit equipment, bad logistics, and not enough soldiers to carry out a global conflict.
But a nuclear exchange does not need any of these things, except equipment/technology, which is largely shrouded in secrecy, so we don’t know what exactly their state is. We know that a bunch of their systems are automatic, and I wouldn’t put it past them to be implementing AI for targeting.
They also have a bunch of politicians, officers and bureaucrats that seem to be trigger-happy.
At any rate, even if the US is unable to carry out an effective launch, even if 5-10% of their nukes successfully strike anything, we are talking about massive devastation.
The problem is that the US views any build-up in nuclear weapons or development of more advanced delivery methods as a threat that can trigger their first strike policy. Meaning, if China in your example arms hypersonic missiles, that the US can’t shoot down, with nuclear warheads, that will be considered justification to trigger a first strike before China finishes the process, because otherwise the US will be vulnerable to a first strike itself.
Similarly, if Russia or China develop technologies that can shoot down most of the US nuclear missiles, that will also trigger a US first strike, before those technologies are implemented. Otherwise, the US will no longer be able to enforce mutual assured destruction on Russia/China and will consider itself vulnerable to a first strike.
Equally worrying for the rest of us is that Russia is currently drifting into adapting a similar first-strike policy as the US (though fortunately without the insane target list).
That’s why the answer should be disarmament, not ramping up. Though that’s very unlikely considering how bellicose the US is behaving.
In my view, the only way to safely destroy the empire is by playing the long game, which is exactly what Russia and China are doing. Slowly and silently dismantle their economic control of the globe, cause fissures in NATO, wait for the inevitable US economic collapse due to corruption and massive military spending, make the US industries rely on Russian and Chinese suppliers, re-educate Americans politically through their own media, and wait for the eventual political and civil upheaval that will hopefully replace the current establishment with a saner one.
Basically, do to the US what the US did to the USSR.
I swear, this plan sounds like the brainfart of some game theorist locked in an ivory tower for decades.
That pretty much describes the people who draw up these plans. I mean, imagine the mindset you gotta adopt when being asked to come up with a victory condition in a nuclear war.
Read “Confessions of a Nuclear War Planner” by Daniel Elsberg for more details.
Essentially the US nuclear war plan is:
1. Strike first if:
2. Retaliate if:
3. Ensure in the aftermath that the US has the biggest capacity to rebuild civilization among all survivors. Which means that nuclear targets are in order:
So Scott Ritter’s argument here is that in a civil war, the US will lose its capability to effectively defend itself in a conventional conflict, in which case a first-strike policy will likely be activated. And in that case, the US will most likely carry out its full strike plan (for which it has ample nukes).
The thing is, it’s not just Scott Ritter who is worried (who is already a nuclear weapons expert and a former member of US nuclear forces). Other nuclear war experts are equally worried, including the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, who handle the famous Doomsday Clock, which is currently set at a record 90 seconds to midnight.
Scott Ritter believes that when America’s existence is threatened by any source, they’ll launch nukes at the rest of the world, to prevent any other nation from overtaking their primacy.
He bases this on American nuclear doctrine: He says that America’s goal in a nuclear war is to be the nation that retains the biggest capacity for civilization on Earth. Therefore their nukes are aimed at everybody.
Bear in mind, Macron was first elected on the promise he would “normalize” French politics and squeeze the far right out.
They applied the same things to the European PIICGS that went under (Portugal, Italy, Ireland, Cyprus, Greece, Spain), in coordination with the European Central Bank.
They don’t care as long as it’s not the US, the UK, and to some extend France, Switzerland and Germany. Maybe the Scandinavians would get away with it too. Everyone else is fair game.
That’s true as well, but because deficit spending raises inflation, they are also ideologically opposed to it.
Deficit spending usually is done to maintain social welfare programs, which makes more money available to low income citizens, which raises inflation. It’s telling that the first parts of the budget they always want to be cut are government wages and benefits.
This also acts as a signal for the private sector that it’s ok to reduce wages.
They want “assurances” that the government will have enough in the budget to repay the loan at some point, so that’s how they introduce them.
The loans will generate inflation, which will devalue the local currency, which means the loan’s value will decrease as well (this will happen because the value of interest rates paid back will decrease).
Furthermore, they are ideologically opposed to inflation and deficit spending (like all neolibs). They believe that these 2 factors are what destablizes economies, so they demand a government avoid them like the plague.
They believe that the economy does not rely on the proletariat’s economic activity (i.e. buying products and paying bills). They believe that the economy relies on the national loaning industry (i.e. the banks giving loans to people) and the rich people opening up businesses. They are very much adherents of “Reaganomics” or “trickle-down” economics. They think that inflation will damage the accumulated capitals of the rich and the banks, therefore, the economy will not be able to restart.
They want other measures to benefit the capitalist class, so they can help boost the economy (according to their ideology). A big portion of the loans is always allocated to banks, and the rest is either subsidizing corporations directly or indirectly. A certain amount may be used to restructure other existing loans of the government. A major concession they demand is to lower corporate and high-income taxes. Which means the government needs to cut the budget allocated for the benefit of the proletariat to account for the lost income. They usually suggest raising low-income taxes or invent new methods of taxation that targets low-income citizens (e.g. the employer portion of social security payments is decreased, and the employee portion is increased).
Essentially, IMF-imposed austerity means that the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. Which is just fine as far as the IMF is concerned, because that’s what they think makes for a better economy. In addition, a small class of super-rich people is easier to control and manipulate, and they in turn have an easier time influencing the government.
Look up “shock therapy”. That’s what the IMF believes in.
That just means for every 9 guys aged 20, the unit has a 270-year-old man. And you know, you can still use those to terrorize the Russians.
There’s a bunch of comments about this show radicalizing Palestinians. As if the Israeli missiles, shootings and kidnappings were never a thing.
“Logorhea” 😂
We are literally talking about the exact same people who kicked Jeremy Corbin out, support Israel and Ukraine, and in these elections said that they’ll basically change nothing.
That’s what I like to see. If Asia finally unites into a common front, they can actually decolonize. Same goes for Africa.
I think we all agree at this point that holding out for better negotiating terms will only result in a weaker position and worse outcome for Ukraine. Zelenskyy needs to wake up and start peace talks immediately.
There’s been efforts to elevate the Azov Nazis in the eyes of Ukrainians recently, and the US has lifted sanctions to equip them. It’s likely that they’ll be used to conduct another coup if Zelensky tries to negotiate too early/give away too much. Or they are being prepared to take power again after peace is signed and Zelensky is gone.
Zelensky this last week started saying that Ukraine will start negotiating by the end of the year.
The recent “peace summit” in Switzerland was a failure, but immediately afterwards we saw a bunch of Western nations ramping up the aid and committing to deploying support personell for the rear (mostly medics and engineers they say). Probably Zelensky promised there will be one last counteroffensive. If some success, he’s probably thinking he will convince the Russians to accept less concessions.
He announced this week that Russia must accept:
Ukraine joining NATO (no chance)
Ukraine joining the EU (maybe feasible, as Putin’s last terms did not prohibit this)
Russia to pay Ukraine monetary concessions for the war and lost territorry (significant that the Ukrainians are backpedalling on 1991 borders; maybe Russia will actually pay as a negotiating chip for further Ukrainian concessions)
He did not talk about:
demilitarization (which will definitely be a Russian term)
denazification (which Russia will likely accept symbolically, in favour of other concessions)
commitment to neutrality (which Russia will definitely demand)
And he still wants to treat Russia through a third party (likely the US/UK, possibly China) which Russia will not accept.
The Biden-Trump debate, as well as the French election results have shown that the West is unlikely to continue supporting Ukraine for long. That Zelensky is willing to negotiate by the end of the year probably has something to do with Biden’s likely exit from the White House in January.
Furthermore, the current situation on the ground could not be more starkingly obvious:
Russians are sweeping Ukrainian defenses and making massive gains in significant areas.
The recent mobilization in Ukraine was a massive failure. Newly mobilized troops are either surrendering en masse AND giving up information to the Russians (which has led to an increase in precision strikes on Ukrainian HQs, ammo depots, vehicle depots and areas of troop concentration), or refusing to attack or take up positions for defense, or dying in large numbers due to poor training.
Ukrainian manpower is completely depleted and Ukrainian losses are climbing to record numbers.
Lack of defensive works that outlines the massive corruption regarding Western aid
Removal of commanding officers (like the general that Azov wanted removed) and disagreements between general staff and Zelensky (Zelensky and Syrsky are not getting along - it is likely that Syrsky refused to carry out a counteroffensive - also the aforementioned removed general was Syrsky’s friend/supporter/ally).
It is no wonder that Western media will start actually telling some truth about Project Ukraine. They need to prepare the people for the inevitable defeat of the West in Ukraine.
Thanks. I thought Saxony put it into effect in January, and then it was ratified this week for the rest of Germany.
I think it’s no accident that it comes right after the European Parliament elections:
If people get angry, it’s the longest possible time between elections
Sholz and company could gauge how Germans view their current immigration policy from the election results, and vote for or against the law accordingly. The elections show gains for AfD, so they are trying to gain points with the fascists, by passing the law.
I don’t disagree at all. I can understand Russia’s position.