“NUCLEAR PREVENTION”

Who really is the nuclear threat to global peace? When the story is half told

By Danny Smith

The unsavory result of the mid-term elections in the US, which will change the situation little for the North Americans, will not mean anything transcendental for the Union's foreign policy either. This clarification is made to make it clear that it does not matter whether or not there has been a “red tide” (color of the Republican party) in Congress or that the blue color of the donkey of the “progressive” Democrats has diminished so that things can improve. Either of the two, in the end, respond to the same interests that are the ones that create the fabulous businesses with which “America becomes great”.

The day after this event everything was the same, with some variations, but without substantial changes. Neither what the Republican candidate Kevin McCarthy said nor the Democrat Evan McMullin provided new visions on foreign policy and in particular on how to continue with Ukraine. Those who have tried to establish a causal link between these elections and the Russian withdrawal from Kherson are only real smokestacks. Biden has done nothing, much less the 101st Airborne who is prepared to jump from Romania to the fight in Ukraine. Even the extreme right-wing militias, the mercenary groups led by the British and the Americans or what remains of the Ukrainian armed forces, or even better, all of them together, were the cause of the departure of the troops from the provincial capital.

The Ukrainian commanders themselves were surprised by the decision and rather than fuss, they prefer caution and therefore maintain a tense prudence. Even some of “Churchilian” Zelensky's personal advisers don't see this as a good sign. Not interpreting an event well in a war can cost dearly. Do you know the saying, take a run if you want to jump further? Is this not a strategic pushback to gain momentum to jump and fall beyond the city of Kherson?

But that is not a more serious problem to contemplate. The Europeans and when I say the Europeans, I mean the citizens in the streets who are already fed up with the sacrifices they must bear for the servility of their politicians in the geopolitical games of Washington. Today there is much more awareness of what “US friendship” represents, what its “democracy” means, or its always remembered “aid for reconstruction” after the second war with the Marshall Plan, which they are still paying.

Added to this, the entire era of the cold war under a latent threat of a nuclear conflagration, created meaningless generations or mired in the apathy of capitalist consumerism. Today, under the current circumstances and in light of the doctrine that Washington on Russia could implement in a surprising way, it only makes us wonder: Could the US attack Russia with nuclear weapons in a preventive way? The US elite (the neoconservatives of the Straussian branch) and not only Joe Biden would be tempted to resort to the preventive nuclear option under the pilgrim and worn argument of the right to defense. But, this idea is not theirs and it has been created for a long time.

The Plan for a pre-emptive nuclear attack on Russia has its origin even before the end of the second war. At that time the USSR was of strategic importance to defeat Nazi Germany but Prime Minister Churchill did not care and when the opportunity presented itself and with the complicity of the US, they would hit 66 strategic cities by surprise (including Kyiv, Kharkov and Odessa) with the weapon that the Americans had secretly developed since 1939 and tested with the Manhattan Project” What would the Ukrainians say if they knew the details of this?

This early Pre-emptive Nuclear Attack (PNA) Doctrine against Russia was never taken off the agenda. This is reported in a TOP SECRET memo dated September 15, 1945 addressed to General L.R. Groves and only saw the light of day in 1975. The “Cold War” actually began in 1947 at a time when Soviet intelligence was aware of these sinister intentions. The Cuban missile incidents of 1962 and the “Able Archer” scandal of 1983 are only a tiny part of the danger to which the world was exposed by the decision of madmen like Winston Churchill and Franklin D. Roosevelt. The world was on the verge of a nuclear holocaust that was already previously designed by the self-proclaimed “liberal democrats”. Even the fall of the USSR in 1991 was not a reason to remove that sinister priority against Russia. Closer in time, after the rise in the year 2000 of the neoconservatives with George W. Bush as president, Washington kept markings for a Preemptive Nuclear Strike on Russia, China, North Korea and Iran among its list of candidates.

In the current circumstances with a conventional war in Ukraine that is gradually escalating and that NATO is unable to define at will, the Kremlin is very well justified in fearing that the US is taking the first step towards the abyss. Let us remember that Putin himself made it clear in a speech days before undertaking the Special Operation. This danger of launching an “Operation Unthinkable” (like the one Churchill had planned before the end of the Second World War) becomes very feasible if we consider the degree of fanaticism and madness of the neocon sectarians (with Victoria Nuland at the helm) and his constant instigations for the war to become more bitter.

If they have not done so up to now, it is for a single reason: The Strategic Nuclear Missile System (placed in a special deterrence regime) which is modernized and has to its credit long-range vectors that are impossible to intercept by anti-missile shields of NATO. It is in that doctrine of preventive attack with ICBMs and the danger that their application would entail for all of humanity, that Vladimir Putin and the Russian Federation considered a strategic threat to limit the advance of the Atlantic Alliance on Ukraine.

Be that as it may, and if that is the idea that the neoconservatives and their most extremist elements are still incubating, it should be clear that, as the lyrics of the Australian boys from “Men At Work” say, “It's a mistake”.