A couple of years after the end of the Korean War, Syngman Rhee, the leader of South Korea, traveled to Washington to visit Dwight Eisenhower. Rhee wanted to make a pitch to Ike to "reunify" his country, even if this ended up reigniting the Korean War. He apparently tried to humiliate Ike by making the case that the Communists were 'on a roll' and that the West shouldn't be afraid to engage them militarily in the cause of 'democracy.'
Apparently Ike blew his stack and responded to Rhee as follows:
"....when you say that we should deliberately plunge into war, let me tell you that if war comes, it will be horrible. Atomic war will destroy civilization. It will destroy our cities. There will be millions of people dead. War today is unthinkable with the weapons which we have at our command. If the Kremlin and Washington ever lock up in a war, the results are too horrible to contemplate. I can't even imagine them. But we must keep strong.... I assure you that we think about these things continuously and as seriously as you do. The kind of war that I am talking about, if carried out, would not save democracy. Civilization would be ruined, and those nations and persons that survived would have to have strong dictators over them just to feed the people who were left. That is why we are opposed to war."
Unfortunately, Ike is dead and Biden is alive.
Insofar as the nuclear war issue is concerned, there is precious little serious thought taking place within the Biden national security team. Rational people wouldn't even be going down this road. The problem is that so much associated with this proxy war has crossed the threshold into the realm of the irrational.
Source for Eisenhower quote: Richard Rhodes, 1995, Dark Sun: The Making of the Hydrogen Bomb, Simon & Schuster, page 584
Interesting! Seems the tone of the Eisenhower administration, or at least the man himself, improved for the better. It was also during Eisenhower's administration that SecState Dulles laid down the doctrine of "massive retaliation", i.e. a nuclear threat, claiming to deter communist expansion and wars of postcolonial liberation in third countries. At that time the US had a monopoly on thermonuclear weapons. Soviet demonstration of the H-bomb then ended both the monopoly, and the credibility of Dulles' threat. After that, the US was compelled to return to more or less conventional warfare in proxy conflicts. I wonder if there is a similar belief in nuclear superiority at play today, among Blinken/Sullivan and their group.
Color me skeptical, but I do not believe the US would risk a nuclear exchange for the benefit of any other nation than itself. And in a sense that is a good thing.
I agree, but that doesn’t mean they will stop escalating. Ultimately I think the goal is to put nuclear weapons in Ukraine. If this provokes Russia into using tactical nukes, great, PR victory for the West.
If it doesn’t provoke Russians, great, they will have missiles within 5 minutes from Moscow. This alone creates first strike capabilities which they can use in the future.
If at some point regime in moscow changes and they decide to reduce nuclear capabilities, great, win for the west.
From NATO perspective there really are no bad outcomes here. Bloody nose is the only thing that can stop them.
That last line spoils it for me, otherwise I'd agree. Though if you meant that last line "as seen by the politicians" then I would agree again as these seem incapable of seeing outside their own bubble.
The NATO generals though, know the score. If they didn't there would have been NATO troops fighting in the Ukraine (under NATO banner) already.
The war in Ukraine has knocked down the myth of the world's most powerful military. We no longer have the industrial capacity to reproduce weapons fast enough in a regional war. Russia is adept at jamming our drones and missiles. The vaunted Abrams tank is not very good and a mechanical nightmare. At anyone time only 25% of our F-35's are available for combat because it too requires constant mechanical attention. All we have left to defeat a comparable enemy is nuclear weapons and the U.S. would not hesitate for a moment to launch if need be.
Isn’t it ironic that only a few years ago NATO claimed that Russia is so weak it can only engage in hybrid or asymmetric war against the west.
It turns out, Russia is winning a conventional war of attrition and it is the west that can’t keep up and resorts to asymmetric measures (sanctions, blackmail, support for terrorist activity in Russia, attempts at colour revolutions).
Dead on. Showing respect to other nations and being honest in our dealings is not part of our foreign policy bag of tricks- only military violence. Our main export is sanctions. Our soul guiding principle is screw international laws. We have become isolated and are now the pariah of the world. That's why everyone is dumping us and queuing in line to join BRICS. All empires fade away kicking and screaming.
To be honest, if all these Norwegians and Danes, who, by a strange whim of the United States, are now speaking on behalf of NATO, do not understand the real state of affairs, then so be it. If they don't understand what will happen to the whole of Europe, if Biden doesn't calm down, then so be it. After all, natural selection drives the development of civilization.
You talk about gravity nuclear bombs but it isn't WWII anymore. You won't be able to fly over the target to drop a bomb. If it comes to conflict then we will see massive destruction, satellites will be targeted and with what's left a ground war will not be possible. In WWII we could protect weapon factories but now everything can be targeted and hit so a ground war will not be possible. The reason why this conflict can go on is because both side can't target those factories. The west might be the biggest loser, we can't build anything anymore, whenever there's a nature disaster we can't even help those people. In a nuclear exchange food will be prior and you need to set up food production and distribution for the survivers. The west knowing will be making speeches and 5 years later we'll be dead because nothing got achieved. Just like all those beautiful speeches about Ukraine but we still can't ramp up production.
Our current leaders or incompetent and just plain evil. They talk and talk without any regard for value of Ukrainian life.
I think this is just another step on the Escalation Ladder. Ukraine is losing, so something must be done. But what ? They are running out of conventional responses, so nuclear sabre-rattling is next. Since they can't actually use them, this is not likely to achieve much.
So with the US escalating its nuclear capability and stance, nicely illustrated by the current essay, there remains a simple question:
To What End?
It would be useful to know the intent of the US (and, as explained, it is the US, not NATO, that makes policy).
Is it mainly to escalate the THREAT in a continuing belief that Russia is always on the verge of backing down from countering the NATO expansions, which they consider an Existential Threat)?
Is it somehow designed to give the US a better chance of surviving a nuclear WW3 or at least winning on points (but then it might be better to actually implement an effect DEFENSE)?
Or something in between. like crafting a new wrinkle to the narrative?
Thanks for sharing your scary view (not that any view on the question is "comforting").
Do I interpret your view correctly by thinking you are asserting that this is a tactical move without much regarding the strategic plan (and certainly not an indication of a change in goals, either)?
One of the things I find most distressing is that the Biden Administration appears to be the Roadrunner; as usual, sprinting on the top of the mesa towards the edge.
I wish I could honestly disagree, or at least see more evidence that the Vassal States are more afraid of WW3 than of Trump.
I appreciate your willingness to use your evidence and expertise, even to the extent of sharing conclusions that are horrid and existential threats to us all.
I would add "intellectual laziness" and "(willful?) ignorance" to your list! I just pray the intel community has a better grasp on reality than the Obama puppet regime!
"Maintain" and "Expand" are two very different things.
They would have been an exhaustive (but imprecise) answer if you had included, "regain". or "recoup" what has been lost.
Ironically, it appears to me that the attempt to expand the Empire has so far changed the goal to a clumsy attempt to use failed policy memes and actions to try to regain the obvious losses caused by the expansion attempts.
Much of the existential threat of the Ukraine Proxy War has already been suffered, tho not admitted by the losers. The existence of an obviously inadequate MIC, battlefield losses, and the persistent promulgation of lies and delusions have sullied the illusion that practical military capacity if a function of how much money you spend (for example).
But I have to admit the answer to "to what end?", in theory is to become Master of the Universe (tho, rubble it may be). But what is the "realistic" answer, should we assume there is one?
Future actions may differ depending upon whether the Hegemon focuses on an attempt to unsully its rep, but the current goal may just be an attempt to avoid further loss, rather than expand. While NATO boasting of fielding 500,000 troops to fight Russia may sound like an active counterattack, anyone with of understanding of NATO force strength and readiness, knows the boast is only going to impress the rubes and is not serious.
While some may suggest that the goal is total victory and the tactic , as always, is to escalate (double down even in defeat), perhaps the operative focus, until after the November election, is avoiding the endgame long enough to gain re-election.
Because Russia has no way of doing anything, short of a nuclear exchange, that personally affects the rulers of the West, they will continue to double down.
President Putin, in a recent speech, outlined a number of asymmetrical and symmetrical ways that Russia was planning to respond.
Unlike the purveyors of specific public threats of NATO, exactly what Russia was planning was not explicitly provided.
Commentators in Russia and the West have speculated about using proxies, and cited the ~1000 US foreign military bases/projects, the continuing Russian supply of petroleum and uranium to NATO nations, etc.
We've been hearing about potential (and unnamed) responses to western escalation since February, 2022.
The Putin continually talks about a response but never does them simply shows that he doesn't want to carry out his threats. This, of course, only encourages the West.
We've been hearing about potential (and unnamed) responses to western escalation since February, 2022.
The Putin continually talks about a response but never does them simply shows that he doesn't want to carry out his threats. This, of course, only encourages the West.
It seems there is a divergence of opinion about what to do between the STAVKA and the President. Putin is applying the brakes on a stronger response that the STAVKA desires...same can be applied to overall prosecution of the war.
Not sure I can agree with you...there is plenty; this is a special military operation, not all out war (that Russia can still declare). That would open up an entirely new set of strategies and allocation of resources, and would need to pass muster in parliament (which it would without doubt; the Russian public is very much behind the military's posture). There are legal safeguards in the Russian constitution that provide for these scenarios...unlike the way the POTUS can walk the US into conflicts on a "whim".
Mr. Bryen, you may want to listen to Col. Douglas MacGregor's opinion on various countries response when Israel begins its aggression against Hezbollah. He has no doubt. Because of Hezbollah's firepower, he believes Israel will have to strike first with tactical nuclear weapons.
(Istomin is Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Therefore some of the initial talking points might be clichéd - why interpret Biden´s public nonsense? - but it improves.)
p.s. my issue with all such texts, by any side, are inaccuracies like this:
Istomin says about US Gen. Brown:
"(...)
The growing adventurism is clearly visible in the debate over the deployment of Western troops in Ukraine. Moreover, thehysterical European leaders speaking out on this topic have been joined by seemingly more responsible American generals. Thus, Charles Brown, the head of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, concluded that sending NATO troops into the country is an inevitable prospect.
(...)".
The exact Brown quote in the NYT is here:
"(...)
So far the United States has said no, but Gen. Charles Q. Brown Jr., the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said on Thursday that a NATO deployment of trainers appeared inevitable. “We’ll get there eventually, over time,” he said.
For now, he said, an effort inside Ukraine would put “a bunch of NATO trainers at risk” and would most likely mean deciding whether to use precious air defenses to protect the trainers instead of critical Ukrainian infrastructure near the battlefield. General Brown briefed reporters on his plane en route to a NATO meeting in Brussels.
(...)".
I am not saying that I trust NATO an inch (ha-ha). But for the mere fact a couple of Hundred trainers, even 1 thousand, be it in truth Special Forces, are not 100.000 boots on the ground.
And Istomin makes it appear as if it were the same. Which bothers me from scholarship POV.
(Of course people here may disagree. But I like cooler heads.)
On the other hand there is no doubt about what CSIS intend with reports like this:
After Russia’s 2022 invasion of Ukraine, NATO adopted a new “back to the future” strategic concept which returned Russia to its Cold War status of adversary and put deterrence and defense back at the heart of alliance strategy. NATO revealed the concept at the 2022 Madrid Summit alongside a wide range of commitments which NATO secretary general Jens Stoltenberg described as amounting to a “fundamental shift to our deterrence and defence.”
(...)"
Which is sort of funny. In the logic of not-one-inch-newspeak, NATO is entitled to peacefully expand to Vladivostok. As long as Stoltenberg assures us in a press conference it´s no war, even a hot war would be "peace". Whatever NATO does it´s by definition never aggressive.
To quote Ted Postol with Robert Scheer March 2022:
"(...) And all this nonsense about NATO not being a hostile alliance against—all you have to do is read NATO’s statements and records, and what they’re up to, and why they’re planning and what their planning is for. It’s ridiculous to claim that NATO is not a hostile alliance against Russia. (...)"
That is a rather weird question. NATO is a consulting mechanism. It does not have tanks, guns or nuclear forces. All such tangible things are owned and controlled by this or that member country.
NATO does not have a nuclear force and currently neither NATO nor those member countries which have nuclear forces are interested in expanding them. The question states as a fact that NATO is expanding something. It is not doing that.
Byren writes:
Jens Stoltenberg, the 13th secretary general of NATO, says that the alliance is in talks to deploy more nuclear weapons and modernize their delivery systems. Stoltenberg told the Telegraph in the UK: “I won’t go into operational details about how many nuclear warheads should be operational and which should be stored, but we need to consult on these issues. That’s exactly what we’re doing.” Stoltenberg emphasized that NATO is a “nuclear alliance.”
The Telegraph piece on the Stoltenberg interview is a write-up, not a transcript. It is inaccurate. Here is what it says:
(...)"
However then shifting to the perpetrator, being THE TELEGRAPH providing us, and with that Stepehen Bryen too, I guess, with "slightly" false info.
you are wrong because there is a NATO nuclear sharing agreement and all such missions are NATO missions. The US owns the weapons as I made perfectly clear.
Harries pointed out that THE TELEGRAPH had put words into Stoltenberg´s mouth which he had not really said.
MoA goes on:
"(...)
The misleading question and mealy mouth answer provide for great irritation but don't really mean anything. And certainly not anything new.
(((James Acton))) @james_acton32 - 21:48 UTC · Jun 17, 2024
Based on this transcript, the @Telegraph article by @Barnes_Joe is journalist malpractice. It is a wholly misleading account of Stoltenberg's comments, which were boilerplate.
In times of heightened tensions media are taking a lot of liberty in 'interpreting' things officials say. This does have consequences and those could become lethal:
Kremlin views NATO’s rhetoric on putting nukes on alert as escalation
MOSCOW, June 17. /TASS/. The recent remark by NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg that the bloc’s allied members are discussing putting their nuclear arsenals on alert is another bout of tensions, Kremlin Spokesman Dmitry Peskov told reporters.
"This is nothing else but an escalation," Peskov said.
But in fact, Stoltenberg did not say anything to that effect.
A couple of years after the end of the Korean War, Syngman Rhee, the leader of South Korea, traveled to Washington to visit Dwight Eisenhower. Rhee wanted to make a pitch to Ike to "reunify" his country, even if this ended up reigniting the Korean War. He apparently tried to humiliate Ike by making the case that the Communists were 'on a roll' and that the West shouldn't be afraid to engage them militarily in the cause of 'democracy.'
Apparently Ike blew his stack and responded to Rhee as follows:
"....when you say that we should deliberately plunge into war, let me tell you that if war comes, it will be horrible. Atomic war will destroy civilization. It will destroy our cities. There will be millions of people dead. War today is unthinkable with the weapons which we have at our command. If the Kremlin and Washington ever lock up in a war, the results are too horrible to contemplate. I can't even imagine them. But we must keep strong.... I assure you that we think about these things continuously and as seriously as you do. The kind of war that I am talking about, if carried out, would not save democracy. Civilization would be ruined, and those nations and persons that survived would have to have strong dictators over them just to feed the people who were left. That is why we are opposed to war."
Unfortunately, Ike is dead and Biden is alive.
Insofar as the nuclear war issue is concerned, there is precious little serious thought taking place within the Biden national security team. Rational people wouldn't even be going down this road. The problem is that so much associated with this proxy war has crossed the threshold into the realm of the irrational.
Source for Eisenhower quote: Richard Rhodes, 1995, Dark Sun: The Making of the Hydrogen Bomb, Simon & Schuster, page 584
The Eisenhower tangle with Rhee is fascinating. On the bigger picture, I agree.
Interesting! Seems the tone of the Eisenhower administration, or at least the man himself, improved for the better. It was also during Eisenhower's administration that SecState Dulles laid down the doctrine of "massive retaliation", i.e. a nuclear threat, claiming to deter communist expansion and wars of postcolonial liberation in third countries. At that time the US had a monopoly on thermonuclear weapons. Soviet demonstration of the H-bomb then ended both the monopoly, and the credibility of Dulles' threat. After that, the US was compelled to return to more or less conventional warfare in proxy conflicts. I wonder if there is a similar belief in nuclear superiority at play today, among Blinken/Sullivan and their group.
Color me skeptical, but I do not believe the US would risk a nuclear exchange for the benefit of any other nation than itself. And in a sense that is a good thing.
Same for Russia btw.
I agree, but that doesn’t mean they will stop escalating. Ultimately I think the goal is to put nuclear weapons in Ukraine. If this provokes Russia into using tactical nukes, great, PR victory for the West.
If it doesn’t provoke Russians, great, they will have missiles within 5 minutes from Moscow. This alone creates first strike capabilities which they can use in the future.
If at some point regime in moscow changes and they decide to reduce nuclear capabilities, great, win for the west.
From NATO perspective there really are no bad outcomes here. Bloody nose is the only thing that can stop them.
That last line spoils it for me, otherwise I'd agree. Though if you meant that last line "as seen by the politicians" then I would agree again as these seem incapable of seeing outside their own bubble.
The NATO generals though, know the score. If they didn't there would have been NATO troops fighting in the Ukraine (under NATO banner) already.
I meant politicians, Jens Stoltenberg etc. Sorry for ambiguity, I’m pretty sure those in Pentagon understand the risks.
The war in Ukraine has knocked down the myth of the world's most powerful military. We no longer have the industrial capacity to reproduce weapons fast enough in a regional war. Russia is adept at jamming our drones and missiles. The vaunted Abrams tank is not very good and a mechanical nightmare. At anyone time only 25% of our F-35's are available for combat because it too requires constant mechanical attention. All we have left to defeat a comparable enemy is nuclear weapons and the U.S. would not hesitate for a moment to launch if need be.
Isn’t it ironic that only a few years ago NATO claimed that Russia is so weak it can only engage in hybrid or asymmetric war against the west.
It turns out, Russia is winning a conventional war of attrition and it is the west that can’t keep up and resorts to asymmetric measures (sanctions, blackmail, support for terrorist activity in Russia, attempts at colour revolutions).
Dead on. Showing respect to other nations and being honest in our dealings is not part of our foreign policy bag of tricks- only military violence. Our main export is sanctions. Our soul guiding principle is screw international laws. We have become isolated and are now the pariah of the world. That's why everyone is dumping us and queuing in line to join BRICS. All empires fade away kicking and screaming.
To be honest, if all these Norwegians and Danes, who, by a strange whim of the United States, are now speaking on behalf of NATO, do not understand the real state of affairs, then so be it. If they don't understand what will happen to the whole of Europe, if Biden doesn't calm down, then so be it. After all, natural selection drives the development of civilization.
You talk about gravity nuclear bombs but it isn't WWII anymore. You won't be able to fly over the target to drop a bomb. If it comes to conflict then we will see massive destruction, satellites will be targeted and with what's left a ground war will not be possible. In WWII we could protect weapon factories but now everything can be targeted and hit so a ground war will not be possible. The reason why this conflict can go on is because both side can't target those factories. The west might be the biggest loser, we can't build anything anymore, whenever there's a nature disaster we can't even help those people. In a nuclear exchange food will be prior and you need to set up food production and distribution for the survivers. The west knowing will be making speeches and 5 years later we'll be dead because nothing got achieved. Just like all those beautiful speeches about Ukraine but we still can't ramp up production.
Our current leaders or incompetent and just plain evil. They talk and talk without any regard for value of Ukrainian life.
Insanity unbound.
Or maybe pure evil.
I think this is just another step on the Escalation Ladder. Ukraine is losing, so something must be done. But what ? They are running out of conventional responses, so nuclear sabre-rattling is next. Since they can't actually use them, this is not likely to achieve much.
I think your assessment is correct, except you can never be sure where the stupidity ends
I suspect that the sociopaths who rule over us will not hesitate an instant.
If we all die, well, we're just props in their drama, army men that they play with in the sandbox.
So with the US escalating its nuclear capability and stance, nicely illustrated by the current essay, there remains a simple question:
To What End?
It would be useful to know the intent of the US (and, as explained, it is the US, not NATO, that makes policy).
Is it mainly to escalate the THREAT in a continuing belief that Russia is always on the verge of backing down from countering the NATO expansions, which they consider an Existential Threat)?
Is it somehow designed to give the US a better chance of surviving a nuclear WW3 or at least winning on points (but then it might be better to actually implement an effect DEFENSE)?
Or something in between. like crafting a new wrinkle to the narrative?
it is mainly to threaten the Russians (to the extent it is logical, if then)
Thanks for sharing your scary view (not that any view on the question is "comforting").
Do I interpret your view correctly by thinking you are asserting that this is a tactical move without much regarding the strategic plan (and certainly not an indication of a change in goals, either)?
One of the things I find most distressing is that the Biden Administration appears to be the Roadrunner; as usual, sprinting on the top of the mesa towards the edge.
any Biden administration policy these days is based on superficial thinking and faulty assumptions
I wish I could honestly disagree, or at least see more evidence that the Vassal States are more afraid of WW3 than of Trump.
I appreciate your willingness to use your evidence and expertise, even to the extent of sharing conclusions that are horrid and existential threats to us all.
But what about the billion-dollar success against the Houthis in only six months?
good sarc!
I wouldn't say that. I'd say that, from the sociopath point of view, what they are doing makes perfect sense.
I would add "intellectual laziness" and "(willful?) ignorance" to your list! I just pray the intel community has a better grasp on reality than the Obama puppet regime!
To what end? To maintain and expand empire.
Next question.
"Maintain" and "Expand" are two very different things.
They would have been an exhaustive (but imprecise) answer if you had included, "regain". or "recoup" what has been lost.
Ironically, it appears to me that the attempt to expand the Empire has so far changed the goal to a clumsy attempt to use failed policy memes and actions to try to regain the obvious losses caused by the expansion attempts.
Much of the existential threat of the Ukraine Proxy War has already been suffered, tho not admitted by the losers. The existence of an obviously inadequate MIC, battlefield losses, and the persistent promulgation of lies and delusions have sullied the illusion that practical military capacity if a function of how much money you spend (for example).
But I have to admit the answer to "to what end?", in theory is to become Master of the Universe (tho, rubble it may be). But what is the "realistic" answer, should we assume there is one?
Future actions may differ depending upon whether the Hegemon focuses on an attempt to unsully its rep, but the current goal may just be an attempt to avoid further loss, rather than expand. While NATO boasting of fielding 500,000 troops to fight Russia may sound like an active counterattack, anyone with of understanding of NATO force strength and readiness, knows the boast is only going to impress the rubes and is not serious.
While some may suggest that the goal is total victory and the tactic , as always, is to escalate (double down even in defeat), perhaps the operative focus, until after the November election, is avoiding the endgame long enough to gain re-election.
Because Russia has no way of doing anything, short of a nuclear exchange, that personally affects the rulers of the West, they will continue to double down.
President Putin, in a recent speech, outlined a number of asymmetrical and symmetrical ways that Russia was planning to respond.
Unlike the purveyors of specific public threats of NATO, exactly what Russia was planning was not explicitly provided.
Commentators in Russia and the West have speculated about using proxies, and cited the ~1000 US foreign military bases/projects, the continuing Russian supply of petroleum and uranium to NATO nations, etc.
We've been hearing about potential (and unnamed) responses to western escalation since February, 2022.
The Putin continually talks about a response but never does them simply shows that he doesn't want to carry out his threats. This, of course, only encourages the West.
They smell blood.
We've been hearing about potential (and unnamed) responses to western escalation since February, 2022.
The Putin continually talks about a response but never does them simply shows that he doesn't want to carry out his threats. This, of course, only encourages the West.
They smell blood.
It seems there is a divergence of opinion about what to do between the STAVKA and the President. Putin is applying the brakes on a stronger response that the STAVKA desires...same can be applied to overall prosecution of the war.
https://johnhelmer.net/next-stage-the-general-staffs-targets-after-putins-feint/
Not sure I can agree with you...there is plenty; this is a special military operation, not all out war (that Russia can still declare). That would open up an entirely new set of strategies and allocation of resources, and would need to pass muster in parliament (which it would without doubt; the Russian public is very much behind the military's posture). There are legal safeguards in the Russian constitution that provide for these scenarios...unlike the way the POTUS can walk the US into conflicts on a "whim".
So, give us specifics.
Start with the elimination of ISR vehicles...down go the satellites and Global Hawks...that provide targeting information.
Thanks, Stephen. Very informative.
Mr Stephen is always on point.
Terrifying
Mr. Bryen, you may want to listen to Col. Douglas MacGregor's opinion on various countries response when Israel begins its aggression against Hezbollah. He has no doubt. Because of Hezbollah's firepower, he believes Israel will have to strike first with tactical nuclear weapons.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iXD8t7gYpTo
How would Russia react to US use of tactical nukes against its army or installations in Russia ?
Surely Russia would hit NATO bases in Europe ?
on this note a comment via Valdai Club:
"Will NATO Attack Russia?"
19.06.2024
by Igor Istomin
(Istomin is Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Therefore some of the initial talking points might be clichéd - why interpret Biden´s public nonsense? - but it improves.)
https://archive.is/P5rIc
or
https://valdaiclub.com/a/highlights/will-nato-attack-russia/
p.s. my issue with all such texts, by any side, are inaccuracies like this:
Istomin says about US Gen. Brown:
"(...)
The growing adventurism is clearly visible in the debate over the deployment of Western troops in Ukraine. Moreover, thehysterical European leaders speaking out on this topic have been joined by seemingly more responsible American generals. Thus, Charles Brown, the head of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, concluded that sending NATO troops into the country is an inevitable prospect.
(...)".
The exact Brown quote in the NYT is here:
"(...)
So far the United States has said no, but Gen. Charles Q. Brown Jr., the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said on Thursday that a NATO deployment of trainers appeared inevitable. “We’ll get there eventually, over time,” he said.
For now, he said, an effort inside Ukraine would put “a bunch of NATO trainers at risk” and would most likely mean deciding whether to use precious air defenses to protect the trainers instead of critical Ukrainian infrastructure near the battlefield. General Brown briefed reporters on his plane en route to a NATO meeting in Brussels.
(...)".
I am not saying that I trust NATO an inch (ha-ha). But for the mere fact a couple of Hundred trainers, even 1 thousand, be it in truth Special Forces, are not 100.000 boots on the ground.
And Istomin makes it appear as if it were the same. Which bothers me from scholarship POV.
(Of course people here may disagree. But I like cooler heads.)
On the other hand there is no doubt about what CSIS intend with reports like this:
https://www.csis.org/analysis/nato-ready-war
"(...)
After Russia’s 2022 invasion of Ukraine, NATO adopted a new “back to the future” strategic concept which returned Russia to its Cold War status of adversary and put deterrence and defense back at the heart of alliance strategy. NATO revealed the concept at the 2022 Madrid Summit alongside a wide range of commitments which NATO secretary general Jens Stoltenberg described as amounting to a “fundamental shift to our deterrence and defence.”
(...)"
Which is sort of funny. In the logic of not-one-inch-newspeak, NATO is entitled to peacefully expand to Vladivostok. As long as Stoltenberg assures us in a press conference it´s no war, even a hot war would be "peace". Whatever NATO does it´s by definition never aggressive.
To quote Ted Postol with Robert Scheer March 2022:
"(...) And all this nonsense about NATO not being a hostile alliance against—all you have to do is read NATO’s statements and records, and what they’re up to, and why they’re planning and what their planning is for. It’s ridiculous to claim that NATO is not a hostile alliance against Russia. (...)"
https://scheerpost.com/2022/03/25/ted-postol-what-you-really-need-to-know-about-the-threat-of-nuclear-war/
I guess others have read the minor critical remark of this entry by Moon of Alabama, too.
https://www.moonofalabama.org/2024/06/couldnt-such-fake-news-start-wars.html#more
"(...)
Couldn't Such Fake News Start Wars?
Stephen Byren asks in Asia Times:
Why is NATO expanding its nuclear force?
That is a rather weird question. NATO is a consulting mechanism. It does not have tanks, guns or nuclear forces. All such tangible things are owned and controlled by this or that member country.
NATO does not have a nuclear force and currently neither NATO nor those member countries which have nuclear forces are interested in expanding them. The question states as a fact that NATO is expanding something. It is not doing that.
Byren writes:
Jens Stoltenberg, the 13th secretary general of NATO, says that the alliance is in talks to deploy more nuclear weapons and modernize their delivery systems. Stoltenberg told the Telegraph in the UK: “I won’t go into operational details about how many nuclear warheads should be operational and which should be stored, but we need to consult on these issues. That’s exactly what we’re doing.” Stoltenberg emphasized that NATO is a “nuclear alliance.”
The Telegraph piece on the Stoltenberg interview is a write-up, not a transcript. It is inaccurate. Here is what it says:
(...)"
However then shifting to the perpetrator, being THE TELEGRAPH providing us, and with that Stepehen Bryen too, I guess, with "slightly" false info.
More on MoA.
you are wrong because there is a NATO nuclear sharing agreement and all such missions are NATO missions. The US owns the weapons as I made perfectly clear.
Thx!
However not being a pro myself I really only quoted MoA (whose recommendation it was to seek out your research in the first place!).
If I had to guess from my memory of what I did read in the past I would agree with your point
p.s. the major point of MoA´s post was this:
He was quoting a Matthew Harries formerly RUSI on his TWITTER:
https://x.com/harries_matthew/status/1802787978252587472
Harries pointed out that THE TELEGRAPH had put words into Stoltenberg´s mouth which he had not really said.
MoA goes on:
"(...)
The misleading question and mealy mouth answer provide for great irritation but don't really mean anything. And certainly not anything new.
(((James Acton))) @james_acton32 - 21:48 UTC · Jun 17, 2024
Based on this transcript, the @Telegraph article by @Barnes_Joe is journalist malpractice. It is a wholly misleading account of Stoltenberg's comments, which were boilerplate.
In times of heightened tensions media are taking a lot of liberty in 'interpreting' things officials say. This does have consequences and those could become lethal:
Kremlin views NATO’s rhetoric on putting nukes on alert as escalation
MOSCOW, June 17. /TASS/. The recent remark by NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg that the bloc’s allied members are discussing putting their nuclear arsenals on alert is another bout of tensions, Kremlin Spokesman Dmitry Peskov told reporters.
"This is nothing else but an escalation," Peskov said.
But in fact, Stoltenberg did not say anything to that effect.
(...)".
Stephen, great work as usual, but we still disagree.
We need to bug out, and pursue a neutralist foreign policy.
Nuclear entanglement is not worth it.