Ukraine’s Western backers have told Kiev that they can’t hand over enough money and weapons to defeat Russia, and that Vladimir Zelensky will need to “come up with a more realistic plan,” the Wall Street Journal reported on Wednesday. 

When US Secretary of State Antony Blinken and British Foreign Secretary David Lammy meet with Ukrainian officials in Kiev on Wednesday, they will “discuss how best to define a Ukrainian victory and what aid it will need to achieve that,” anonymous officials told the newspaper. 

Behind the scenes, unnamed European diplomats claimed that Kiev is being forced to downgrade its expectations, as Western nations tire of funnelling endless taxpayer cash into the conflict. “Kiev has been told that a full Ukrainian victory would require the West to provide hundreds of billions of dollars worth of support, something neither Washington nor Europe can realistically do,” the WSJ stated.

The US and its European allies have provided Ukraine with more than $200 billion in military, economic, and humanitarian aid since the conflict began, with an additional $110 billion pending, according to figures from the Kiel Institute for the World Economy.

[...] 

military force to restore the country’s 1991 borders, a territorial claim that includes Crimea. Such an aim was dismissed as unachievable by the US more than a year ago. While Zelensky also claims that this goal can be achieved by diplomatic means, as spelled out in his ten-point ‘peace plan’, Moscow maintains that Kiev must accept the “reality” that four of its former regions are now part of the Russian Federation, and that Crimea is “not up for discussion.”

Despite the slim prospects of retaking Ukraine’s former territory, Zelensky said in August that he would present a “victory plan” to US President Joe Biden later this month. Zelsnsky suggested that this plan likely involves asking the US for more cash and weapons, saying that victory would depend on Washington giving Kiev “what is in this plan or not.” 

However, Ukraine’s costly incursion into Russia’s Kursk Region has weakened its battlefield position. Instead of pulling troops from the Donbass frontline to repel the incursion, as generals in Kiev had hoped, Moscow went on the attack, and its forces have since captured multiple settlements en route to the key logistics hub of Pokrovsk.

READ MORE: Crimea ‘not up for discussion’ – Moscow 

Blinken and Lammy pledged nearly $1.5 billion in additional aid to Ukraine on Wednesday, with the former declaring that “we want Ukraine to win.” However, Ukrainian Prime Minister Denis Shmigal wrote on Telegram that talks with the two Western diplomats had been “intense.”

Back in Washington, White House National Security Council spokesman John Kirby insisted that Blinken did not visit Kiev to push Zelensky into accepting a compromise with Russia. “Certainly a negotiated end is the most likely outcome here, but when that happens, and under what conditions and circumstances, that’s going to be up to President Zelensky,” he told reporters on Wednesday.

https://www.rt.com/russia/603874-ukraine-cant-win-blinken/

 

 

MAKE A DEAL PRONTO BEFORE THE SHIT HITS THE FAN:

 

 

NO NATO IN "UKRAINE" (WHAT'S LEFT OF IT)

THE DONBASS REPUBLICS ARE NOW BACK IN THE RUSSIAN FOLD — AS THEY USED TO BE PRIOR 1922. THE RUSSIANS WON'T ABANDON THESE AGAIN.

THESE WILL ALSO INCLUDE ODESSA, KHERSON AND KHARKIV.....

CRIMEA IS RUSSIAN — AS IT USED TO BE PRIOR 1954

TRANSNISTRIA WILL BE PART OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION.

A MEMORANDUM OF NON-AGGRESSION BETWEEN RUSSIA AND THE USA.

 

EASY.

 

THE WEST KNOWS IT.

 

READ FROM TOP

 

YOURDEMOCRACY.NET RECORDS HISTORY AS IT SHOULD BE — NOT AS THE WESTERN MEDIA WRONGLY REPORTS IT.

 

Bloody adventure of the Armed Forces of Ukraine in the Russian Kursk region is probably coming to its end. On September 10, the Russian military launched a series of successful counterattacks. By the morning of September 11, about a dozen settlements came back under the full Russian control.

The Russian army took control of dozens of square kilometers on the western flank of the Ukrainian grouping operating on the Russian territory. Snagost, Apanasovka, Gordeevka and other settlements were liberated. The Armed Forces of Ukraine retreated from the outskirts of Korenevo and withdrew from Olgovka. Russian landed in Obukhovka. Ukrainian forces fled from the village and it was mopped up.

Ukrainian defense collapsed very fast. Since the Ukrainian offensive was mainly launched by small mobilized groups and the transfer of large forces to the Russian region was complicated by heavy strikes, Ukrainian forces failed to reinforce their positions in the captured settlements on the flanks.

Russian counterattacks result in escape of the Ukrainian army. Ukrainian soldiers abandon military equipment and corps of their dead comrades. Many Ukrainian groups were surrounded and destroyed. Dozens of Ukrainian units surrendered.

Moreover, the direction of Russian counter-offensive is threatening the entire Ukrainian grouping in the Kursk region with a large cauldron. Russian forces are now rapidly advancing along the state border. They are only 15 kilometers from the road to Sudzha, the largest settlement and the main stronghold under Ukrainian control. The main supply route to Ukrainian forces risk to be cut off soon.

At the same time, the Ukrainian military lost any initiative in other directions. Fleeing on the northwestern flank, Ukrainian forces are embroiled in counter battles around Sudzha. Ukrainian attacks are repelled near Malaya Loknya, Martynovka, Borki.

The Ukrainian military command has no time to hesitate. Rather they send additional reinforcement, weakening defense in other directions in the Donbass, or they risk losing the large grouping on the Russian land.

Another Kyiv’s victory is turning into a strategic defeat. Both Russian and Western military experts compare Ukrainian incursion in the Kursk region to the failed counteroffensive on the southern Zaporozhie front last year, as well as to the senseless battle for the foothold in Krinky on the Russian bank of the Dnieper River. Large Ukrainian reserves were tolled into a trap where they are grinded. Demoralized, exhausted Ukrainian soldiers again do not understand the goals of the risky operations. The reason is that the Kyiv regime and its NATO partners are set not to defend their population but to send as many Ukrainians as possible into a slaughter of the prolonged war against Russia.

https://southfront.press/bloody-adventure-in-kursk-region-coming-to-its-end/

 

READ FROM TOP

 

YOURDEMOCRACY.NET RECORDS HISTORY AS IT SHOULD BE — NOT AS THE WESTERN MEDIA WRONGLY REPORTS IT.

 

As the proxy war splits Russia-NATO (East/West) relations in the Ukraine theater, all the premises indicate that Ukraine will eventually embrace its destiny: a future inextricably linked to Russia. 

The history of international relations weighs heavily and Ukraine is destined to have a future closely linked to Russia, whether politically, economically, culturally or militarily. This implies that Ukraine will be influenced, if not dominated, by Russia in key areas of its sovereignty.

It is a matter of life and survival of the Russian nation in a world of predation, where only compelling military superiority allows a responsible state to maintain its homeostasis. All attempts by the West to inflict a new “perestroika” or “glasnost”  to Russia are oxymoronic.

Russia occupies a central and strategic position in the Ukrainian conflict, protecting the interests of the Russian-speaking population and ensuring the defense of its regional sphere of influence. With deep historical and cultural ties to Ukraine, perceived as a brother country, Russia is responding to the growing threats from Ukrainian nationalist forces (controlled by NATO) against the security of Russian-speaking people. Its actions include the legitimate annexation of Crimea (in response to NATO’s eastward expansion) and support for pro-Russian separatists in eastern Ukraine, as well as defending its economic interests, particularly as a major gas supplier. In addition, Russia plays a key role in the fight against terrorism in Ukraine, targeting extremist groups threatening the region. In doing so, Russia is defending not only its legitimate interests but also those of the Russian-speaking population. With a resolute and proactive approach, Russia will continue to be a key player in the search for a peaceful and lasting solution to the conflict, ensuring that its interests and security concerns are respected.

West bogged down in proxy war in Ukraine

Ukraine is currently experiencing a proxy war, in which Western powers are exploiting local allies to confront Russia. Russia is supporting pro-Russian separatists in the east of the country, while the United States and the European Union are supporting the Ukrainian puppet government that emerged from Maidan. This conflict is having disastrous consequences for Ukraine, which is ravaged by fighting and political tensions. Ukrainians are caught in the middle of this conflict, where foreign interests prevail over local needs. This proxy war reflects a broader trend in international relations, also visible in conflicts such as the civil war in Syria or the conflict in Yemen. In addition to the political dimensions, the situation in Ukraine is also fueled by economic and energy interests, with Russia seeking to ensure its security and maintain its control over regional energy resources, while the United States and the European Union seek to advance their own energy interests. To resolve this complex conflict, a peaceful and sustainable solution at the initiative of Moscow is imperative, knowing that the Zelensky format is just a red tape. It is crucial that all parties involved (Russia and Ukraine) work together to find an agreement that takes into account Russia’s interests and national security concerns, thus allowing Ukraine to rebuild and develop in peace with its neighbor in an indissoluble community of destiny.

The dawn of a new era of Russian-Ukrainian cooperation and prosperity

When the guns fall silent and hearts are calmed, Russia will have restored its influence in Ukraine, ushering in a new era of cooperation and prosperity. Pro-Russian separatists will be celebrated as heroes, and their quest for independence will be crowned with success. Under Russian leadership, Ukraine will regain its unity, strengthening the historical and cultural ties between the two nations. Russia will demonstrate its strength and resolve, transforming Ukraine forever. Peace will return, albeit under the omnipresence of Russian power. Redrawn borders will protect Russian interests, and the international community will eventually recognize Russia’s sovereignty over the region, leading to the lifting of imperialist sanctions. Integrated into the Russian economic space, Ukraine will see its trade intensified and its natural resources jointly exploited, thus sharing the benefits. Security will be ensured by a Russian-Ukrainian military alliance, eliminating any external threats. The Russian language will become official in Ukraine, and Russian culture will be widely promoted. The historical ties between the two countries will be celebrated, honoring Russian heroes. Ukraine, as a buffer state between Russia and Europe, will ensure regional stability. Russia, through this strategic victory, will strengthen its influence in Europe, finding in Ukraine a faithful ally and protecting its interests. This lasting peace will ensure shared prosperity.

In light of the above, we can infer that, as tensions over the proxy war between Russia and NATO deeply divide East-West relations, there is every reason to believe that Ukraine will eventually accept a future inextricably linked to Russia. The history of international relations weighs heavily, predicting a Ukraine that is politically, economically, culturally, and militarily integrated with its Russian neighbor. This convergence indicates substantial Russian influence, if not domination, over key areas of Ukrainian sovereignty. In this context of geopolitical rivalry, where military supremacy is indispensable for national stability, it becomes clear that Russia will seek to maintain its influence. Western initiatives aimed at bringing about a new “perestroika” or “glasnost” in Russia thus prove antithetical.

It can be said that this full-scale event will be perceived as a grenade with the pin pulled, thrown into the legs of Russia’s adversaries.

 

Mohamed Lamine KABA, Expert in geopolitics of governance and regional integration, Institute of Governance, Human and Social Sciences, Pan-African University, especially for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”

 

https://journal-neo.su/2024/09/07/the-fate-of-ukraine-a-russian-future/

 

 

MAKE A DEAL PRONTO BEFORE THE SHIT HITS THE FAN:

 

 

NO NATO IN "UKRAINE" (WHAT'S LEFT OF IT)

THE DONBASS REPUBLICS ARE NOW BACK IN THE RUSSIAN FOLD — AS THEY USED TO BE PRIOR 1922. THE RUSSIANS WON'T ABANDON THESE AGAIN.

THESE WILL ALSO INCLUDE ODESSA, KHERSON AND KHARKIV.....

CRIMEA IS RUSSIAN — AS IT USED TO BE PRIOR 1954

TRANSNISTRIA WILL BE PART OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION.

A MEMORANDUM OF NON-AGGRESSION BETWEEN RUSSIA AND THE USA.

 

EASY.

 

THE WEST KNOWS IT.

 

READ FROM TOP

 

YOURDEMOCRACY.NET RECORDS HISTORY AS IT SHOULD BE — NOT AS THE WESTERN MEDIA WRONGLY REPORTS IT.

 

Reports that Ukraine may soon be allowed to strike deep into Russia using American-made weapons are a sign that the US is increasingly involved in the conflict, Moscow’s ambassador to Washington, Anatoly Antonov, has said. He also claimed that Western nations had instructed Ukraine to step up attacks on civilian targets.

Citing House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Michael McCaul, Axios reporter Juliegrace Brufke tweeted on Tuesday that the US could lift restrictions on Kiev’s use of long-range ATACMS missiles to strike internationally recognized Russian territory when Secretary of State Blinken visits Kiev.

In a statement on Thursday, Antonov said that the US “is steadily driving itself deeper into the quagmire”of the Ukraine conflict, while being willing “to sacrifice the well-being of US citizens by transferring multibillion-dollar volumes of weapons and ammunition to the Kiev regime.”

According to the envoy, Washington’s sole requirement of Kiev is “to increase military clashes with Russian troops.” In doing so, Antonov warned, the US is testing the “limit of our tolerance… to hostile steps,” but that its plans to inflict a strategic defeat on Russia are not feasible.

“It seems that… Washington perfectly understands the situation on the battlefield when every day Russian troops liberate more and more settlements in Donbass. However, politicians are extremely pleased with the death of Slavs on both sides of the line of contact. They openly proclaim a simple task – to preserve the old system of international relations where America used to dominate.”

The ambassador claimed that Kiev’s Western backers had tasked it “to intensify attacks against ordinary Russians, our cities and villages… No one is even trying to hide – even at the highest level in the White House – that intelligence data has been and continues to flow from the United States to Kiev.”

READ MORE: US to allow Ukraine to attack Russia with long-range missiles – Axios

Antonov was apparently referring to comments by Vice Admiral Frank Whitworth, director of the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency (NGA), who acknowledged last month that Ukraine had access to a trove of commercial satellite images for its incursion into Kursk Region. While the Ukrainian large-scale cross-border attack initially made some gains, it had since been contained, according to Moscow, which estimated Kiev’s losses at more than 12,000 troops.

”It is impossible to negotiate with terrorists. They must be wiped out,” Antonov stressed, adding that Russia intends to do its best to prevent such attacks from ever happening again.

 

https://www.rt.com/russia/603903-us-pleased-deaths-ukraine-conflict/

 

READ FROM TOP

 

YOURDEMOCRACY.NET RECORDS HISTORY AS IT SHOULD BE — NOT AS THE WESTERN MEDIA WRONGLY REPORTS IT.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rzXyWudA8c0

INTEL Roundtable w/ Johnson & McGovern - Weekly Wrap

 

Michael Klare, Ensuring the Collapse of Civilization?POSTED ON SEPTEMBER 12, 2024

I was born on July 20, 1944, in the midst of the Second World War. Barely a year later, the U.S. ended that conflict in the Pacific by dropping atomic bombs on the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki and creating two all-too-literal hells on Earth.

To this day, fortunately, no other nuclear weapons have ever been used (if, that is, you don’t count all the ones tested, including in above-ground places like Nevada). But in some sense, as I wrote a few years ago, “You could say that we’ve been living in a science-fiction novel since August 6, 1945, when that first American nuclear bomb devastated Hiroshima. Until then, we humans could do many terrible things, but of one thing we were incapable: the destruction of this world. In the nearly eight decades that followed, we have, however, taken over a role once left to the gods: the ability to create Armageddon.”

And of course, in our own seemingly inimitable fashion, we’ve also stumbled across a second slow-motion way to do in ourselves and the planet: climate change. In other words, we’re giving classic science fiction and dystopian fiction writers a genuine run for their money (which, of course, will be burned to a crisp).

Worse yet, 80 years after those first atomic bombs were used in Japan, nine (yes, nine!) countries (including Israel and North Korea) now possess atomic weapons. The U.S., Russia, and China, with the three largest nuclear arsenals on the planet, as TomDispatch regularMichael Klare makes clear today, are all potentially preparing to expand them further. (The phrase in this country is “modernizing” and our government already plans to “invest” up to $1.5 trillion in “modernizing” this country’s nuclear arsenal in the decades to come.) And yet, as Klare also makes clear, it’s remarkable how little Americans think about such world-ending weaponry. The popular film Oppenheimer was an exception to that reality, though it paid sadly little attention to the devastation the bombs that Robert Oppenheimer played such a role in creating caused in the last days of World War II.

So, today, let Klare fill you in on humanity’s race to oblivion and just what we should indeed be paying far, far more attention to. Tom

The Armageddon AgendaKamala Harris, Donald Trump, and the Race to OblivionBY MICHAEL KLARE

The next president of the United States, whether Kamala Harris or Donald Trump, will face many contentious domestic issues that have long divided this country, including abortion rights, immigration, racial discord, and economic inequality. In the foreign policy realm, she or he will face vexing decisions over Ukraine, Israel/Gaza, and China/Taiwan. But one issue that few of us are even thinking about could pose a far greater quandary for the next president and even deeper peril for the rest of us: nuclear weapons policy.

Consider this: For the past three decades, we’ve been living through a period in which the risk of nuclear war has been far lower than at any time since the Nuclear Age began — so low, in fact, that the danger of such a holocaust has been largely invisible to most people. The collapse of the Soviet Union and the signing of agreements that substantially reduced the U.S. and Russian nuclear stockpiles eliminated the most extreme risk of thermonuclear conflict, allowing us to push thoughts of nuclear Armageddon aside (and focus on other worries). But those quiescent days should now be considered over. Relations among the major powers have deteriorated in recent years and progress on disarmament has stalled. The United States and Russia are, in fact, upgrading their nuclear arsenals with new and more powerful weapons, while China — previously an outlier in the nuclear threat equation — has begun a major expansion of its own arsenal.

The altered nuclear equation is also evident in the renewed talk of possible nuclear weapons use by leaders of the major nuclear-armed powers. Such public discussion largely ceased after the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962, when it became evident that any thermonuclear exchange between the U.S. and the Soviet Union would result in their mutual annihilation. However, that fear has diminished in recent years and we’re again hearing talk of nuclear weapons use. Since ordering the invasion of Ukraine, Russian President Vladimir Putin has repeatedly threatened to employ nuclear munitions in response to unspecified future actions of the U.S. and NATO in support of Ukrainian forces. Citing those very threats, along with China’s growing military might, Congress has authorized a program to develop more “lower-yield” nuclear munitions supposedly meant (however madly) to provide a president with further “options” in the event of a future regional conflict with Russia or China.

Thanks to those and related developments, the world is now closer to an actual nuclear conflagration than at any time since the end of the Cold War. And while popular anxiety about a nuclear exchange may have diminished, keep in mind that the explosive power of existing arsenals has not. Imagine this, for instance: even a “limited” nuclear war — involving the use of just a dozen or so of the hundreds of intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) possessed by China, Russia, and the United States — would cause enough planetary destruction to ensure civilization’s collapse and the death of billions of people.

And consider all of that as just the backdrop against which the next president will undoubtedly face fateful decisions regarding the production and possible use of such weaponry, whether in the bilateral nuclear relationship between the U.S. and Russia or the trilateral one that incorporates China.

The U.S.-Russia Nuclear Equation

The first nuclear quandary facing the next president has an actual timeline. In approximately 500 days, on February 5, 2026, the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (New START), the last remaining nuclear accord between the U.S. and Russia limiting the size of their arsenals, will expire. That treaty, signed in 2010, limits each side to a maximum of 1,550 deployed strategic nuclear warheads along with 700 delivery systems, whether ICBMs, submarine-launched ballistic missiles (SLBMs), or nuclear-capable heavy bombers. (That treaty only covers strategic warheads, or those intended for attacks on each other’s homeland; it does not include the potentially devastating stockpiles of “tactical” nuclear munitions possessed by the two countries that are intended for use in regional conflicts.)

At present, the treaty is on life support. On February 21, 2023, Vladimir Putin ominously announced that Russia had “suspended” its formal participation in New START, although claiming it would continue to abide by its warhead and delivery limits as long as the U.S. did so. The Biden administration then agreed that it, too, would continue to abide by the treaty limits. It has also signaled to Moscow that it’s willing to discuss the terms of a replacement treaty for New START when that agreement expires in 2026. The Russians have, however, declined to engage in such conversations as long as the U.S. continues its military support for Ukraine.

Accordingly, among the first major decisions the next president has to make in January 2025 will be what stance to take regarding the future status of New START (or its replacement). With the treaty’s extinction barely more than a year away, little time will remain for careful deliberation as a new administration chooses among several potentially fateful and contentious possibilities.

Its first option, of course, would be to preserve the status quo, agreeing that the U.S. will abide by that treaty’s numerical limits as long as Russia does, even in the absence of a treaty obliging it to do so. Count on one thing, though: such a decision would almost certainly be challenged and tested by nuclear hawks in both Washington and Moscow.

Of course, President Harris or Trump could decide to launch a diplomatic drive to persuade Moscow to agree to a new version of New START, a distinctly demanding undertaking, given the time remaining. Ideally, such an agreement would entail further reductions in the U.S. and Russian strategic arsenals or at least include caps on the number of tactical weapons on each side. And remember, even if such an agreement were indeed to be reached, it would also require Senate approval and undoubtedly encounter fierce resistance from the hawkish members of that body. Despite such obstacles, this probably represents the best possible outcome imaginable.

The worst — and yet most likely — would be a decision to abandon the New START limits and begin adding yet more weapons to the American nuclear arsenal, reversing a bipartisan arms control policy that goes back to the administration of President Richard Nixon. Sadly, there are too many members of Congress who favor just such a shift and are already proposing measures to initiate it.

 

In June, for example, in its version of the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2025, the Senate Armed Services Committee instructed the Department of Defense to begin devising plans for an increase in the number of deployed ICBMs from 400 of the existing Minuteman-IIIs to 450 of its replacement, the future Sentinel ICBM. The House Armed Services Committee version of that measure does not contain that provision but includes separate plans for ICBM force expansion. (The consolidated text of the bill has yet to be finalized.)

Should the U.S. and/or Russia abandon the New START limits and begin adding to its atomic arsenal after February 5, 2026, a new nuclear arms race would almost certainly be ignited, with no foreseeable limits. No matter which side announced such a move first, the other would undoubtedly feel compelled to follow suit and so, for the first time since the Nixon era, both nuclear powers would be expanding rather than reducing their deployed nuclear forces — only increasing, of course, the potential for mutual annihilation. And if Cold War history is any guide, such an arms-building contest would result in increased suspicion and hostility, adding a greater danger of nuclear escalation to any crisis that might arise between them.

The Three-Way Arms Race

Scary as that might prove, a two-way nuclear arms race isn’t the greatest peril we face. After all, should Moscow and Washington prove unable to agree on a successor to New START and begin expanding their arsenals, any trilateral nuclear agreement including China that might slow that country’s present nuclear buildup becomes essentially unimaginable.

Ever since it acquired nuclear weapons in 1964, the People’s Republic of China (PRC) pursued a minimalist stance when it came to deploying such weaponry, insisting that it would never initiate a nuclear conflict but would only use nuclear weapons in a second-strike retaliatory fashion following a nuclear attack on the PRC. In accordance with that policy, China long maintained a relatively small arsenal, only 200 or so nuclear warheads and a small fleet of ICBMs and SLBMs. In the past few years, however, China has launched a significant nuclear build-up, adding another 300 warheads and producing more missiles and missile-launching silos — all while insisting its no-first-use policy remains unchanged and that it is only maintaining a retaliatory force to deter potential aggression by other nuclear-armed states.

Some Western analysts believe that Xi Jinping, China’s nationalistic and authoritarian leader, considers a larger arsenal necessary to boost his country’s status in a highly competitive, multipolar world. Others argue that China fears improvements in U.S. defensive capabilities, especially the installation of anti-ballistic missile systems, that could endanger its relatively small retaliatory force and so rob it of a deterrent to any future American first strike.

Given the Chinese construction of several hundred new missile silos, Pentagon analysts contend that the country plans to deploy as many as 1,000 nuclear warheads by 2030 and 1,500 by 2035 — roughly equivalent to deployed Russian and American stockpiles under the New START guidelines. At present, there is no way to confirm such predictions, which are based on extrapolations from the recent growth of the Chinese arsenal from perhaps 200 to 500 warheads. Nonetheless, many Washington officials, especially in the Republican Party, have begun to argue that, given such a buildup, the New START limits must be abandoned in 2026 and yet more weapons added to the deployed U.S. nuclear stockpile to counter both Russia and China.

As Franklin Miller of the Washington-based Scowcroft Group and a former director of nuclear targeting in the office of the secretary of defense put it, “Deterring China and Russia simultaneously [requires] an increased level of U.S. strategic warheads.” Miller was one of 12 members of the Congressional Commission on the Strategic Posture of the United States, a bipartisan group convened in 2022 to reconsider America’s nuclear policies in light of China’s growing arsenal, Putin’s nuclear threats, and other developments. In its final October 2023 report, that commission recommended numerous alterations and additions to the American arsenal, including installing multiple warheads (instead of single ones) on the Sentinel missiles being built to replace the Minuteman ICBM and increasing the number of B-21 nuclear bombers and Columbia-class ballistic-missile submarines to be produced under the Pentagon’s $1.5 trillion nuclear “modernization” program.

The Biden administration has yet to endorse the recommendations in that report. It has, however, signaled that it’s considering the steps a future administration might take to address an expanded Chinese arsenal. In March, the White House approved a new version of a top-secret document, the Nuclear Employment Guidance, which for the first time reportedly focused as much on countering China as Russia. According to the few public comments made by administration officials about that document, it, too, sets out contingency plans for increasing the number of deployed strategic weapons in the years ahead if Russia breaks out of the current New START limits and no arms restraints have been negotiated with China.

“We have begun exploring options to increase future launcher capacity or additional deployed warheads on the land, sea, and air legs [of the nuclear delivery “triad” of ICBMs, SLBMs, and bombers] that could offer national leadership increased flexibility, if desired, and executed,” said acting Assistant Secretary of Defense Policy Vipin Narang on August 1st. While none of those options are likely to be implemented in President Biden’s remaining months, the next administration will be confronted with distinctly ominous decisions about the future composition of that already monstrous nuclear arsenal.

Whether it is kept as is or expanded, the one option you won’t hear much about in Washington is finding ways to reduce it. And count on one thing: even a decision simply to preserve the status quo in the context of today’s increasingly antagonistic international environment poses an increased risk of nuclear conflict. Any decision to expand it, along with comparable moves by Russia and China, will undoubtedly create an even greater risk of instability and potentially suicidal nuclear escalation.

The Need for Citizen Advocacy

For all too many of us, nuclear weapons policy seems like a difficult issue that should be left to the experts. This wasn’t always so. During the Cold War years, nuclear war seemed like an ever-present possibility and millions of Americans familiarized themselves with nuclear issues, participating in ban-the-bomb protests or the Nuclear Weapons Freeze Campaign of the 1980s. But with the Cold War’s end and a diminished sense of nuclear doom, most of us turned to other issues and concerns. Yet the nuclear danger is growing rapidly and so decisions regarding the U.S. arsenal could have life-or-death repercussions on a global scale.

And one thing should be made clear: adding more weaponry to the U.S. arsenal will not make us one bit safer. Given the invulnerability of this country’s missile-bearing nuclear submarines and the multitude of other weapons in our nuclear arsenal, no foreign leader could conceivably mount a first strike on this country and not expect catastrophic retaliation, which in turn would devastate the planet. Acquiring more nuclear weapons would not alter any of this in the slightest. All it could possibly do is add to international tensions and increase the risk of global annihilation.

As Daryl Kimball, executive director of the Arms Control Association, a nonpartisan research and advocacy outfit, put it recently: “Significant increases in the U.S. deployed nuclear arsenal would undermine mutual and global security by making the existing balance of nuclear terror more unpredictable and would set into motion a counterproductive, costly action-reaction cycle of nuclear competition.”

A decision to pursue such a reckless path could occur just months from now. In early 2025, the next president, whether Kamala Harris or Donald Trump, will be making critical decisions regarding the future of the New START Treaty and the composition of the U.S. nuclear arsenal. Given the vital stakes involved, such decisions should not be left to the president and a small coterie of her or his close advisers. Rather, it should be the concern of every citizen, ensuring vigorous debate on alternative options, including steps aimed at reducing and eventually eliminating the world’s nuclear arsenals. Without such public advocacy, we face the very real danger that, for the first time since the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in August 1945, nuclear weapons will again be detonated on this planet, with billions of us finding ourselves in almost unimaginable peril.

https://tomdispatch.com/the-armageddon-agenda/

 

READ FROM TOP

 

YOURDEMOCRACY.NET RECORDS HISTORY AS IT SHOULD BE — NOT AS THE WESTERN MEDIA WRONGLY REPORTS IT.