Monday 20th of January 2025
Home » Blogs » Gus Leonisky's blog

we have advanced our backward thinking with critical supply of nuko-warthingies....

The United States has begun the forward deployment of a new generation of its B61 nuclear gravity bomb at bases in Europe, a senior administrator has announced. What signal does the deployment send to Moscow? What impact will it have on strategic security in Europe? Sputnik turned to a senior former Pentagon insider for answers.

"The new B61-12 gravity bombs are fully forward deployed, and we have increased NATO's visibility to our nuclear capabilities through visits to our enterprise and other regular engagements," US National Nuclear Security Administration chief Jill Hruby revealed in a talk at the Hudson Institute this week.

"Our strategic partnership with the UK is very strong, as is their commitment to their nuclear deterrent. And we have advanced our thinking together about critical supply chain resilience. NATO is strong," Hruby added, hinting at the prospects for 'enhanced' nuclear cooperation.

Reports have been swirling in recent years about US plans to redeploy tactical nuclear weapons in the UK at the RAF base at Lakenheath, although an official announcements have been made to date.

The B61-12, also known as the B61 Mod 12, is the latest upgrade to the US variable yield nuclear gravity bomb design first rolled out in the late 1960s. The Mod 12 is set to replace the older Mod 3, 4 and 7 variants of the weapon, and features a 0.3-50 kt yield.

Testing of the B61-12 was completed in 2020, with production starting in late 2021, and the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists expecting 400-500 of the weapons to be produced, in part for deployments abroad.

Older variants of the munition are currently deployed in Belgium, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, and Turkiye's Incirlick Air Base. NATO has approved the weapons to be used in battle by select alliance members as part of the bloc's "nuclear sharing" arrangements.

The announcement of the bombs' deployment in Europe is meant to “signal to Moscow that NATO and particularly the UK…are prepared for any ‘attack’ on any NATO country,” says ex-DoD analyst Michael Maloof.

What it really signals is just how much of a US protectorate Western European countries and the UK have allowed themselves to become, Maloof, a former senior security policy analyst with the Office of the US Secretary of Defense, said.

“When I used to live there on a military base, we used to joke how the UK was nothing but a floating aircraft carrier because of all the US bases on the RAF facilities there,” the observer, who grew up in southern England during the Cold War, recalled.

The nukes’ deployment once again “underscores how NATO has evolved not into a defensive alliance, but an offensive alliance,” with the bases where the bombs are stored obvious targets for Russia in the event of a deadly escalation, Maloof said.

Can Trump Fix a Broken Alliance?

Maloof hopes that under Trump 2.0, “a total reevaluation of the deployment of US bases throughout NATO” will take place, especially in Germany but possibly also the UK.

NATO’s continued existence, the alliance's "Cold War 2.0" against Russia and the bloc's eastward expansion have been a disaster for European security, the observer said.

 

 

“I think it’s the beginning of the end of NATO as we know it. This perennial cycle has just got to cease. And given how we don’t even have a defense against hypersonics…it really shows that we’re reaching a very dangerous pinnacle here of escalation.”

Michael Maloof

Former senior DoD policy analyst

 

The nuke deployment, the termination of the INF Treaty during Trump’s first term and other factors have “made Europe an all the more dangerous place to be,” Maloof emphasized, with reaction time in case of a nuclear escalation being "virtually nil." 

"I think that this posturing that we continually see to 'show deterrence' is actually making the West even more vulnerable to attack because it is an agitating factor," the observer added.

https://sputnikglobe.com/20250118/new-us-nuke-deployment-in-europe-raises-serious-questions-about-natos-true-nature-1121458693.html

 

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

 

         Gus Leonisky

         POLITICAL CARTOONIST SINCE 1951

 

GUSNOTE: THE "DEEP STATE" IS NOT AN ENTITY BUT AN IDEA THAT STRONGLY DICTATE TO THE AMERICAN RULING PSYCHE TO BE RUTHLESS, EXCEPTIONAL BASTARDS AND DUPLICITOUS PSYCHOPATHS...

more expensive....

"I’m not going to be out of sight or out of mind," Joe Biden quipped at one of his final conversations with reporters as president last week. He's not wrong. If the Treasury sanctions targeting Russian maritime oil exports succeed, Biden will remain in Americans' minds for a long time to come. But not for the reasons he might like.

The outgoing administration’s recent decisions suggest that their overarching goal is to create as many problems as possible for its successor in every area. This applies both to foreign policy, where a policy of maximum escalation has been observed in virtually every conflict zone, as well as the domestic front.

With mere hours now left in Biden’s term, the most effective tool in the waning days of his presidency has been sanctions, which can be quickly imposed but are difficult to revoke, given their political justifications.

"Today, the US Department of the Treasury took sweeping action to fulfill the G7 commitment to reduce Russian revenues from energy, including blocking two major Russian oil producers. Today’s actions also impose sanctions on an unprecedented number of oil-carrying vessels, many of which are part of the 'shadow fleet,' opaque traders of Russian oil, Russia-based oilfield service providers, and Russian energy officials," the Treasury said in a press release last week announcing new sanctions against Russia's oil and gas sector.

"The United States is taking sweeping action against Russia’s key source of revenue for funding its brutal and illegal war against Ukraine," Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen said. 

"This action builds on, and strengthens, our focus since the beginning of the war on disrupting the Kremlin’s energy revenues…With today’s actions, we are ratcheting up the sanctions risk associated with Russia’s oil trade, including shipping and financial facilitation in support of Russia’s oil exports," Yellen added.

But Team Biden's sloganeering about the sanctions' purpose being ‘continuing support for Ukraine’ is just cynical ideological cover for their true goal: disrupting the president-elect's plans, primarily in the economic and social sphere. As for hurting Russia, that won't work, and here's why. Russian Maritime Oil Exports: The MathUS sanctions will result in a significant bump in global oil prices, simultaneously offsetting the drop in production volumes by making up revenues into the Russian budget. Russia’s maritime exports of oil and petroleum products amount to about 5.8 million barrels per day, of which 3.5 million barrels per day are crude oil. Currently, global energy agencies and international banks predict a surplus in the oil market in 2025 averaging 0.8 million barrels per day. The consensus forecast for Brent crude prices in 2025 stands at about $71 per barrel, according to major banks.

 

A complete halt to Russian maritime exports of oil and petroleum products (that is, a reduction in Russian oil production by that volume) would cause one of the largest-ever deficits in the global oil market in history (assuming oil production dynamics in other countries remain consistent with forecasts).

According to calculations by the Bank of America, based on historical data, a change in the supply-demand balance by 100,000 barrels per day results in an inverse change in oil prices by $1.50–$2 per barrel.

Consequently, the loss of such a significant volume of Russian exports (5.8 million barrels per day) from the global balance would lead to an increase in oil prices by $80–$90 per barrel, to $150–$160 per barrel.

The loss of far smaller amounts of Russian oil from the world market has already had devastating and immediate impact. In 2022, for example, when Russian oil and petroleum product exports dropped by 1.5 million barrels per day, oil prices rose to over $120 per barrel.

Crunching the numbers, with Brent crude priced at $158 per barrel, the export price of Russian oil for taxation purposes would be between $147 and $156 per barrel (depending on the size of the discount for Russian oil delivered via pipelines) compared to the roughly $70 per barrel assumed in the 2025 budget plan.

That means that under conditions of a full embargo on maritime oil exports, Russia's state budget revenues would increase (to $88.2 billion, compared to $82.3 billion under the current plan), despite a reduction in production and various associated costs.

It is highly unlikely that the United States would like to see such a scenario, as Middle Eastern countries currently lack sufficient spare capacity to replace lost Russian exports, and creating this capacity would require significant investments and time.

Consequences for Trump's MAGA Energy Plans

One of President-Elect Trump’s key campaign promises has been to turn the United States into an oil superpower, and dominate global markets by removing all barriers to production, thereby lowering the price of oil to $50 per barrel or less.

It's been assumed that this policy could serve as leverage against the Kremlin in negotiations over the terms of ending the conflict in Ukraine. However, it’s clear that Trump’s primary energy trump card is related to the anticipated growth in US global competitiveness, and the direct socioeconomic benefits lower retail fuel prices would entail for ordinary Americans.

https://sputnikglobe.com/20250119/bidens-last-minute-oil-sanctions-target-russia-but-will-hurt-us-heres-mathematical-proof-1121465274.html

 

READ FROM TOP.

 

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

 

         Gus Leonisky

         POLITICAL CARTOONIST SINCE 1951.