"Every General Staff relies on the fact that if the enemy's intentions are unclear they should be interpreted as aggressive (otherwise, they could be late to respond)"…
Under these circumstances, there is no time evaluate the situation and the intention. Anything that can be characterized as a threat of nuclear attack against Russia should cause intercontinental missiles to be launched immediately. Otherwise, there is a high chance that they would be destroyed at their sites.Do you feel safer?
The limited (after the reduction according to the INF) amount of carriers and warheads leave no hope that there will be enough missiles for an adequate response after any disarming strike.
This increases the risk of nuclear confrontation up to the level of the 1980’s, when it was the highest in the history of USSR - US relations, except for the two critical weeks of the Cuban Missile Crisis, from October 15th to 28th, 1962. (That crisis, by the way, was provoked by the deployment of American medium-range ballistic missiles Jupiter in Turkey.)
Russia Insider
NATO Missile Shield Is Practically Guaranteeing a Russian First Strike
Rostislav Ischenko, RIA Novosti
Translated by Julia Rakhmetova and Rhod MackenzieThe author is a famous Ukrainian former political analyst and diplomat forced to migrate to Russia following the Maidan coup. He is a columnist for the International Information Agency “Rossyia Segodnya”See also
If the United States ever ends up stumbling into a major conventional or nuclear war with Russia, the culprit will likely be two military boondoggles that refused to die when their primary mission ended with the demise of the Soviet Union: NATO and the U.S. anti-ballistic missile (ABM) program.Consortium NewsEscalations in a New Cold War
Jonathan Marshall
Argues that the US and NATO needs to ramp up against a resurgent Russian military, in other words, a new Cold War and resultant arms race including nuclear.
Lexington Institute
Daniel Gouré
2 comments:
Are the people in Europe so deranged, are they just sheep? I've been debating with some libertarians online and I can't understand their mindset.
One was very upset by my comments, and I understood why. I was dismantling his whole world view. But why did he get this worked view? He could have high quality stare run health care, social security, and a state pension by abandoning libertarianism. The private sector would flourish under social democracy.
Some people don't think deeply. Putin based, Russia bad, China bad, this is what we are told. So bang, our whole world goes up in smoke. But nothing is worth that. China and Russia are both now capitalist states, so what's the problem?
China and Russia are both now capitalist states, so what's the problem? Kalvey
Our (and theirs) usury based money system since it requires exponential growth so the interest can be paid?
Contrary to the "money must be debt crowd", shares in equity, common stock is a money form that allows but does not require growth, that shares rather concentrates wealth and power, that does not require government privilege as the current system does.
But why share when those with equity can instead use it to legally steal from the less so-called creditworthy?
Post a Comment