US & Russia’s fundamental interest not to destroy each other with nukes – former US ambassador Matlock

You'd think so but you'd never guess from US and NATO signals, shown by the fact that the former ambassador would find it necessary to say this.

RT
US & Russia’s fundamental interest not to destroy each other with nukes – former US ambassador

NATO agrees increased presence in Black Sea – Stoltenberg

Putin: NATO keeps trying to draw Russia into confrontation, meddle in internal affairs

And as NATO continues to directly and indirectly support the destabilization of the Middle East and North Africa, it appears that its strategy will be to spark ethnic and religious wars across Eurasia, and right up to Russia's borders.

NATO knows it can't directly attack Russia. That's why proxy wars were invented.

Russia Insider
Putin: NATO's Primary Objective Is to 'Provoke Confrontation' With Russia

Matthew Allen

Eric Zuesse — America’s Secret Planned Conquest Of Russia

Why Russia is so touchy. It's under attack by the US strategically, but not yet tactically.

The U.S. government’s plan to conquer Russia is based upon a belief in, and the fundamental plan to establish, “Nuclear Primacy” against Russia — an American ability to win a nuclear war against, and so conquer, Russia.

This concept became respectable in U.S. academic and governmental policymaking circles when virtually simultaneously in 2006 a short-form and a long-form version of an article endorsing the concept, which the article’s two co-authors there named “nuclear primacy,” were published respectively in the world’s two most influential journals of international affairs, Foreign Affairs from the Council on Foreign Relations, and International Security from Harvard. (CFR got the more popular short version, titled “The Rise of U.S. Nuclear Primacy”, and Harvard got the more scholarly long version, which was titled “The End of MAD?”.)

This article claimed that the central geostrategic concept during the Cold War with the Soviet Union, Mutually Assured Destruction or “MAD” — in which there is no such thing as the U.S. or the U.S.S.R. conquering the other, because the first of the two to attack will itself also be destroyed by the surviving nuclear forces of the one responding to that attack — will soon be merely past history (like the Soviet Union itself already is); and, so, as the short form of the article said, “nuclear primacy remains a goal of the United States”; and, as the long form said, “the United States now stands on the cusp of nuclear primacy.” In other words: arms-control or no, the U.S. should, and soon will, be able to grab Russia (the largest land-mass of any country, and also the one richest in natural resources).…

A far less influential scholarly journal, China Policy, published later in 2006 a critical article arguing against nuclear supremacy, but that article has had no impact upon policymaking. Its title was “The Fallacy of Nuclear Primacy” and it argued that, “American nuclear supremacy removes the root source of stability from the nuclear equation: mutual vulnerability.” It presented a moral argument: “U.S. leaders might try to exploit its nuclear superiority … by actually launching a cold-blooded nuclear attack against its nuclear rival in the midst of an intense crisis. The professors discount significantly the power of the nuclear taboo to restrain U.S. leaders from crossing the fateful threshold. If crisis circumstances grow dire enough, the temptation to try to disarm their nuclear adversaries through a nuclear first-strike may be too strong to resist, they argue.”...

The co-authors of (both versions of) the article that had proposed and endorsed nuclear primacy, then published in 2007 (this one also in International Security), a response to that critical article. This reply’s title was “U.S. Nuclear Primacy and the Future of the Chinese Deterrent”. But it had no more impact than did the obscure article it was arguing against.
Thus, nuclear primacy has become U.S. policy, and MAD no longer is U.S. policy (though it remains Russian policy). The U.S. government is planning to take over Russia (basically, to install a puppet-regime there). That’s the reality....

Whether Obama’s successor, Donald Trump, will continue with that longstanding (ever since 24 February 1990) plan to conquer Russia, or instead finally end the Cold War on the U.S. side (as it already had ended in 1991 on the U.S.S.R.’s), isn’t yet clear.

This is what happens when what President Eisenhower called “the military-industrial complex” takes over the country, and everything (including the ‘news’ media) serves it, rather than the military-industrial complex’s serving the public.

It fits in with the massive data which indicates that the U.S. government is run by an aristocracy or “oligarchy”, instead of run by people who represent the public — a “democracy.” Obama as President fit right in.

Of course, that's no secret to Russia — or China, which is next on the list. But it looks like the plan is to "do Iran" first.

These excerpts only scratch the surface of this well-documented article. Read it and understand the deviousness behind the US narrative — the actual fake news — for domestic consumption flogged in the US media's daily news cycle.

Zero Hedge
America’s Secret Planned Conquest Of Russia
Eric Zuesse, investigative reporter

Steven Starr — Nuclear War, Nuclear Winter, and Human Extinction

Nuclear winter would cause average global surface temperatures to become colder than they were at the height of the last Ice Age. Such extreme cold would eliminate growing seasons for many years, probably for a decade or longer. Can you imagine a winter that lasts for ten years?

The results of such a scenario are obvious. Temperatures would be much too cold to grow food, and they would remain this way long enough to cause most humans and animals to starve to death.

Global nuclear famine would ensue in a setting in which the infrastructure of the combatant nations has been totally destroyed, resulting in massive amounts of chemical and radioactive toxins being released into the biosphere. We don’t need a sophisticated study to tell us that no food and Ice Age temperatures for a decade would kill most people and animals on the planet. Would the few remaining survivors be able to survive in a radioactive, toxic environment?

It is, of course, debatable whether or not nuclear winter could cause human extinction. There is essentially no way to truly “know” without fighting a strategic nuclear war. Yet while it is crucial that we all understand the mortal peril that we face, it is not necessary to engage in an unwinnable academic debate as to whether anyhumans will survive.

What is of the utmost importance is that this entire subject –the catastrophic environmental consequences of nuclear war – has been effectively dropped from the global discussion of nuclear weaponry. The focus is instead upon “nuclear terrorism”, a subject that fits official narratives and centers upon the danger of one nuclear weapon being detonated – yet the scientifically predicted consequences of nuclear war are never publically acknowledged or discussed.

Why has the existential threat of nuclear war been effectively omitted from public debate? Perhaps the leaders of the nuclear weapon states do not want the public to understand that their nuclear arsenals represent a self-destruct mechanism for the human race? Such an understanding could lead to a demand that nuclear weapons be banned and abolished.

Consequently, the nuclear weapon states continue to maintain and modernize their nuclear arsenals, as their leaders remain silent about the ultimate threat that nuclear war poses to the human species.

Federation of American Scientists
Nuclear War, Nuclear Winter, and Human Extinction

Steven Starr | Director of the University of Missouri’s Clinical Laboratory Science Program, as well as a senior scientist at the Physicians for Social Responsibility

Aaron Tovish — The Okinawa missiles of October

Another near miss.

Bulletin of Atomic Scientists
The Okinawa missiles of October
Aaron Tovish
ht Yves Smith at Naked Capitalism

More to think about. It's much more dangerous now.

The scientist elaborated that in a tornado a powerful anti-gravitational effect takes places. Remarkably, the effective height of this anti-gravitational phenomenon is not limited to the height of the atmosphere. In the event of multiple simultaneous powerful tornadoes, we may face a phenomenon of suction of the earth atmosphere into space.…

Dr. Sarg noted that Mars once had liquid water and purportedly an atmosphere that mysteriously disappeared one day.

"If the scenario described above takes place, the Earth will become a dead planet like Mars," the scientist stressed.

Then there is the Russian and Chinese doomsday strategy of exploding a nuclear device over Wyoming that would ignite the super-volcano under Yellowstone, burying North America in volcanic ash.

How the military mind works.

Sputnik
Apocalypse, Now? Nuclear War May Result in Loss of Earth's Atmosphere