Nuclear War Russia-Ukraine Scott Ritter

Scott Ritter: The Onus Is on Biden & Putin

We are, literally, on the eve of destruction. Now is the time for the kind of political maturity leaders rarely demonstrate.
Ballistic missile submarine USS Rhode Island  returns to Naval Submarine Base Kings Bay after three months at sea, March 20, 2013. (U.S. Navy, James Kimber)

By Scott Ritter / Consortium News

Wars should be avoided at all costs. Nuclear conflict should never be contemplated.

These two truisms are often spoken, but rarely adhered to. Wars occur all too frequently, and so long as nations possess nuclear weapons, their use  is contemplated on a continuous basis.

The ongoing Ukrainian-Russian conflict has put the world’s two largest nuclear powers on opposing sides, with the U.S. supporting a Ukrainian military that has become a de facto proxy of NATO, and Russia viewing its struggle with Ukraine as including the “collective West.”

Since the initiation of Russia’s “special military operation” in Ukraine, both the U.S. and Russia have played their respective nuclear cards.

Russia has made it clear that any intervention by NATO would be considered an existential threat to the Russian nation, thereby invoking one of the two clauses in the Russian nuclear posture in which nuclear weapons could be used. (The other would be in response to a nuclear attack against Russia.)

The U.S. has made it clear that any attack by Russia against a NATO member would invoke Article 5 of the NATO charter (the “collective defense” clause), resulting in the totality of the alliance’s military capabilities, including nuclear weapons, being made available in response.

So far, neither side has directly challenged the red line of the other, although the United States has edged right up to it with the provision of tens of billions of dollars of advanced weaponry, financial assistance and intelligence and communication support for Ukraine.

This material support isn’t provided for Ukraine’s defense, but rather to enable Ukraine to retake territory lost to Russia and to inflict losses among the Russian forces of such a magnitude as to weaken Russia  for an extended period.

From the Western perspective, the massive infusion of military aid appears to be succeeding. Ukraine is perceived as having pushed back an initial Russian effort to capture Kiev in the opening weeks of the conflict. It is also seen as having held back a concerted Russian offensive in the Donbass long enough to deploy a reconstituted army — trained and equipped by NATO — which succeeded in recapturing the totality of the Kharkov region.

The fact that the Kiev “victory” has been described by Russia as a strategic feint, and not a defeat, and that the Kharkov offensive, together with a parallel failed offensive in Kherson, cost Ukraine so many casualties that it was more Pyrrhic than political in nature, is secondary.

From the perspective of both Ukraine and NATO, the Russian army is no longer viewed as invincible, but actually vulnerable. Both NATO and Ukraine appear ready to continue an aggressive military posture designed to attrite Russian forces while recapturing Ukrainian territory.

For its part, Russia believes that it has the upper hand in the conflict, having both inflicted massive casualties on the Ukrainian military and seizing control of approximately 20 percent of Ukrainian territory.

Moreover, by holding referenda in the occupied territories about joining  Russia  (all of which passed by an overwhelming majority), Russia  has changed the very nature of the conflict, transforming it from a fight between Ukraine and Russia on Ukrainian soil, to an existential battle with the “collective West” over Mother Russia  itself.

Russia has also ordered a partial mobilization of some 300,000 troops which, once trained and deployed into the Ukraine theater of operations, will provide sufficient military power to successfully complete Russia’s original tasks — demilitarization and denazification.

NATO and Ukraine both believe that the Russian forces, even after receiving the 300,000 mobilized troops, will not be able to defeat Ukraine. This inability to achieve the desired objectives, they believe, will compel Russia  to resort to the use of tactical nuclear weapons on Ukrainian targets in order to break the will to resist on the part of the Zelensky government.

Nuclear Postures

U.S. President Joe Biden and Russian President Vladimir Putin meeting at the at the Villa La Grange in Geneva, June 16, 2021, with U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken on left, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, right. (White House/ Adam Schultz)

The reality, however, is that Russian nuclear doctrine does not allow for such a scenario. Indeed, there are only two conditions where Russian nuclear doctrine permits the employment of nuclear weapons.

No 1. “[I]n response to the use of nuclear and other types of weapons of mass destruction against it and/or its allies,” the 2020 Russian Nuclear Posture document states, or

No 2. “in the event of aggression against the Russian Federation with the use of conventional weapons when the very existence of the state is in jeopardy.”

U.S. nuclear posture, however, does allow it.

“[T]he United States will maintain the range of flexible nuclear capabilities,” the 2018 U.S. Nuclear Posture Review (NPR) declared, “needed to ensure that nuclear or non-nuclear aggression against the United States, allies, and partners will fail to achieve its objectives and carry with it the credible risk of intolerable consequences for potential adversaries now and in the future.”

It should be noted that the 2018 NPR was promulgated during the administration of President Donald Trump. Although the Biden administration initiated the NPR process in September 2021, it has yet to publish an updated document.

By ignoring stated Russian nuclear policy, and instead mirror-imaging U.S. nuclear policy onto Russian behavior, the U.S., NATO and Ukraine are setting themselves — and the world — up for disaster.

Indeed, using a hypothetical Russian tactical nuclear attack on Ukraine as a working assumption, the Biden administration has developed a range of non-nuclear options in response, including — according to Newsweek — a “decapitation” strike targeting Russian leadership, to include President Vladimir Putin.

According to Jake Sullivan, President Joe Biden’s national security adviser, the White House has “communicated directly, privately, to the Russians at very high levels that there will be catastrophic consequences for Russia if they use nuclear weapons in Ukraine.”

Sullivan noted that the Biden administration has “spelled out in greater detail exactly what that would mean” in its communications with the Kremlin. Just to be clear: the White House has communicated to Russia its intent to respond in a non-nuclear manner to any potential Russian nuclear attack against Ukraine.

Andrey Gurulyov

Enter Andrey Gurulyov, a former Russian general officer and current member of the Russian Duma.

Gurulyov is from the Russia United Party (Putin’s party), and is said to be closely connected to the senior Russian leadership. He gave me a wide-ranging interview on the Sept. 29 edition of my “Scott Ritter Show” (a joint effort with Russian producers of “Solovyov Live” featuring the well-known Russian commentator Vladimir Solovyov). We discussed the future of Russia’s “special military operation” in Ukraine in the aftermath of the referenda and partial mobilization.

Gurulyov indicated that given the reality that the Ukrainian military was operating as a de facto proxy of NATO, the “demilitarization” task set forth by Putin in invading Ukraine now meant the complete destruction of the Ukrainian military.

Likewise, given that the Russian government has labelled the government of Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky a Nazi regime, “denazification” would require regime change in Kiev and Russian troops advancing up to the western reaches of Ukraine that border NATO itself.

These objectives would be accomplished through a strategic air campaign that would destroy the totality of Ukraine’s critical infrastructure, severely impacting command and control and logistics of the Ukrainian military.

According to Gurulyov, such a campaign could last up to three weeks, after which the Ukrainian military would be a sitting duck for the newly reinforced Russian military.

Gurulyov was confident that the reinforced Russian military would be able to defeat the NATO-enhanced Ukrainian armed forces without resorting to the use of tactical nuclear weapons.

Indeed, Gurulyov was adamant that tactical nuclear weapons would never — and indeed, could never — be used by Russia against Ukraine.

He was less so when it came to using tactical nuclear weapons against NATO.

Gurulyov was convinced that the nature of Russia’s military victory over Ukraine would be so decisive that NATO might feel compelled to intervene to stop Russia.

If NATO were to indeed dispatch troops into Ukraine, and those troops engaged in large-scale ground conflict with Russian forces, then Gurulyov envisioned that Russian nuclear weapons could, in fact, be used against NATO targets.

Gurulyov was convinced that the United States, fearing Russian strategic nuclear-retaliation capabilities, would not unleash its own nuclear arsenal against Russia, even if NATO were struck by Russian nuclear weapons. But here Gurulyov was operating from a false premise — U.S. nuclear doctrine clearly states that “They [Russia ] must understand that there are no possible benefits from non-nuclear aggression or limited nuclear escalation.”

Indeed, U.S. nuclear doctrine emphasizes that “any nuclear escalation will fail to achieve their objectives and will instead result in unacceptable consequences for them [Russia].”

From these two fundamental misunderstandings —  that a) Russia could be preparing to use nuclear weapons against Ukraine that would generate a non-nuclear response on the part of the U.S., and b) Russia believes that the U.S. would not respond with nuclear weapons if Russia were to use its own nuclear arsenal against NATO, the world now faces the real prospect of imminent nuclear conflict between the U.S. and Russia.

From the U.S. perspective, Russia’s unwillingness to use nuclear weapons against Ukraine underscores the overall impotence of Russia and its leadership, and therefore opens the door for decisive NATO intervention, including boots on the ground, in case of any Russian non-nuclear threat against Kiev itself.

From the Russian perspective, the documented U.S. reluctance to employ nuclear weapons in the case of a decisive Russian military victory over Ukraine opens the door for Russia ’s use of a tactical nuclear weapon against NATO in the case of a major NATO military intervention in Ukraine.

From this foundation of misrepresentation and misunderstanding only disaster can ensue.

Putin, in announcing the formal incorporation of Kherson, Zaporizhia, Donetsk and Lugansk into the Russian Federation, has turned up the rhetorical heat regarding Ukraine and the “collective West.” Soon words will be transformed into action, initiating the very scenarios U.S. military planners and Russian authorities such as Andrey Gurulyov have spoken about.

We are, literally, on the eve of destruction. Now is the time for the kind of political maturity leaders rarely demonstrate. The onus is on Joe Biden and Vladimir Putin to make sure that even while events on the ground in Europe devolve into chaos and violence, the leaders of the world’s two largest nuclear arsenals do not allow emotion to get the better of reason. The consequences of failure in this regard are, for humanity, terminal.

Scott Ritter
Scott Ritter

Scott Ritter is a former U.S. Marine Corps intelligence officer who served in the former Soviet Union implementing arms control treaties, in the Persian Gulf during Operation Desert Storm and in Iraq overseeing the disarmament of WMD. His most recent book is Disarmament in the Time of Perestroika, published by Clarity Press.


  1. Very strange framing:
    “This material support isn’t provided for Ukraine’s defense, but rather to enable Ukraine to retake territory lost to Russia….”
    What does “Ukraine’s defense” mean then?

  2. Joe Biden is a psychopath. A demented psychopath, surrounded by insane madmen bent on world domination at any cost. They cannot be negotiated or reasoned with. They will push and push until Russia and China have no choice but to strike back in self defense. The State Terrorism by the United States in the destruction of Nord Stream proves my point.

    The only thing that stands between us and oblivion is the sanity of Putin and XI. But I don’t believe in the end that will be enough.

    The world should be grateful that I am not Putin, because if I was, I would seriously be considering first strike options. I would not go down without taking the Empire of Lies with me.

    1. JustAMaverick,
      You will find Patrick Lawrence’s article today extremely helpful in seeing a bigger and better picture of a possible world…if Putin and XI can pull it off.
      “The Strong, and the Merely Powerful” October 3, 2022 for ConsortiumNews
      “In the world order now emerging, it is genuinely strong nations that will prevail over those reliant on power alone, and force will have little to do with it.”
      Russia and China are genuinely strong, unlike the United States and its followers.

      1. Interesting read indeed,

        “I have distinguished between the strong and the powerful since my years serving as a correspondent in East Asia, long back. The Vietnamese, the South Koreans, the Chinese in their way, even the Japanese in theirs: In these nations I saw a durability and coherence that had nothing to do with the size of their armies and air forces.”
        “Strong nations serve their people as their primary responsibility. This is where I begin as I characterize them. They have a purpose, a telos, as the ancient Greeks put it, and a shared belief in the worth of their ideal. They have a commitment to advancing the well-being of their citizens — to constructive action in the interest of the commonweal. They value their cultures, their histories, their memories.”

        we’re living in a profoundly important time of transition where the old values of “competition” are waning and “cooperation and respect among nations” seems to be replacing it.
        I believe the US is naturally an important part of this new world, but we must get rid of the obtuse minded “leaders” that we presently have in Washington.

    2. Spoken like a good little Russian bot. Nobody put a gun to Putin’s head and forced him to invade slick!

  3. Thank you Scott, for your clear framing of where we are headed thanks in large part to western leader’s hubris, ignorance, greed and utter disregard for life. How about some irony as the US Supreme Court seeks to ban abortion, its government preserves gun rights over the lives of children, a military budget that is obscene, a willingness to use nuclear weapons, and executions as part of a racist justice system. There is little pro-life about the United States government as it sleep walks us to Armageddon. I have little faith that Biden or his ilk can find there way out of this without the destruction of the humanity and all its species. Utterly tragic this buffoon and his circus will likely end human civilization!

  4. We are witnessing the supreme ignorance of so-called leaders. The west that answers to a Fascist Corporate Cabal intent on dominating the world, and Russia and other eastern block nations whose sovereignty is at stake in the insanity caused by the west. No human being wants to be dominated by a corporate cabal who will own everything promising ultimate happiness. The lies continue. The big question is who is stupid enough to take actions leading to the escalation of a nuclear war where there where be only losers, including the planet for centuries to come. What does this tell us about our systems? They have failed humanity at the expense of humanity so that the few can enjoy material riches and a few years of domination. Is it worth it? What can we the people do. Stop working, stop paying taxed, stop identifying with government, and stop voting. Stop everything and start loving everyone.

    1. Ah yes. Because big brother state controlled government is what’s needed instead yes?

  5. Ashamed, and sick of the bullheadedness and total absence of wisdom of the leadership of the USA. They act as if – once the earth is destroyed by their military hunger for unmitigated power and money – they can google Amazon to send a new earth to them. The miracle of Life itself is outside their experiential range so addicted are the various members of the leadership to their numbers and strategies and conquest. Exactly how many wars have they won in the past 50plus years? Hubris = total incapacity for self-reflection in light of an objective analysis of outer reality (including past and future). Hubris -(in Greek tragedy) excessive pride toward or defiance of the gods, leading to nemesis. (think:nuclear war) Nemesis – late 16th century: Greek, literally ‘retribution’, from nemein ‘give what is due’. Addiction -“chronic medical disease involving complex interactions among brain circuits, genetics, the environment, and an individual’s life experiences. People with addiction use substances or engage in behaviors that become compulsive and often continue despite harmful consequences. “( (Total murdered – Iraq/Vietnam/Afghanistan?/Total financial cost – Iraq/Vietnam/Afghanistan/Ukraine?Financial cost-climate catastrophe; USA infrastructure, for profit health “care”, corporate determined inflation; joblessness-low paying jobs).

  6. Seems that the only solution when one country decides to annex territory from another is, sadly, to just let it happen in the name of saving lives. The US certainly was incompetent to hand Putin on a silver platter the pretext he needed for expansion by waving the red NATO flag in his face. So far, the real NATO threat to Russia has never been described by the pundits here, but the threat to Putin, on the other hand, is understandable. Unfortunately might does make right in this world.

  7. I don’t agree that there is no Russian policy which allows the use of nuclear weapons. The second case is clearly met already in Putin‘s mind, where Scott Ritter outlined it:
    “No 2. “in the event of aggression against the Russian Federation with the use of conventional weapons when the very existence of the state is in jeopardy.” “
    President Putin clearly knows that he’s being targeted for regime change, all the levers of it in the CIA toolbox having been gathered to operate in black ops against him, as Mr Ritter has previously noted. To President Putin, feeling himself synonymous with the state, he must believe completely that his and its existence are both threatened before he’s calling the West’s work on him “satanic”.
    No-one thought he would invade in the face of all the threats of it not being worth it, but he did; still nobody has given him a golden bridge to retreat over, and he’s certainly at threat of mutiny at his back from the rump of generals who are taking the brunt of the “attrition”; this makes it mad to predict that he won’t use nukes.

    Give him this golden bridge by letting him have those provinces which voted to be in Russia, against the promise of an armistice at those borders, with the Russians to concede that if in five years’ time these provinces reverse their vote under a UN supervised ballot, they can revert to Ukraine. Balkanisation is good at the frontier.

    Putin has told you he’s not bluffing. Don’t be wrong about him again!
    He’s bound to take that deal. Then in five years it can at worst again be Russian as opposed to Western-subsidised rubble. ‘Better that than a bomb in the UK’s North Sea oilfields, from the perspective of a former EU European, sitting in Scotland. And we in the West will have achieved our sovereign goal of again selling our taxpayers the prospectus that our weapons really do work, against the taxpayers’ indemnity to “sell” lots of them to “assist” – for as long as something not unspecified in the brochure takes, even if we happen not to be in treaty with the countries we help; and this was the point of it all for our military- industrial complex. At least it doesn’t say it’s satanic in the brochure. It’s just another war. If you vote for smaller government you vote for a kitchen cabinet and there will be a guy with some weapons whom you can ring back, to fix these Russian threat problems. No need for think tanks, since in all British philosophy, reason is the slave of the passions, and we’ll always have passion for a good cause.

    1. Dear Scott Ridder,

      You are a marvel and I so enjoyed your interview with Max Blumenthal on Gray Zone.

      Unlike so many pundits you know the military and strategy so what you say about Ukraine carries so much resonance.

      What I liked about your article is that like everyone else these days you mentioned the real possibility of nuclear weapons being used but not in the flippant, glib way others talk about it.

      This is scary shit we are talking about people.

      Remember the US dropped nuclear bombs on Japan…
      …Flesh melted off skin and much worse.

      But as for Joe Biden, he is not up to the task on taking on Putin.

      Let’s just hope Putin decides to play nice…
      …otherwise it is the end of our world.

  8. I am becoming more and more certain that US, Britain and Ukraine are preparing a dirty bomb or some other nuclear false flag attack in Ukraine to create a casus belli for attacking Russia. Petraeus just spelled out the wishes , the list of desired outcomes (bomb all the troops and destroy the Russian navy). There is a clear radical insane faction within the US establishment/The Blob/”They” that has been planning this for a very long time:

    1. IT HAS BEEN A PLAN. They developed “Marble” malware that redirected attribution of hack attacks (including on infrastructure) to Russia and China alongside the adjustment to the military doctrine stating that such attacks would be casus belli for a nuclear response. “Marble” was the 7th Vault leaks that made the CIA go insane and plan to assassinate Assange and ended up torturing him. However, nobody looked at the most obvious thing it meant: US genuinely planned a war with Russia and China and spent billions to create a plausible casus belli already years ago.
    2. IT IS ALREADY A USED TEXTBOOK. They have this textbook: declare your red lines (say, a chemical attack), then stage it (say, in Douma), then achieve your military objectives. False flags are made for the domestic and allied audience. How else to explain that you are taking the country to war? They’ve done this before several times recently. It worked (mostly).
    3. IT IS IN THE WORKS NOW They’ve been screaming about Putin using a nuclear threat for months now. It is never noted that Russia brings it up only in response to the nuclear blackmail by NATO. In fact, geography, history, context and chronology are rejected as Kremlin propaganda. They have been preparing the audience for it. They have brainwashed everyone to such a degree that they turned people into zombies who genuinely believe that Russia bombed its own pipelines.

    The stage is set. The spectators are ready and properly zombified. The end of days entertainment and the military doctrine are now one and real journalists are either in prison tortured or on the margins. The psychological magical thinking is behind the giddiness these morons feels about this war. Both born again christians and everyone else in United States think that the end of times comes for the enemy, not for them. That’s why they always loved the Revelations so much. Inflicting violence under the guise of vengeance is the most favorite plot of all American entertainment and a basic emotion allowing the genocide at the founding of this country. And Americans have been so insulated from the wars and devastation they visited on the world, that they literally think, no, they feel (!) they are immortal. Have you noticed how giddy the Blob, and media (which is now the same thing) have been since the end of February? I’ve never seen them smile so much.

    We are on the brink of omnicide. If this plan goes ahead Russia will not care what Western mainstream says, they will only care what the West does. They will respond as their military doctrine says. This means the end of civilization. Despite the self-serving hot summer night dreams of the Blob, the tardigrades will be the winners, if that.

    I fear we are at midnight even though it has been lovely and sunny outside.

    There is this one thing that makes me write it and send it out: the insult I feel that the world will be ended by morons.

    May I be wrong!

  9. It is illuminating finally to see Russia’s war goals so clearly stated; total destruction of Ukraine , its occupation to the Western borders and regime change.
    This being the case, it is clear that for Ukraine the only option is to fight and for Biden to support it in that.
    Anything less would be a reenactment of 1938 Munich and we all know how that ended.

    1. Mr Eric Arthur Blair, to call Mr Putin “methodical, measured and rational every step of the way”, when we’re talking about a man who has been around the block as a leader and presumably weighed the US threat of retaliation before invading Ukraine, is to exonerate a man who has believed his own propaganda and gambled on being able to kill all the Ukrainians able to fight and the Western proxy forces, if different, to achieve his objectives before the West, as he expects, stalls at the step of sending in boots on the ground. Now he’s surprised that the US needs no deniability that there are serious black ops people running around organising regime change on him, and is calling it satanic. But he should have thought of that before challenging the heedless media forces of the West. He’s ignored the jingoistic needs of people like Boris Johnson and Liz Truss, whom it suits well to have an enemy like him with whom to create associations in the press with their internal opposition. Having an enemy like him is to people like them, well worth the money they have spent on weapons to Ukraine.

      1. @Neonspion: your comment implies you can read Putin’s mind or his intentions which is ludicrous. By his deeds, we can see Putin has been extremely restrained every step of the way, commencing actions according to the legal criteria of D2P article 51 of the UN charter, (as Scott Ritter had said) trying his utmost to avoid civilian casualties. By contrast US “interventions” have all involved indiscriminate bombing, starting with essential civilian infrastructure eg Iraq, Syria, Libya… the list goes on. NOBODY can know how this thing will play out, however Putin was forced every step of the way to ramp things up in response to US/Ukronazi atrocities, the latest being a despicable act of pipeline sabotage against its own “ally”, the Germans. If the US is successful in “regime changing” Putin, who has struck a delicate balance between Russian “liberals” and “hawks”, we may see a pro Russian nationalist arise far more aggressive than our worst nightmares.

  10. Alteyid48 may be right that for Ukraine the only option is to fight and for Biden to support it in that, but they as a client state will outlive their usefulness to America if they drag US regular troops into another non-goal-specific war and Putin, the US regime’s real target, does not fall. Running away is a well-worked Russian tactic from WWII, a preliminary to letting their enemy get bogged down with a long supply line open to winter counter-offensives. As Scott Ritter has also suggested, the current gains may be as good as it gets for the Ukrainians.
    If the US really did blow up the subsea pipelines, described by the US Secretary of State as a great opportunity, they did the Europeans no favours by taking their bargaining chip of an immediate return to buying gas in exchange for a settlement, off the table. More will die while we fight over who has to repair them. It would betray a cynical attitude to keeping Europe as a confirmed gas customer and client state, if it’s true, on the part of the US, with them effectively telling us where we have to buy our gas by eliminating alternative supply.
    They should also stop shunning the Iranians so that Europeans can buy Iranian oil without censure. . To flip Monty Python’s question on its back for a bit, one could ask: what have the Iranians ever done against us? They didn’t kill the hostages in 1979 but that one cruel and foolish episode of having non-State actors parading a blindfolded hostage through a hostile crowd has brought an endless spirit of revenge to bear upon them. The Iranians, like everyone, just wanted their familiar country back after the Shah’s lavish developments almost beggared them, but when it’s your time to be developed, heaven help you if you deny the US and its corporations.

  11. Western media sources would have us believe that Russians recklessly shelled a nuclear facility it was actively occupying, and that it blew up it’s own natural gas pipeline…not the sort of moves you’d expect from a nation that distinguishes itself in international chess competitions.

    Might we for a moment consider that Russia’s got compelling historic reasons for not wanting Nazis camped out on their border, and that NATO expansion on those borders, are a direct violation of that organization’s peace keeping mission…. Still more, the laundry list of broken promises we’d issued to Russia, since Gorbachev was naive enough to believe that America was capable of keeping it’s word.

    I’m not a huge fan of Putin, but he’s the asshole we forced him to be, and if he’s got no interest in ending his run like Sitting Bull; there’s very little room to fault him.

    Do you wonder for a minute why the network news doesn’t air translated texts of Vlad’s speeches in there entirety?… Maybe the truth isn’t as flattering as we’ve grown accustomed to.

  12. I’m noticing that the well-deserved hatred and antipathy toward US foreign policy seems to be met with a strange admiration for Putin (with the required qualifications of course – fair and balanced.) When there are two evils in the world, what do you do?

  13. Putin’s behavior has been methodical, measured and rational every step of the way. He tried peaceful negotiations many times viz Minsk 1&2 and at least 3 times post February 24, which were all sabotaged by US/NATO, even wrecked personally by Boris Johnson visiting Kiev as a peace accord seemed imminent.
    Biden is demented and not a decision maker anyway. Are his rabid Russophobic neocon puppet masters sane and rational and interested in de-escalation? Experience indicates not.
    A tiny handful of neocons threaten the nuclear extinction of all humanity. What to do about it? The answer is obvious.

    Neither Bojo nor his successor nor any NATO “leaders” are actual decision makers, everything they do and say, even if it destroys their own European economies, are determined by the US neocons. A smart bull does not focus on the waving red flag, it targets the one holding it.

    1. @Eric Arthur Blair

      Invading Ukraine does not seem to be methodical, measured and rational. It seems not very methodical planned, based on less than accurate information and assessments and not very well executed.

      1. @alteyid48 is either a trollbot or has drunk deeply from the open sewer of mainstream media disinformation. Putin, after looking at 8 years of genocide against Russian speakers in Donbass, tried peace first, then after being rebuffed, embarked on a limited SMO, which still managed to kill half of the west Ukrainian forces, then obtained the democratic permission of the four oblasts to return to Russia and now with the current mobilisation of 1.2% of forces will proceed to erase Ukraine completely, yet is still asking for peaceful settlement. Look at his latest speech 30 september. Methodical, organised and unstoppable. All the USA can do is resort to terrorism like blowing up Nordstream which will destroy Germany economically.

  14. @Eric Arthur Blair

    The same Gurulyov cited as a leading military expert recently said in an interview that the Russian defeats are the result of a system of lies “top to bottom”. He said “the problem we have is constant delivery of good reports or you can call it constant lying. This system does not go from bottom to the top , but top to bottom”” Is this a sign of methodical , measured and rational decision making?
    Putin ally Kadyrov recently said “Due to alack of elementary military logistics, today we have abandoned several settlements and a large piece of territory”. Is this a sign of methodical , measured and rational decision making?

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: