On July 14th, the great geostrategist Scott Ritter headlined at RT News “As NATO looks for answers to the Ukraine conflict, Poland seeks the nuclear option. The ambitions of individual NATO members only bring the world closer to a nuclear catastrophe.” He pointed out that if the request by Poland’s Prime Minister Mateus Morawiecki for U.S. B-61 nuclear bombs to be stationed in Poland becomes fulfilled, then Russia could respond, and the situation soon “escalate into a general nuclear exchange between the United States and Russia, inevitably resulting in the destruction of most if not all of humanity.”
The problem is similar to that during the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis (though in reverse) when America was willing to initiate WW III if the Soviet Union would place its nuclear weaponry within less than 30 minutes from being able to strike America’s central command, which is to say Washington DC. It would place U.S. nukes 10 minutes from Moscow. That’s far too little time for Russia to be able to evaluate the situation and confirm that the bomb is in flight, and then to launch in return its retaliatory weapons — it would be unacceptably aggressive, and therefore could quite possibly commence WW III. Ritter points out that if U.S. President Biden does allow those B-61 bombs into Poland and onto the U.S. F-35A stealth warplanes there for delivery to destroy The Kremlin, then Russia might not wait for them to be delivered but might immediately unleash its nuclear forces in order to prevent decapitation of its own nuclear forces.
The primary goal of geostrategy is to decapitate the opponent, just like in chess the only goal is to decapitate the opponent’s forces by removing the King (the piece that represents the opponent’s ruler). This is just as true regardless whether the opponent is a dictatorship (like a king was supposed to rule) or a democracy, because what’s important here is simply that there is only a single person (in either case) who can make the final decision to release the nation’s nuclear forces. Consequently, since Poland is even nearer to Moscow than Cuba was to the U.S. White House, and since missiles and warplanes today are far faster and stealthier than in 1962, the U.S.-based Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists (though prejudiced against Russia, as the U.S. Government requires) declares the likelihood of a global-destroying nuclear war, WW III, to be higher today than ever before. Because of its anti-Russian prejudice, BAS blames Russia for that, ignoring the actual history of how the war in Ukraine came about and that it was started by Obama by no later than June 2011 when his coup against Ukraine so as ultimately to place U.S. missiles there started in the planning stage, and it did not begin as the BAS falsely assumes, on 24 February 2022 when Russia’s leader, Putin, initiated Russia’s last-ditch military operation to prevent America from becoming able to launch its invasion from even nearer — from Ukraine, only 5 minutes away from nuking Moscow. Although the BAS shames itself by, basically, lying about the relevant history, it’s correct that WW III has never been as likely as it now is, and that the war in Ukraine is the main reason for that. Both of those statements are true.
On July 16th, I headlined at RT, “Amid talk of a preemptive nuclear strike on NATO from Russia, why doesn’t Moscow try this instead? The country should engage NATO members with proposals for bilateral agreements, which will also help them to regain sovereignty”, and I proposed that Russia should offer individually to each of the nations that are in NATO an opportunity to commence bilateral negotiations — not negotiations with NATO but with each individual NATO nation — in order to establish and to set up a mechanism to enforce compliance with a peace-and-most-favored-nation trading arrangement with each and every one of the existing member-nations within NATO — an alternative to being at war (even if not yet a hot war) against Russia. This would bypass NATO.
On July 5th, I had headlined “Europe Reverses Prior Statement ‘We Are At War Against Russia’” and pointed out that finally the desire by Europe’s leaders (such as Germany’s Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock) to be in a state of war against Russia was starting to turn away from that war. However, what can be the alternative to it, if NATO itself continues as it is and has always been: America’s military alliance against Russia? An alternative to that must now be offered by Russia, to each of these nations. Russia must no longer offer to each of Europe’s nations only sticks, but, from now on, ALSO carrots: positive reasons to disassociate itself from the U.S. Government’s demand to take control over the entire world.
There cannot be any alternative to NATO — the U.S. Government’s military alliance to conquer Russia — unless Russia itself will make, to each and every member-nation in NATO, an earnest and seriously binding (and that’s MUTUALLY binding) treaty of peace and mutually beneficial trade.
The trade part of that is crucial, because the U.S. Government’s policy of breaking Europe off from Europe’s largest country — which is Russia, Europe’s largest nation even in only Russia’s European part, which is Russia west of the Ural Mountains — largest both in population, and in land-area (and vastly larger than all of Europe combined, because it also includes Russia’s eastern two-thirds of land-area, which causes Russia to have the world’s largest-by-far natural resources, including of energy — inexpensive natural resources that all of Europe needs) is essential, in order for Europe to thrive.
Many of Europe’s currently pressing problems — such as refugees from the U.S.-initiated wars, and such as inflation that results from soaring energy-prices due to America’s anti-Russian sanctions and the cut-off of pipelined fuels into the EU — were caused by Europe’s subordination to the U.S. Government, and this subordination to the U.S. across the Atlantic must therefore be ended in order for Europe to thrive as we all hope it will. The ONLY way that this can happen is if Russia makes these offers, and if at least one European Government will accept it.
Once one European country signs such an accord and quits the NATO anti-Russian military alliance, then, finally, the Cold War will start to come to an end, and Europe will finally be able to proceed forward into the future as what almost everyone has hoped it would become: a glory of the Eurasian Continent, and no longer just a group of vassal nations or colonies of the American empire on the opposite side of the vast Atlantic Ocean.
Then there can be peace in the world, if the U.S. Government will also cease and desist its other aim, to colonize in the surrounds against China. What would be as likely to cause that peaceful end of the Cold War, as would a European nation’s abandoning NATO in order to sign a peace-agreement with Russia? It would start the ball rolling toward peace.
The end of the American empire will be the pre-requisite to FINALLY ending the war that Harry S. Truman started on 25 July 1945.