Russia’s Debate About Whether To Destroy The World

A nuclear war between NATO and Russia would be virtually certain to destroy the world (half of humans starving to death within two years), but ever since the Russian national-defense theoretician Sergei Karaganov proposed on 13 June 2023 that his nation adopt a policy which would allow a pre-emptive first-strike nuclear-weapons policy in order to defend against NATO, the possibility of adopting that policy has been taken seriously in Russia, and I shall argue here why I believe that it should not be, and present what I think would be a much better alternative to it.

Professor Karaganov’s article headlined at Russia’s RT News, “By using its nuclear weapons, Russia could save humanity from a global catastrophe”, and then on 27 June 2023, at RT, he clarified his position by headlining there, “Here’s why Russia has to consider launching a nuclear strike on Western Europe” and saying “Virtually all experts agree that under no circumstances would the Americans respond to a nuclear attack on their allies with a nuclear attack on our territory. Incidentally, even Biden has said so openly.” He failed to link to his source on that allegation “Biden has said so openly,” nor did he otherwise provide evidence that the allegation is true; but at least Karaganov displayed there his unfounded assumption that “under no circumstances would the Americans respond to a nuclear attack on their allies with a nuclear attack on our territory.” His assumption is unfounded not only because even if Biden has said that it is so, Biden routinely lies and so his allegations cannot be trusted, but also is unfounded for the following reason:

The core of the NATO treaty and the reason why European nations join it, is its famous Article 5, which is widely promoted as-if it guarantees that in the event of any NATO-member-nation being invaded by Russia, America will join that war on the side of the invaded NATO-member-nation. That joining of the war wouldn’t necessarily entail a nuclear response, but if a non-nuclear response is done and seems not to have produced victory, then either the U.S. would have lost WW III in a traditional — i.e., non-nuclear — war, or else the U.S. would then escalate the conflict to being a nuclear one (in an attempt to ‘win’ that WW III — as-if there would be any “winner” in a nuclear war between America and Russia), which would destroy the entire planet. America’s losing a non-nuclear conflict with Russia would effectively terminate the NATO alliance and end America’s dominance over the world or even end America’s influence in the world; and, so, anyone (such as Dr. Karaganov) who is assuming that America wouldn’t escalate that conflict to a nuclear one if America is losing the traditional one, is ignoring that the U.S. Government ever since 25 July 1945 has been effectively controlled by neocons — people who are obsessed for the U.S. Government ultimately to control the entire world. I would easily take that bet against Karagonov’s assumption, except that since its outcome would be destruction of the entire world, nobody could win such a bet, just as no side could win a war between America and Russia. And that, I believe, is the reason why Karaganov’s recommendation should not be taken seriously.

nato-russia-nuclear-war-simulationFor this reason, I headlined at RT on 14 July 2023, “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”. Referring to Karaganov’s proposal, I said: “I believe that if Russia so much as even considers this [Karaganov’s] course it would be a catastrophic mistake without first having offered to each and every European country (other than, of course, Russia itself) a certain type of bilateral mutual non-aggression treaty which would also require that they withdraw from America’s anti-Russia military alliance, NATO. Even if only one member of the bloc broke away, that could spark the end of the organization.”

If what Governments seek by joining NATO is a reduced likelihood of becoming invaded by Russia or targeted in a war between the U.S. and Russia, then this would be the way to achieve that objective. Joining NATO (as they have done or might intend to do) is volunteering to have one’s major cities become targeted by Russia’s nuclear missiles. It increases, instead of decreases, that nation’s insecurity. It increases the likelihood of that nation’s becoming destroyed in a Third World War. By contrast: signing the deal that my article proposed with Russia, would not only decrease insecurity: it would ALSO provide massive economic benefits to the given European country. It would be win-win, instead of NATO’s win-lose or (if WW III) lose-lose.

Perhaps the biggest single failure by Vladimir Putin (who has otherwise been a superb leader of the Russian nation) is that he has never offered such a win-win deal to any European nation’s Government, and he has never publicized to any European nation’s public that he is offering it to that nation’s leadership. My article set forth my recommendation regarding how that offer ought to be made, first privately, and then publicly if the given nation’s leadership has turned the offer down privately.

Russia is now the pivotal nation in world affairs, and making this offer to each of NATO’s current and prospective possible future European member-nations is essential in order to end the Cold War — NATO’s expansion — for real. It would do that, in an entirely peaceful way.

Reposts are welcomed with the reference to ORIENTAL REVIEW.
Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Leave a Reply