Military Affairs

Is the US Ready to Risk Nuclear Winter?

Leave a comment

by Germán Gorraiz López- Political analyst

The globalist establishment would outline for the next five years a plan that would involve the recovery of the US role as a global gendarme through an extraordinary increase in US military interventions abroad to recover the Unipolarity on the global geopolitical board, following the Wolfowitz Doctrine, which outlined “a policy of unilateralism” and “preventive military action to suppress possible threats from other nations and prevent dictatorships from rising to the status of a superpower”, which implies a simultaneous lightning-fast nuclear attack by the United States against China, Russia and North Korea.

Biden and the “Nuclear Employment Guide”

According to the New York Times, President Joe Biden approved a highly classified nuclear strategic plan in March called the “Nuclear Employment Guide”. The plan ” aims, for the first time, to prepare the United States for possible coordinated nuclear challenges by China, Russia and North Korea and for the first time redirects the US deterrence strategy to focus on the rapid expansion of China’s nuclear arsenal” and according to the American newspaper, “this change occurs when the Pentagon estimates that China’s reserves will rival in size and diversity with those of the US and Russia over the next decade”.

China’s nuclear expansion would have raised alarm bells in the Pentagon as it would move faster than expected by US intelligence officials due to the change implemented by President Xi Jinping after abandoning the old strategy of maintaining a “minimum deterrent” and adopt the Nuclear Triad Doctrine of “matching or exceeding the size of the Russian and US nuclear arsenals by 2035”.Since the presidency of Harry Truman, this strategy has focused mainly on the Kremlin’s arsenal but for the first time, China appears in Biden’s new guidelines before the evidence of a change in the world nuclear cartography, as the new strategy emphasizes “the need to simultaneously deter Russia, the People’s Republic of China and North Korea”. Thus, according to estimates by the Pentagon, China’s nuclear strength would increase to 1,000 nuclear warheads by 2030 and to 1,500 by 2035; so that the Chinese nuclear arsenal would equal the number of nuclear warheads currently owned by both the US and Russia and would sign up to part of the new nuclear Triad, with which the US nuclear arsenal would be in direct inferiority against the Russian-Chinese axis in case of nuclear conflagration.

Are the US convinced that we can win a nuclear war?
In an article published at the Quincy Institute entitled ” Reflection on Nuclear War, “Biden’s new nuclear strategy and the super-fuse that activates it,” MIT Dr. Theodore Postol states that “It is now possible, at least according to nuclear war fighting strategies, that the US will attack the more than 300 silo-based ICBMs that China has been building since about 2020 with the copious number of 100 kt Trident II W-76 warheads available. The rapid expansion of the W-76’s 100 kt hard-target killing capability also makes it possible for the United States to simultaneously attack the approximately 300 Russian ICBM based in silos”.So,” the superwarheads now being loaded into US missiles would be specifically designed for a simultaneous, first-strike, lightning nuclear attack on Russia, China and North Korea, to eliminate its capacity for retaliation and thus win a Third World War and then take control of the entire world”, to proceed then to the implementation of the New World Order following the doctrine of Zbigniew Brzezinski.
Zbigniew Brzezinski, in his book «Between two ages: The role of the United States in the techno-tronic era» (1.971), indicates that «the era of rebalancing global power has come, and this power must be handed over to a new global political order based on a trilateral economic link between Japan, Europe and the US». Such a doctrine would imply the submission of Russia and China and would include the possibility of a lightning-fast, no-warning nuclear attack by the US using Trident II missiles against vital Russian and Chinese targets, The European Union is a world leader in the field of education and training.

Real risk of nuclear winter

However, such an attack could not be definitive and could lead to a global conflagration with unforeseeable consequences for the human species and the future of the planet because according to a study published in the journal Nature, “a nuclear conflict between the United States and Russia would cause more than 5 billion deaths in the two years following the impact, and most of the casualties would be caused by the subsequent nuclear winter”.
The nuclear winter theory emerged from a study by Paul J. Crutzen and John Birks published in 1982 which states that ” nuclear explosions and subsequent fires would release into the atmosphere vast quantities of soot, dust and ash, causing a severe global cooling known as nuclear winter, which would last for at least two decades”.

Saving Ukrainians from Themselves

U.S. ‘Unimpressed’ with Zelensky’s Victory Plan

Leave a comment

The US is “not impressed” with Ukraine’s “win plan” ahead of the Biden-Zelensky meeting, The Wall Street Journal writes.

According to the publication, the Biden administration is concerned that the Ukrainian president’s plan to win a military conflict against Russia lacks a comprehensive strategy and is nothing more than a “repackaged request” for more weapons and lifting restrictions on long-range missiles, US officials told the WSJ.

For months, President Volodymyr Zelensky has called the plan the foundation for defeating Russia, and he plans to brief President Biden on its details during a meeting at the White House on Thursday.

But senior U.S. and European officials familiar with the outlines of the plan say the document does not offer a clear path to victory for Ukraine, especially as Russian forces slowly but surely make gains on the battlefield.

“I’m not impressed, there’s nothing new in it,” said one senior U.S. official.

The US and Ukraine had hoped for unity in choosing their path forward, but now they find themselves at a decisive stage of military conflict without a common vision, the publication notes.

In a speech at the United Nations on Wednesday, Zelensky warned of looming Russian threats to his country’s energy infrastructure and nuclear plants, but he stopped short of laying out any details of a peace plan or making weapons-related requests.

Behind the scenes, Zelensky is pushing a maximalist proposal in the hope that the United States and its allies will give Kyiv everything it wants, according to American and European officials.

But the current state of the Ukrainian framework has disappointed senior Biden aides, according to U.S. officials who have traveled to Kyiv in recent weeks to review elements of the plan.

They were hoping to hear something tangible that the Biden administration could support as it faces just four months of its term.

Earlier, other Western media outlets also wrote that Western officials did not see any prospects for a breakthrough in the war in Zelensky’s “victory plan.”

Democracy as Mob Rule

The Counter-Constitutional Movement: The Assault On America’s Defining Principles

Leave a comment

Authored by Jonathan Turley,

Kamala Harris declared in Tuesday’s debate that a vote for her is a vote “to end the approach that is about attacking the foundations of our democracy ’cause you don’t like the outcome.”

She was alluding to the 2021 Capitol riot, but she and her party are also attacking the foundations of our democracy: the Supreme Court and the freedom of speech.

Several candidates for the 2020 presidential nomination, including Ms. Harris, said they were open to the idea of packing the court by expanding the number of seats.

Mr. Biden opposed the idea, but a week after he exited the 2024 presidential race, he announced a “bold plan” to “reform” the high court. It would pack the court via term limits and also impose a “binding code of conduct,” aimed at conservative justices.

Ms. Harris quickly endorsed the proposal in a statement, citing a “clear crisis of confidence” in the court owing to “decision after decision overturning long-standing precedent.” She might as well have added “because you don’t like the outcome.” Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D., R.I.) has already introduced ethics and term-limits legislation and said Ms. Harris’s campaign has told him “that your bills are precisely aligned with what we are talking about.”

The attacks on the court are part of a growing counterconstitutional movement that began in higher education and seems recently to have reached a critical mass in the media and politics.

The past few months have seen an explosion of books and articles laying out a new vision of “democracy” unconstrained by constitutional limits on majority power.

Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of the UC Berkeley law school, is author of “No Democracy Lasts Forever: How the Constitution Threatens the United States,” published last month. In a 2021 Los Angeles Times op-ed, he described conservative justices as “partisan hacks.”

In the New York Times, book critic Jennifer Szalai scoffs at what she calls “Constitution worship.” She writes: “Americans have long assumed that the Constitution could save us; a growing chorus now wonders whether we need to be saved from it.” She frets that by limiting the power of the majority, the Constitution “can end up fostering the widespread cynicism that helps authoritarianism grow.”

In a 2022 New York Times op-ed, “The Constitution Is Broken and Should Not Be Reclaimed,” law professors Ryan D. Doerfler of Harvard and Samuel Moyn of Yale called for liberals to “reclaim America from constitutionalism.”

Others have railed against individual rights. In my new book on free speech, I discuss this movement against what many professors deride as “rights talk.” Barbara McQuade of the University of Michigan Law School has called free speech America’s “Achilles’ heel.”

In another Times op-ed, “The First Amendment Is Out of Control,” Columbia law professor Tim Wu, a former Biden White House aide, asserts that free speech “now mostly protects corporate interests” and threatens “essential jobs of the state, such as protecting national security and the safety and privacy of its citizens.”

George Washington University Law’s Mary Ann Franks complains that the First Amendment (and also the Second) is too “aggressively individualistic” and endangers “domestic tranquility” and “general welfare.”

Mainstream Democrats are listening to radical voices. “How much does the current structure benefit us?” Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D., N.Y.) said in 2021, explaining her support for a court-packing bill. “I don’t think it does.” Kelley Robinson, president of the Human Rights Campaign, said at the Democratic National Committee’s “LGBTQ+ Kickoff” that “we’ve got to reimagine” democracy “in a way that is more revolutionary than . . . that little piece of paper.” Both AOC and Ms. Robinson later spoke to the convention itself.

The Nation’s Elie Mystal calls the Constitution “trash” and urges the abolition of the U.S. Senate. Rosa Brooks of Georgetown Law School complains that Americans are “slaves” to the Constitution.

Without countermajoritarian protections and institutions, politics would be reduced to raw power. That’s what some have in mind. In an October 2020 interview, Harvard law professor Michael Klarman laid out a plan for Democrats should they win the White House and both congressional chambers. They would enact “democracy-entrenching legislation,” which would ensure that “the Republican Party will never win another election” unless it moved to the left. The problem: “The Supreme Court could strike down everything I just described, and that’s something the Democrats need to fix.”

Trashing the Constitution gives professors and pundits a license to violate norms. The Washington Monthly reports that at a Georgetown conference, Prof. Josh Chafetz suggested that Congress retaliate against conservative justices by refusing to fund law clerks or “cutting off the Supreme Court’s air conditioning budget.” When the audience laughed, Harvard’s Mr. Doerfler snapped back: “It should not be a laugh line. This is a political contest, these are the tools of retaliation available, and they should be completely normalized.”

The cry for radical constitutional change is shortsighted. The constitutional system was designed for bad times, not only good times. It seeks to protect individual rights, minority factions and smaller states from the tyranny of the majority. The result is a system that forces compromise. It doesn’t protect us from political divisions any more than good medical care protects us from cancer. Rather it allows the body politic to survive political afflictions by pushing factions toward negotiation and moderation.

When Benjamin Franklin said the framers had created “a republic, if you can keep it,” he meant that we needed to keep faith in the Constitution. Law professors mistook their own crisis of faith for a constitutional crisis. They have become a sort of priesthood of atheists, keeping their frocks while doffing their faith. The true danger to the American democratic system lies with politicians who would follow their lead and destroy our institutions in pursuit of political advantage.

Mr. Turley a law professor at George Washington University and author of “The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage”

Military Affairs

WWIII? Coming Closer to the Brink

Leave a comment

Putin said that Russia’s nuclear doctrine has been changed. Key points.
1. The threshold for using nuclear weapons has been lowered. Now it will be easier for Russia to use nuclear weapons.
2. The main thing is that nuclear weapons can now be used against a non-nuclear state if it commits aggression against Russia with the support of a nuclear state.
3. Russia can also use nuclear weapons to defend not only itself, but also its allies. Specifically, Belarus.
4. Generally speaking, this means that Russia, according to the new doctrine, can now use nuclear weapons against Ukraine. There is Ukrainian aggression in the Kursk region. There is support from the nuclear USA, Britain, and France. This means that it is already possible to strike Kiev with nuclear weapons.
5. But Russia will not strike Kiev with Tactical Nuclear Weapons. This creates a contradiction – reminiscent of the story with the Red Lines. 6. But Russia is clearly threatening with nuclear weapons.
7. The reason for changing the nuclear doctrine is the threat of a complete escalation of the war against Russia by the West. The West is confident that Russia will not use TNW first. But Russia says it is ready.

S. M.

Military Affairs

UN, 2024: Signs Towards More War Escalation

Leave a comment

The discussion about Ukraine at the UN unexpectedly turned out to be largely about nuclear power plants.

  1. China called for leaving the nuclear power plants alone and not involving them in the conflict.
  2. Zelensky said that Russia is preparing strikes on three nuclear power plants.

  3. Zelensky said that according to intelligence, Russia is using photos of nuclear power plants in Ukraine from Chinese satellites to prepare strikes on nuclear power plants in Ukraine.

  4. It is known that Russia does not strike nuclear power plants, and Ukraine regularly strikes the periphery of the Zaporizhzhya NPP and the Kursk NPP.

  5. In Russia, at the expert level, the need to strike at electrical substations that transmit electricity from nuclear power plants to the economy of Ukraine is being discussed. Since Ukraine receives most of its electricity from nuclear power plants, the only way to damage the Ukrainian power grid is to disconnect these networks from the nuclear power plant.

  6. But for two years now, Russia has not even tried to disconnect the Ukrainian power grid from the nuclear power plant.

On the other hand, Zelensky’s message is all about escalation.

Zelensky’s speech at the UN Security Council was surprisingly not focused on peace initiatives. It was assumed that Zelensky would try to win the sympathy of the countries of the Global South and would lie that Ukraine was in favor of peace.

But it turned out that Zelensky did not say anything pleasant for the countries of the Global South. And he continued to speak like a war maniac. He spoke only about the need to force Russia to peace under the terms of Zelensky’s formula, that is, about the need to defeat Russia on the battlefield and then force Russia to semi-capitulate.

It is not very clear why Zelensky did not use this opportunity to win the sympathy of the countries of the Global South?

Options:

  1. Zelensky knows that Washington is very close to making tough decisions about significantly greater NATO involvement in the war against Russia. And that is why he focused his speech not on the Global South, but on the West. And that is why he was so belligerent.

  2. Zelensky has personally psychologically turned into a war maniac and cannot even talk about peace for tactical purposes.

Sergey Markov

Anglozionism

Netanyahu Seeking to Implement the Greater Israel?

Leave a comment

The so-called “Agreement of the Century” signed by Israel, Bahrain and the United Arab Emirates and sponsored by Donald Trump staged the de facto recognition of Israeli sovereignty over much of the Jewish colonies in the West Bank (including the Jordan Valley, the Golan Heights and virtually the entire holy city of Jerusalem with the exception of two eastern suburbs) and demands that the Palestinian community renounce completely its historical claims and the right to which it is entitled under international law in exchange for a promise of an injection of $50 billion within 10 years, This would in practice result in the loss of Israeli citizenship for 300,000 Arabs and make it impossible to have a Palestinian state.
Such a doctrine would clash with the vision of Theodor Herzl, considered the father of the present-day State of Israel and founder of Zionism in promoting the creation of the WSO (World Zionist Organization), who in his book “The Jewish State: Testing a Modern Solution to the Jewish Question”, proposed the creation of an independent and sovereign Jewish State for all the Jews in the world. In his work “The Old New Earth” (1902), he lays the foundations of the present-day Jewish state as a utopian modern, democratic and prosperous nation, in which the Jewish people were projected into the context of the search for rights for the stateless national minorities of the time, such as the Armenians and the Arabs.

Later, in 1938, the visionary Einstein warned of the dangers of an exclusionary Zionism by stating: “I would like to see a reasonable settlement with the Arabs on the basis of peaceful life in common, which I believe would be preferable to the creation of a Jewish state”.

Towards the Greater Israel

The Greater Israel (Eretz Israel), is an entity that would try to unite the antithetical concepts of the atavism of the Great Israel (Eretz Israel) and which would have as main advocate Isaac Shamir defending that “Judea and Samaria (biblical terms of the present-day West Bank) are an integral part of the land of Israel.

They have not been captured and will not be returned to anyone”, a doctrine on which the current postulates of the Netanyahu-led Likud party that aspires to make Jerusalem the “indivisible capital of the new Israel” would be based after the invasion of its eastern part following the Six-Day War (1967).

Thus, the Netanyahu government would be speeding up the deadlines to implement the endemism of Greater Israel (Eretz Israel), which would drink from the sources of Genesis 15:18, which notes that “4,000 years ago, the title to all land between the Nile River in Egypt and the Euphrates River was bequeathed to the Hebrew patriarch Abraham and subsequently transferred to his descendants”.
This would involve the restoration of the Balfour Declaration (1,917), which drew a vast State of Israel with an area of nearly 46,000 square miles and which extended from the Mediterranean to the east of the Euphrates encompassing Syria, Lebanon, northern part of Iraq, northern part of Saudi Arabia , the coastal strip of the Red Sea and the Sinai Peninsula in Egypt as well as Jordan, which would be renamed Palesjordan after being forced to host all the Palestinian population of the present West Bank and Gaza forced into a massive diaspora ( new nakba).
Germán Gorraiz López- Political Analyst

Sent from my iPad

Anglozionism

The War About Palestine Has Reached Its Next Stage

2 Comments

via Moon of Alabama

Last week Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahoo decided to escalate the tit for tat missile exchange with Hizbullah in Lebanon into a full fledged war.
There were several reasons for him to do so:

  • 60,000 settlers from north Israel have left their homes and will only return if the government can provide for their safety.
  • The radicals in his government want to eliminate Hizbullah and threaten to end the government should it not do so. (The realists know that this is an impossible aim.)
  • There may be some delusion that Hizbullah will falter under pressure and agree to a ceasefire that does not include Gaza.
  • There is a chance for Israel to drag the U.S. into a fight that would end up with a war on Iran. Netanyahoo has for decades tried to arrange for this.

Last week Israel launched a terror attack on Hizbullah operatives who were using pagers to receive alarms and orders. These people were part of the civil administration side of Hizbullah and not its armed fighters.
The following attack on a leading Hizbullah commander who was meeting with Hizbullah special force officers was more serious. But it will not damage Hizbullah’s operation. Every higher officer does have a designated successor who will immediately step in. Continuity of command within Hizbullah is guaranteed under almost any circumstances.
Both of those Israel attacks required a response from Hizbullah. The ‘strategic patience’ it had previously adhered to had reached its limits.
Its response to the Israel strikes are be part of a larger war that has now started.

The response was given in the form of missile strikes within a limited range from the Lebanon-Israel border. Some of these hit the city of Haifa. A harbor and industrial center some 40 kilometer south of the border.
Since October 8 2023 the conflict between Israel and Hizbullah has been uneven. There were eight times more strikes by Israeli on Lebanon than on Israel by Hizbullah. Israel is now publicly justifying its strikes as a ‘de-escalation through escalation’ policy which, it claims, will lead to a separate peace with Hizbullah. 
But the real aims of the Zionists are voiced by radical members of Netanyahoo’s cabinet:

Yanis Varoufakis @yanisvaroufakis – 19:16 UTC · Sep 22, 2024
“Lebanon will be annihilated”. How an Israeli official’s slip of the tongue reveals that Israel’s genocidal intentions extend beyond Palestine. A direct result of US and EU backing of any war crime Israel chooses to commit whenever, wherever…
Embedded video

It is a scorched earth policy which is supposed to eventually lead to the occupation of south Lebanon and the restart of Israel settlements therein:

Sam Heller | سام هيلر @AbuJamajem – 7:03 UTC · Sep 23, 2024
Official Israeli claim that nearly every building in southern Lebanon conceals several missiles pre-excuses massive destruction of civilian infrastructure, attempts to sow division between Hizbullah and popular base.

Israel Defense Forces @IDF · 10h

IDF Spokesperson RAdm. Daniel Hagari exposing Hezbollah’s way of firing missiles from civilian homes, and how the IDF plans on dismantling it:
Embedded video

Since yesterday Israel launched a myriad of air strikes targeting alleged Hizbullah firing positions in civilian areas of mostly south Lebanon. Over the day some 400 people in Lebanon have been killed and nearly 2,000 have been wounded. Hundreds of thousands people living in south-Lebanon have fled or are fleeing northwards.
Hizbullah responded by targeting military installations and industrial installations for militarily relevant production. It is expected to soon use more sophisticated weapons to hit targets in Tel Aviv, 120 km from the border, and beyond.
While there will be many pictures of damage and casualties from Lebanon there will only be few reports of Hizbullah hits in Israel.
The Israeli government has (again) issued a general directive to all media to refrain from picturing and reporting of any damage. The military censors, which sit in every news room, will make sure that these orders are followed.
The war in the north will continue like this for days, weeks and months.
It is a war of moral attrition.
Which population will be first to call for an end of the fight?
How long will the pampered population of Tel Aviv sit for days and nights in bunkers without asking for change?
Will the Shia of Lebanon, who’s religion is endorsing suffering and the will to die as a martyr, be the first to cry for an end?
I for one will never bet against Shia religiosity or Hizbullah’s ability to sustain a fight.
While the war in the north is filling international news programming the Zionist genocidal war in Gaza continues.
Israel has plans to liquidate northern Gaza, which includes four big cities, by ethnically cleansing and starving the 1.3 million people living there.
Netanyahoo has officially considered these plans and is expected to follow them.
Gaza is at the core of the conflict. Should Israel agree to a ceasefire in Gaza the war in the north will also immediately come to an end. It is only Netanyahoo, and the Biden administration covering for him, who are blocking the way to a peaceful solution.

Uncategorized

October Surprise?

2 Comments

by Serghey Markov (translated by Algora)

In October, cardinal decisions on Russia may be made. This will happen at a meeting of the leaders of the main Western countries, the USA, Britain, France, Germany. Perhaps they will decide to offer Russia a truce – before the elections, so that Harris wins.

Most likely, they will accept Russia’s ultimatum: agree to its terms of a truce. Or they will begin missile strikes on Moscow. Apparently, first in November, strikes on the Moscow region. And in January, strikes on Moscow.

Biden is flying to Germany especially for this meeting.

Another point of the negotiations is Europe’s support for the falsification of the elections in favor of Harris.

Uncategorized

Russia Takes a Stand Against the “Future Pact”

2 Comments

The UN General Assembly voted almost unanimously for the Future Pact, which contains humanity’s plans to solve climate problems, end wars and combat inequality.
A wonderful pact. But Russia did not support it. Together with Belarus, Iran, the DPRK, Syria and Sudan.

Russia demanded that the UN Future Pact not violate the sovereignty of countries. So that it does not happen like this: the UN Secretary General tells some country that the organizing committee of the Future Pact is very unhappy with how the country’s government is fighting against Global Warming, so it was decided that now this country will be represented in all international organizations not by government representatives, but by special commissioners appointed by the US and the EU at the request of the UN Secretary General. And if they object, they will be bombed – for too much carbon dioxide emissions.

Besides, Russia really didn’t like that this entire Future Pact was developed under the complete control of the West. Give the West the future as well? – Russia definitely doesn’t want that.

Democracy as Mob Rule

Trump Bombshell: In Jail Before Electors’ Vote?

Leave a comment

Former President Donald Trump will not be sentenced in his New York criminal case until after the 2024 election, Judge Juan Merchan announced today. The magistrate said, according to CNN, that he will pronounce Trump’s sentence on November 26.

Trump was convicted in May of 34 counts of falsifying business records to cover up a hush money payment to an adult film star who claimed an affair with the former president. But Trump’s actual punishment, which must be decided by the magistrates, was suspended for several months, reports CNN.

The small problem, we say, is that the de facto election of the future president is not on November 5, when only the popular vote takes place, but on December 17, when the electors make their decision. Which means we could have an unprecedented situation where candidate Trump gets jail time before the electors decide.