Toward a war against Russia?

At first, this may seem implausible: the nuclear arsenal of this country amounted to 1,500 heads available immediately, to which must be added the reserves of 3,500 heads. Secondly, the importance of its nuclear submarine fleet enables him to bring the atomic threat not far from the American coast. Difficult to thing, in these circumstances, that the United States take seriously the risk of triggering a war.

However, we have seen recently how the US government had triggered a war of invasion against Iraq, claiming that Saddam Hussein had possessed significant stocks of Massive Destruction Weapons (MDW), which would have enabled it to put all the region of the near East to fire. There was nothing, of course. The CIA recently declassified report on this subject, on which the authorities claimed to rely. See:

Now what is more serious in the recent publication of this report of the US service in 2003, it is not so much the official revelation of lies about Iraqi supposed WMD; everyone understood that at the time; but the report shows that the intelligence services were working well and made an honest job; it was clearly written that Iraq presented no military threat and had no connection with the terrorists of al Qaeda, quite the contrary; So the US government had no valid reason or no excuse to start the war; there was no error committed; accordingly, what won, is the only war madness of the leaders, that nothing could stop. Now, perhaps, we are once again in the same situation ...

Yet the military situation is more dangerous now than it was in the days of the Cold War; The US today do not just threaten from far, they triggered a military conflict that left thousands deads in ethnically Russian populations, what they had never dared before. It is not certain that Russia will long tolerated the situation.

A whole strategy is developed to gradually accustom the public to the idea of ​​war:

The neo-Nazi leader Andriy Parubiy, co-founder of the Ukrainian Social Nationalist Party, was received with great ceremony in Washington, visiting the Pentagon and after the parliament in Canada, with a reception in his honor; the purpose of his visit was obviously to get weapons to resume the war quickly.

Vadym Prystaiko, Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs of Ukraine, called simply the world to face a nuclear war with Russia without fear. It ensures that the Ukrainians no longer fear it, because they would have lost so many people and land; now it would be equal to them ... So, governments would endanger the whole of humanity because it took to these few crazy in Kiev the fad to forbid the people of Eastern Ukraine to speak their native language ... The worst in this story seems that no one bothers to say that this individual is crazy; on the contrary, he is invited to the Parliament of Canada, in Washington, on the radio, and journalists listen to him as if he says judicious things ...

The worst in this situation is that the US government does not seem absolutely conscious. Even Henry Kissinger, who has been his whole life an unrepentant going into war, considers that his government has embarked on a very dangerous business, and that there is a significant risk of developing a "historical tragedy". Here is what he wrote:

"There clearly is this danger, and we must not ignore it. I think a resumption of the Cold War would be a historic tragedy. If a conflict is avoidable, on a basis reflecting morality and security, one should try to avoid it."

Similarly, the former president of the Bundestag, Antje Vollmer, says that World War III has begun, and on many fronts, confirming the statements of Günter Grass; she accuses the lack of prudence and political wisdom of the current leaders.

NATO's willingness to extend itself still further to the east is now, with the attempt to seize the Ukraine, a real threat for Russia; just take a look at the map of countries member to understand the strategy of encirclement of European Russia that the organization follows. Its mission has now completely changed: instead of providing security and peace in Europe, it becomes a force of aggression, and a source of potential conflict. Moving to Ukraine is to directly threaten the Russian borders. In 1991, when Gorbachev gave his green light to the reunification of Germany, the US and NATO had promised not to get closer to Russia; we see on the map how the given word was respected. This failure has a very serious consequence: to break the mutual trust between the two nuclear superpowers, and there is nothing more dangerous for the world security. Russia has clearly warned: Ukraine in NATO is a declaration of war; western governments seem to not care; do they really want the war, or not?

Currently, the US government is playing with fire: he is constantly testing the limit of the patience of Russians, buy a lot of media posturing, by accusations as well serious as unfounded, but especially by encouraging diabolically the aggression of the Ukrainian ultranationalists: arms deliveries promises in the case of absence of conflict settlement obviously serve to inflame it. NATO multiplies the maneuvers, forcing Russia to do the same, which obviously increases the chances of causing incidents, which could lead to uncontrolled developments.

For now, the Russian government is very quiet, and seems to be interested only in the margin by this the conflict, in which he does not want to interfere. This apparent calm hides perhaps a dull anger that will burst with the more violence that it will be retained longer.

Ron Paul wrote, on decembler 5th, about High Resolution 758 : 

"Today the US House passed what I consider to be one of the worst pieces of legislation ever

H. Res. 758 was billed as a resolution “strongly condemning the actions of the Russian Federation, under President Vladimir Putin, which has carried out a policy of aggression against neighboring countries aimed at political and economic domination.”

In fact, the bill was 16 pages of war propaganda that should have made even neocons blush, if they were capable of such a thing.

These are the kinds of resolutions I have always watched closely in Congress, as what are billed as “harmless” statements of opinion often lead to sanctions and war. I remember in 1998 arguing strongly against the Iraq Liberation Act because, as I said at the time, I knew it would lead to war. I did not oppose the Act because I was an admirer of Saddam Hussein – just as now I am not an admirer of Putin or any foreign political leader – but rather because I knew then that another war against Iraq would not solve the problems and would probably make things worse. We all know what happened next.

That is why I can hardly believe they are getting away with it again, and this time with even higher stakes: provoking a war with Russia that could result in total destruction!"

Read the complete text at :

The madness that has taken the US Government to go for war against Russia is even more inconsistent and dangerous given the fact that in recent years, the relationship of trust established between the two powers had led the United States to give up number of technological developments, although useful in war; I'm obviously talking about the presence in space. During the Cold War, at the time of President Reagan, the Americans had developed the concept of "Star Wars." Now they have launched this challenge to the Russians, they have shown themselves unable to achieve it effectively, while their opponents have been very successful in developing the technology of manned space station. Today, only the Russians have the means to easily send men into space, and they have a monopoly not only on technology, but also to access to the ISS. So far, due to the end of the Cold War, the station has been used only to develop scientific projects. Now, if the prospect of World War is back in the news, nothing will prevent the Russians to militarize the station and use it especially to destroy US military satellites, as well as their communication satellites, that would preventively nail their army on the ground. It would be wrong to forget that it is primarily for military purposes that this technology had been developed at the time.

The launch, a few months ago, ofa satellite with the ability to quickly change orbit, particularly concerned US authorities: it could be a killer satellite, designed to shoot down US satellites; Russia may prepare for a possible military conflict, and she would use immediately of its superiority in space.

On the other hand, one cannot ignore the fact that Western economies, which work only upon the principles of globalization, have become extremely fragile, and would be well unable to bear not even a true world war beginning. It would suffice to Russian submarines to attack the oil platforms, which are ideal targets, almost impossible to protect, or tankers to immediately cause a complete collapse of Western stock markets, and an economic crisis next to which that of 1929 would be a pleasant joke. There are nearly 7,000 of these platforms in the world, with widely varying sizes; a big mount of them belong to US companies, many are also found in the Gulf of Mexico.

One has only to think to the damage done by only September 11 to get an idea of ​​the crash that would cause the first signs of a Russian military aggression against Western economic interests. At present, no one thinks of such un eventuality, and there lies perhaps precisely the danger: as it seems unlikely, we do not take it into account; and as we do not consider it, it approaches more and more the line where this perspective will become likely. When we read in some newspapers that politicians have said that only violence could stop Putin, one wonders seriously if they are not crazy. Use violence against Russia would immediately plunge the entire world into chaos.

On the other hand, the Russian nuclear arsenal, which is still in perfect working order, has increased in recent years by the considerable development of ABM; S 400 is probably a very effective defense against any attempt to threaten Russia with nuclear missiles, which puts perhaps the country away from the most serious threats, and eventually empowers him to began militarily hostilities without having too much to fear.

The situation is very different for the US territories, whose vital interests are usually found at the edge of the ocean, and can easily be reached by nuclear submarines; Russian space and distance from the seas protect better than oceans impossible to monitor. Russian submarines of the kilo class are true "black holes" virtually impossible to detect.

Image illustrative de l'article Classe Kilo

Certainly, Russia has absolutely no interest in the war, which brings him nothing, and it is obvious that the Donbass is not a sufficient challenge to start a business as dangerous. This is probably above that that counts the US government. But this calculation is extremely dangerous, as the Russians in turn would be able to do so, the world will then be placed in front of a spiral of violence from which it will be extremely difficult to get out once entered, assuming that it is not already done.

To get an idea of what would be today a nuclear war, we must have in mind the power developed by the current missiles, much greater than the Hiroshima bomb; Little boy, the first bomb that was launched, had the yield of 15 kilotons; current missiles have the yield of 5 megatons (MT) to 100 MT, for an average of 20 MT, more than a thousand times the Hiroshima bomb; 1500 nuclear warheads are therefore over a million and a half times higher. Russians and Americans have readily available arsenal of about 1,500 nuclear warheads, to which can be added 3,500 heads in reserve. That makes 10 000 heads in total, or about ten million times the Hiroshima bomb. So it is to say that a nuclear war would not be a war, but simply the end of life on earth.

Leave a comment

See also :

The destruction of Europe

The US intervention

The rise of American fascism

The constitution of Crimea

The Ukrainian far right

The crash of Boeing MH-17

The civil war

A disaster for Ukraine

The manipulation of the masses strategy

The policy of sanctions

What thing the experts