Click to see the full-size image
Written by Eric Zuesse
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.
For 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.
—————
Investigative historian Eric Zuesse’s new book, AMERICA’S EMPIRE OF EVIL: Hitler’s Posthumous Victory, and Why the Social Sciences Need to Change, is about how America took over the world after World War II in order to enslave it to U.S.-and-allied billionaires. Their cartels extract the world’s wealth by control of not only their ‘news’ media but the social ‘sciences’ — duping the public.
i see no sign of newtons laws in “nine eleven”.
and i see no sign of “nuclear weapon” in hiroshima and nagasaki.
hi who really tells you about those things are j r r tolkien, which describe a death cult so evil, that its almost entirely based on mental terror, fear, and worship of the dead.
1.nato/usa/eu cannot be trusted by rus (from ‘op.unthinkable’ to minsk to nordst). 2.nato protects usa, not eu. 3.unelected eu nazis live to destroy rus and are decimating eu economies to achieve this. 4.rus must stop trusting criminals and making worthless agreements. 5.karaganov was right to suggest the first strike option. 6.eu/nato cowards will back off once rus loses its fear of the first strike option; in fact the whole world will change.
lets give them a limited nuclear demonstration at adviika (all millitary target) as payment for the terrorist attack on belgorad civilians. maybe give them a 1 hour eviction notice so we can watch them run like forest gump.
this is not about using nμkes or having a day to day defence policy (including smo) predicated on nμkes. it is about ‘reserving the right’ to make the first strike in wholly exceptional circumstances. to gift first strike to an enemy state is an abdication of sovereign responsibility in any form of warfare. rus cannot dance to nato’s tune forever, and this declaration would change that.
exactly, they all said, incl us, they’re not at war with russia, while arming ukraine and imposing sanctions. a few kinzhals on the city of london and manhattan/wall street would send the right message.
daca depozitele banesti nu se reîntorc si vaca sacra a proprietății nu mai e recunoscuta … orice e posibil
the author is assuming that the usadmin or its nato poodles actually want peace. their record hasn’t been great. i think it’s safe to say that aggressive warmongering is nato business.
nuclear war solves nothing because that is exactly what the western elites want. if putin really wants to help the world, he should target the so-called “elites”. the puppetmasters directing politicians.
unfortunately:
1. people in the west do not realize who are elites and where they are hiding
2. russia has no reason to solve the problem because it is none of their business
it is a good point that cities of countries that are part of nato are in greater danger of nuclear attack whether that country be a nuclear power or not. they are usa’s nuclear cannon fodder. but if they leave nato as part of some none aggression deal with russia, then they become targets of usa, conventional and/or nuclear. they are effectively joining a russia pact however weak that is. to duck out of any nuclear shoot out, a nato country needs to leave nato of its own accord.
…the nato clique speculates on putin’s sanity in everything it does! i would not call it reason, putin is just a coward!
the existence of nato serves only one purpose and that is the preservation of the usa! should russia attack any nato member in western europe,
the united states will delegate the necessary response to the other nato states in europe, but not actively itself.
the usa itself will try to act as a great conductor (see ukraine), without being affected itself.
they used this scheme already in the war against hitler, when they actively intervened in the war only in 1944, when its outcome was already decided.
russia should have long ago destroyed all the railway stations and railway tracks in poland, through which the war material is being smuggled into ukraine.
in addition, the german “rheinmetall” would be a legitimate target to finally show the warmongers in western europe their limits.
moron anglo destroys themselves
ceterum autem censeo occidentum delendam esse !
britain must be punished. if gringos decide to stay on warpath, they have to be eradicated from earth.
most of the assumptions in this article are wrong. today’s west is in decline, not least because it regards diplomacy as a four-letter word. just manage that.
in contrast russia is winning this war not due to thieving oligarchs but to the soviet war/industrial legacy that survived the soviet union’s decay to capitalist religionist primitivism. plus putin showing a restraint entirely untypical of western leaders.
absolutely correct.
ah, but i forgot my punch line. yes, “putin showing a restraint entirely untypical of western leaders” – but what else would one expect from a nation of chess players?
this guy, sergei karaganov, is a complete asshole. russia does not need to do that. his words are working against russia.
he knows perfectly what is he saying because he knows you, americans. by the way, fight like men, not by hiding behind the back of others. your record as true soldiers is poor, incomparable to that of russians. patton and that fatso from kuwait ? is this everything you have ? custer had more courage in his balls than your generals.
are you talking to me? i am cuban, i live in cuba, and i support russia.
what karaganov says is the only way of communicating with the west it understands. if you support russia, you should understand what is he talking about.
well, let’s see, you seem to know a lot about strategy and geopolitics. anyway, i hope you are wrong. да здравствует россия.
ja soglasen.
one thing that’s important to remember is that there’s a possibility the us would win a nuclear war. in 2007, putin himself discussed this threat, anti-ballistic technology near the border of russia would be capable of shooting down nuclear missiles in the first stage. in the first stage of a ballistic missile, it isn’t very fast and is easy to shoot down. the us would have a dramatic advantage compared to russia or china in surviving a nuclear war.
it’s a bit foolish to think tens of trillions of dollars and 70+ years of research didn’t lead to something. there’s a reason why america withdrew from the abm treat in 2002. american defenses are on the border of russia, russia doesn’t have such defenses. it does not take a military genius to see that the side that’d come out the least scathed would be the usa.
…i can hardly judge that the usa with its minuteman 3 missiles from the year 1978 could at least partially keep up with the soviet technology!
however, things will look different in 2024! the advantage of russia and china has probably never been as big as at the moment and both, ru and ch, should take advantage of this!
i’m not a misanthrope, but man is the most superfluous living being on this planet…
as putin once said, ‘to a russian, what good is a world without a russia?’
in short, the u.s. should not back russia into a corner and assume russia will never respond.
good, you accept that russia or us or for that matter countries with nuclear weapons has right to decide for over your life,
that is basically nazi mindset. hitler said germans do not have the right to exist if they cant win the world war and ordered someone to poisen the watersupply. the person aggreed but did not do it.
if hitler had nukes he would probably extend this to the world. so those americans and russians with this mindset are no better.
yes, maybe every countries should have nukes ( and sure we will hear from us, russia etc that this is madness because not all countries are rational actors! but we are!) and maybe this way will lead to that no country should have any nukes!
says daniel the israeli, from his nuclear armed country but not signatory to the non proliferation treaty, and refusing inspections from the iaea, while deciding over the lives of palestinians.
the article is pie in the sky thinking. yes there maybe many eu countries who would like to go down this path but at what cost economically to their country ? who is going to cover the lost eu funding when they make such a break away agreement?. just ask orban how much hungary has lost in funding that is rightfully theirs.
i think russia has one option of inflicting a horrific conventional bombing of uk which is behind the terrorist attacks across russia, and the impunity of which emboldens cowards like czech, poland & moldova.
it must be a strong bombing, one that the remaining eu cowards that regard uk as their defender will dread.
then russia, can approach eastern europeans with peace proposal entailing non-agression agreement and removal of nato & its infrastructure. washington could not even lift a finger, as it cares for noone.
russia can then demand that nato return to 1990 boarders and eastern europeans will oblige, after nato innefectiveness is established.europeans can return to healthy social and economic cooperation
let the mentally retarded russians do it, so we can finish off russia in a couple of hours, the half a dozen cities that have been wiped off the map and all the scum down the drain, it looks good
they disappear from the map in less than 2 hours, it wouldn’t be bad for the world to get rid of the scum that is in power in the kremlin once and for all, wipe this scum off the map
i’m good with it as long as it kills every last amerikan coward on the planet…… sometimes ya gotta break a few eggs to make a cake !
his idea is a good one however it is naive. does he not realize that these governments would never agree to it since they are simply proxies of the us state?
why would russia need to placate the nerves of western european nations thousands of miles from russia, unless of course those nations were sending weapons and money to a proxy force killing russians in russian territory.
someone has a guilty conscience it seems.
whether the us launches a nuclear strike depends only on whether the ruling psychopaths think they will survive in their luxury bunkers and inherit a livable world.
when one turns to the dark side, they’ve lost.
russia would gain nothing by adopting a first strike policy, but would forfeit whatever moral high ground it holds.
no one wants to discuss if nuclear weapon exist. its to shocking ?
no one is safer than a nuclear army ;-) its from a little poem i read in school ;-)
“nine eleven” are a trick movie.darwin is wrong. what more are wrong ?
no “atomic bomb” in hiroshima and nagasaki. that far you are fouled.
maybe the mobile phone camera have stop “atomic bombs” ;-)