conflict
Putin Threatens Nuclear War As West Wades Even Deeper Into Russia-Ukraine Conflict
From the Daily Caller News Foundation
By Jake Smith
Russian President Vladimir Putin on Wednesday lowered the threshold for the use of nuclear weapons against the West, marking yet another escalation in an already drawn-out war that has cost hundreds of thousands of lives and shown no signs of ending.
Putin announced during a meeting with the Russian Security Council on Wednesday that the country’s nuclear doctrine was being expanded to include the possible use of such weapons against other nations with nuclear capabilities, should they support a non-nuclear state — such as Ukraine — in a heavy missile attack against Russia. The warning comes amid President Joe Biden’s announcement on Thursday of an additional $8 billion in military aid to Ukraine and reports that Western nations are considering allowing Kyiv to use their long-range weapons to strike deep inside Russian territory.
Ben Friedman, policy director at Defense Priorities, told the Daily Caller News Foundation that Putin is likely “bluffing,” but it is not worth the risk for the U.S. to allow Ukraine to make such a move.
“I think the odds of Russia using a nuclear weapon in response to one of these hypothetical strikes are pretty low. But how much do you want to gamble on that? How much do you want to bet that Putin is bluffing? I’d say not very much,” Friedman told the DCNF. “You want to be very cautious. The U.S. has no security interest in taking those sorts of risks in a conflict that could escalate to a larger war, even a nuclear exchange in a worst-case scenario.”
Putin said during the security meeting that the nuclear doctrine was being updated because of an “emergence of new sources of military threats and risks for Russia and our allies,” according to multiple reports.
“The updated version of the document proposes that aggression against Russia by any non-nuclear-weapon state, but with the participation or support of a nuclear-weapon state, should be considered as a joint attack on the Russian Federation,” Putin told the council on Wednesday, noting that the conditions to launch nuclear weapons would be based on “reliable information about a massive launch of aerospace attack means and their crossing of our state border,” according to the Post.
“We reserve the right to use nuclear weapons in the event of aggression against Russia and Belarus,” Putin said.
Officials from the White House and State Department told the DCNF they were “not surprised” By Putin’s warning.
“Russia has been signaling its intent to update its nuclear doctrine for several weeks,” a State Department spokesperson told the DCNF. “However, Putin’s public comments highlight Russia’s attempts to use irresponsible nuclear rhetoric and employ coercive nuclear signaling as it has done against Ukraine for more than two years.”
Moscow’s threat of using nuclear weapons has been frequently raised as the U.S. and Europe continue to throw their support behind Ukraine’s defense against Russia’s invasion, which began in 2022 and has shown no signs of stopping. Putin has issued such warnings specifically over the West’s indirect involvement in the war, which has largely come in the form of military aid to Ukraine.
The U.S. alone has allocated over $55 billion worth of military assistance to Ukraine since 2022, while European partners have committed roughly $46 billion in the same time frame.
But certain rules and regulations have been imposed on the military aid to Ukraine, particularly around how weapons can be used to strike Russia. For much of the war, Western nations restricted Ukraine from using the weapons to strike inside Russia, although that ban was recently lifted to allow Ukrainian forces to launch attacks against Russia’s border region.
Ukraine wants the West to make further allowances on weapons use, however. Kyiv argues that it should be allowed to use U.S. and European-provided long-range missiles to hit targets deep inside of Russian territory, a move which the U.S. has been wary of due to escalatory risks with Moscow.
But now a number of nations are signaling that they will allow Ukraine to use long-range systems to strike Russia, including Britain and France, though they want the U.S. to give the green light first — and some European partners have become frustrated with the delay for approval.
“It would be really good to stop the delays. And I think that the restrictions on the use of weapons should be lifted,” Denmark Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen told Bloomberg on Monday.
Though the U.S. and West have bolstered Ukraine’s military efforts over the last two years through extensive funding measures, it has done little to change the course of the conflict. Ukraine is suffering from a worsening manpower shortage as its troops are killed in combat along the Eastern line of the war, and has been forced to retreat from regions along that front as Russian forces advance.
Russia has made small territorial gains along the Eastern front, but it has come at the cost of hundreds of thousands of soldiers’ lives and hundreds of billions of dollars in spending. Some Russian forces are currently staging a counterattack against Ukrainian forces that broke through Russia’s border in August and staged an incursion in Kursk, according to Reuters.
Over one million Russians and Ukrainians have thus far been killed or injured since the war began in 2022, according to a confidential Ukrainian estimate reviewed by The Wall Street Journal.
The Biden administration, with only months left in power, is starting to run out of options to help Ukraine and may turn to allowing Kyiv to use long-range weapons as a possible measure, so long as they are provided by Europe and not the U.S. President Joe Biden and his team have faced criticisms for seemingly failing to work an endgame strategy in the war or outline the road to a peace deal.
“Biden could certainly change direction,” Friedman told the DCNF, by potentially either supporting an even stronger Ukrainian defense operation or putting pressure on Kyiv and Moscow to negotiate a peace deal. “But I don’t think he will, just because of the way this White House seems very set in their approach.”
conflict
US and UK authorize missile strikes into Russia, but are we really in danger of World War III?
From LifeSiteNews
By Frank Wright
Hopefully a world war appears unlikely, but the decision to allow Ukraine to shoot U.S. and U.K.-provided missiles into Russia once again reveals the lengths to which the ‘neocon globalists’ will go to throw a lifeline to their failing business model.
News that the lame duck President Joe Biden has authorized long-range strikes into Russia using NATO systems was announced with the alarming warning that he had “started World War III.”
The following day, U.S.-supplied and operated ATACMS missiles were fired into Russia.
Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov described the authorized strikes as an “escalation” showing that the West wants war.
“The fact that ATACMS were used repeatedly in the Bryansk region overnight is, of course, a signal that they want escalation,” he said, according to Reuters.
Lavrov continued: “Without the Americans, it is impossible to use these high-tech missiles, as Putin has repeatedly said.”
Why would the U.S. president finally give the green light to use NATO systems to attack Russia? German Chancellor Olaf Scholz has refused to follow suit and supply German-made Taurus cruise missiles to Ukraine – because he does not want to see Germany drawn into a direct war with Russia.
British Prime Minister Keir Starmer responded by suggesting it is only a matter of time before U.K.-supplied Storm Shadow cruise missiles strike deep into Russian territory.
Today – Wednesday, November 20 – the Guardian reported that it has already happened.
The U.K. government has been behind a long campaign to escalate the war in Ukraine, a move seen as an attempt to secure continued U.S. commitments in Europe. The Trump camp has long signaled its desire to draw down its security provision to leave a “dormant NATO.”
In an indication of the dangers of the U.K.-backed move by Biden, Russian President Vladimir Putin announced an alarming amendment of the Russian nuclear doctrine.
The policy change, announced in September and published following Biden’s announcement, says “an attack from a non-nuclear state, if backed by a nuclear power, will be treated as a joint assault on Russia,” according to the BBC.
Russian nuclear doctrine has long included the use of low-yield “tactical” nuclear weapons in “conventional” warfare – a significantly lower threshold than that of NATO.
While Russian officials urged Western leaders to consult the text, Foreign Minister Lavrov stressed that “we strongly are in favor of doing everything to not allow nuclear war to happen.”
As Reuters reported, this latest provocation is “unlikely to be a gamechanger.” Western media outlets have moved from a narrative of Ukrainian victory to mulling how or even if the state of Ukraine can survive its “inevitable” defeat.
Yet it is not only Ukraine which faces an uncertain future with a Russian victory. The entire globalist order faces a significant blow should the war conclude. Statements from figures such as George Soros, U.S. General Mark Milley, E.U. chief Ursula von der Leyen, and the former head of NATO stressed that their liberal-globalist regime is threatened by defeat in Ukraine.
Biden’s decision has been seen as an attempt to frustrate Donald Trump’s declared agenda – to clear out the “deep state globalists” whose “neocons seeking confrontation … such as Victoria Nuland” have led the U.S. into endless wars since that in Iraq.
An escalation to all-out war with Russia would not only be a disastrous precursor to nuclear escalation, but would also preserve the dominance of the same “neocon globalists” whose “forever wars” Trump has pledged to end.
Arch-neocon Robert Kagan said Americans who support ending wars are “intolerant.” He went on to author two articles which Hitlerized Trump and appeared to incite the assassination of a man who promised in his 2024 victory speech, “I’m not going to start wars. I’m going to stop wars.”
This follows a long series of claims in the same vein.
“I will end the war in Ukraine,” Trump declared in February 2023, saying he would also end “the chaos in the Middle East” and “stop World War III.”
This move by Biden has no military significance in improving Ukraine’s chances of victory. Russia claimed to have shot down seven of eight ATACMS fired into its Bryansk region. Yet prolonging or even escalating this war has enormous political significance.
Since the publication of the RAND Corporation’s 2019 paper “Overextending and Unbalancing Russia,” a strategy of bleeding Russia on the battlefield to collapse its government has been clear. Russia’s near-limitless mineral wealth would provide an obvious boon to a Western system self-sabotaged by sanctions and the destruction of the Nordstream gas supply.
The enormous significance of the war is found in its use as an attempt to extend and consolidate the power of the same system of neocon “globalism” which Trump has vowed to end.
This context explains why the U.K. government has consistently pressed for escalation since the 2022 intervention of then-Prime Minister Boris Johnson seems to have sabotaged peace in favor of an all-or-nothing gamble towards “regime change” in Russia.
Since then, the U.K. government has urged the authorization of long-range strikes into Russia, and it has supplied cruise missiles to attack Russian over-the-horizon nuclear radar warning systems, which play no role in the Ukraine war.
Reports have confirmed “terrorist operations” in Russia, including attacks on the Kerch Bridge leading to Crimea were U.K.-led. A recent expose by The Grayzone revealed that the British state appears to be training Ukrainians to fight a guerilla war, extending hostilities even beyond any ceasefire.
Ukraine’s recent and failed offensive into Russia’s Kursk region appears to have also been a British operation – to secure the kind of “morale boost” which Alastair Crooke says is the only significant war-fighting contribution of the authorization of “wonder weapons” like ATACMS.
The ATACMS authorization was heralded as a turning point in the war by Foreign Affairs. Yet the suspicion of Responsible Statecraft that it was a “sideshow that may become a tragedy” appears to have been confirmed.
The grim reality of this war is underscored by the fact that measures taken which will result in even more needless loss of human life are done so to legitimize useful propaganda headlines. This is undertaken to sell a war which has long been predicted to end as it now seems certain to do so: with a victory on Russian terms.
Though it appears unlikely that a world war will result from this latest reckless move, what has been demonstrated once more is the lengths to which the “neocon globalists” will go to throw a lifeline to their failing business model.
That lifeline is perpetual war, and when they end – so do the careers of so many whose livelihoods and reputations depend on keeping them going.
conflict
Putin Launches Mass-Production of Nuclear Shelters for his People
From Armstrong Economics
By Martin Armstrong
Russia has begun mass production of mobile nuclear bunkers. This is in response to Ukraine’s use of Western US and British missiles to attack deep inside Russia to destroy its conventional capability so NATO can launch an invasion by March/April 2025.
This has coincided with Mr Putin’s change of Russia’s doctrine to lower the threshold for using nuclear weapons to include the use of conventional weapons by Ukraine. Russia’s defense ministry said Ukraine attacked an ammunition stockpile in the Bryansk region using missiles supplied by the US military’s MGM-140 Army Tactical Missile System (ATACMS).
Russia has also ordered the production of its mobile nuclear bunkers to protect citizens. They are shelters capable of protecting people from the light radiation of a nuclear explosion and radioactive contamination of the surrounding environment. These are known as “KUB-M” and will protect 54 people for 48 hours from the air shock wave and light radiation of a nuclear explosion; penetrating radiation and radioactive contamination of the area; high-explosive and fragmentation effects of conventional weapons; falling debris from building structures; dangerous chemicals; fires. Unlike traditional, stationary bunkers, mobile bunkers are built to be easily moved from one location to another, often on vehicles or trailers. They can be equipped with advanced shielding, air filtration systems, and other necessary survival equipment to withstand the harsh conditions of a nuclear event.
The Western press keeps putting out the Neocon and NATO propaganda that Russia will never fire a nuke and Ukraine can win the war. But this is all a smoke screen for NATO will invade Russia, and they are using Ukraine as our Hesbolla, the same as Iran is using Lebanon. Zelensky claimed he invaded Russia to force Putin to peace. But they had a peace deal. Boris Johnson ran to Kiev and instructed Zelensky he was not allowed to sign a peace deal, and now far more than 1 million Ukrainians have been killed so Europe can invade Russia.
Just as Robert McNamara said about Vietnam and the Weapons of Mass Destruction that did not exist in Iraq, what if these people are wrong AGAIN? There goes Europe! Not a single European leader cares about their own people.
Either the Ukrainian people rise up and take their country back, or Putin needs to nuke Kiev to show the world he is serious. Otherwise, we are sleepwalking into World War III. Our press will NEVER write a single word for peace. It is always Putin is bluffing. What if you are wrong again?
Meanwhile, the U.S. Embassy in Kiev was just shut down after Biden gave the go-ahead to use long-range missiles. Hm. If this was to win the war, then why flee Kiev? They know Putin will respond forcefully against Zelensky. Russians get nuclear bomb shelters, and we get Fake News – Don’t worry – he’s bluffing.
-
ESG1 day ago
Can’t afford Rent? Groceries for your kids? Trudeau says suck it up and pay the tax!
-
Brownstone Institute1 day ago
The Most Devastating Report So Far
-
MAiD2 days ago
Over 40% of people euthanized in Ontario lived in poorest parts of the province: government data
-
COVID-192 days ago
Dr. McCullough praises RFK Jr., urges him to pull COVID shots from the market
-
Aristotle Foundation21 hours ago
Toronto cancels history, again: The irony and injustice of renaming Yonge-Dundas Square to Sankofa Square
-
International20 hours ago
Euthanasia advocates use deception to affect public’s perception of assisted suicide
-
armed forces11 hours ago
Judge dismisses Canadian military personnel’s lawsuit against COVID shot mandate
-
Addictions1 day ago
BC Addictions Expert Questions Ties Between Safer Supply Advocates and For-Profit Companies