Both Biden and Russian reps have been talking tough on using their weapons of mass destruction, if necessary. Is this just bluff, a game of chicken to see who will pull away from oblivion first? Maybe. But, if it is not, get ready for life down here in OZ in a Mad Max Road Warrior world. I just need a leather jacket and a double -barrel shotty. And a trusty dog, Bluey. Oh, the hot car like a fuel-guzzling V8 Interceptor; how come these guys drive around when the fuel was all supposed to have been gone? And even if it was made from vege waste, why V8s? It makes as much sense as the nuke sabre rattling:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p08uxmigZmo
https://www.klove.com/news/u-s-and-world/russian-official-again-makes-nuclear-threeat-31005
“A senior Russian official says the country’s nuclear arsenal should help deter the West from intervening in the war in Ukraine.
Dmitry Rogozin, the head of the state corporation Roscosmos, noted in televised remarks Wednesday that the Russian nuclear stockpiles include tactical nuclear weapons along with the nuclear-tipped intercontinental ballistic missiles.
Rogozin pointed at Russian President Vladimir Putin’s warning to other countries not to meddle with the Russian action in Ukraine. “The Russian Federation is capable of physically destroying any aggressor or any aggressor group within minutes at any distance,” Rogozin said.
Rogozin’s statement comes amid Western fears that Russia could use battlefield nuclear weapons against Ukraine amid the stalled Russian offensive. U.S. officials have long warned that Russia’s military doctrine envisages an “escalate to deescalate” option of using battlefield nuclear weapons to force the enemy to back down in a situation when Russian forces face an imminent defeat in a conventional conflict. Moscow has denied having such designs.
HOW MANY RUSSIAN AND UKRAINIAN TROOPS HAVE DIED?
An exact figure has been hard to pinpoint, as official numbers have not been regularly released by either country.
NATO estimated Wednesday that 7,000 to 15,000 Russian soldiers have lost their lives — the alliance’s first public estimate on Russian casualties since the war began. The official spoke on condition of anonymity under ground rules set by NATO.
Back on March 2, Russia said nearly 500 soldiers had died and almost 1,600 wounded.
The most recent figure for Ukraine’s military losses came from Zelenskyy on March 12, when he said that about 1,300 Ukrainian servicemen had been killed.”
“President Joe Biden assured the world during a press conference on Thursday that NATO would respond if Russian President Vladimir Putin used chemical weapons in Ukraine.
“It would trigger a response in kind,” Biden replied when asked by reporters if Putin using chemical weapons would prompt NATO to act. “The nature of the response would depend on the nature of the use.”
But the president hesitated to say what exactly the response would be.
“Whether or not you’re asking whether NATO would cross… we would make that decision at the time,” he said, hesitating in his response.
The White House has resisted saying the use of chemical weapons would be a “red line” for the United States after former President Barack Obama famously failed to act after promising to do so in Syria.
Biden admitted during his press conference that sanctions were not a deterrent to Putin but wanted to extract as much economic pain as possible on Russia for invading.
The president boasted of his foreign policy experience after meeting with European leaders and leaders of the NATO alliance.
“I’ve been dealing with foreign policy longer than anybody that’s involved with this process right now,” he said.
Biden has repeatedly warned that Putin would likely use chemical weapons but declined to share any intelligence to prove the threat.
“I think it’s a real threat,” he said as he left the White House for his trip to Europe.”
Llewellyn H. Rockwell Jr. rightly observes that this is all a manufactured crisis, which has been correctly characterised by Dr. Ron Paul: “Three weeks into this terrible war, the US is not pursuing talks with Russia. As Antiwar.com recently reported, instead of supporting negotiations between Ukraine and Russia that could lead to a ceasefire and an end to the bloodshed, the US government is actually escalating the situation which can only increase the bloodshed. The constant flow of US and allied weapons into Ukraine and talk of supporting an extended insurgency does not seem designed to give Ukraine a victory on the battlefield but rather to hand Russia what Secretary of State Blinken called ‘a strategic defeat.’” The neo cons are itching for an exchange.
https://mises.org/wire/manufactured-world-crisis
“Few people today ask the most important question about the conflict between Russia and Ukraine. Many people want America to stay out of the fight, but even they don’t ask the vital question. Why does the world face a crisis today? Why has a border dispute between Russia and Ukraine escalated to the point where people fear nuclear war?
The answer is simple. America, under the “leadership” of brain-dead Biden and the forces controlling him, has done this and, by doing so, brought the world to the brink of disaster. As always, the great Dr. Ron Paul gets it right: “Three weeks into this terrible war, the US is not pursuing talks with Russia. As Antiwar.com recently reported, instead of supporting negotiations between Ukraine and Russia that could lead to a ceasefire and an end to the bloodshed, the US government is actually escalating the situation which can only increase the bloodshed.
The constant flow of US and allied weapons into Ukraine and talk of supporting an extended insurgency does not seem designed to give Ukraine a victory on the battlefield but rather to hand Russia what Secretary of State Blinken called ‘a strategic defeat.’
It sounds an awful lot like the Biden Administration intends to fight Russia down to the last Ukrainian. The only solution for the US is to get out. Let the Russians and Ukrainians reach an agreement. That means no NATO for Ukraine and no US missiles on Russia’s borders? So what! End the war then end NATO.”
Let’s look at an analogy that will help us understand Dr. Paul’s point. For years, the Ukrainian government has attacked an area in the Donbas region that has seceded from Ukraine and formed an independent, pro-Russian, republic. Just before Putin moved against Ukraine, Ukraianians increased the scale and scope of their attack. Rick Rozoff describes what they did: “Two-thirds of Ukrainian army servicemen have been amassed along the Donbas contact line, Eduard Basurin, spokesman for the self-proclaimed Donetsk People’s Republic (DPR) militia, said on Thursday.
“Another three brigades are on their way [to Donbas], which is 20,000 to 25,000 troops more. The total number will reach 150,000, not to mention the nationalists. This is about two-thirds of Ukrainian Armed Forces’ personnel,” Basurin said on the Rossiya 1 television channel (VGTRK) on Thursday.
Ukrainian troops are stationed along the 320-kilometer front line, he said.”
Unlike what has just happened, the Ukrainian attack did not result in US sanctions on Ukraine. There were no meetings of the UN to condemn Ukrainian aggression. There was no talk of world war. On the contrary, Ukraine government used American weapons in its attack and asked America for more weapons to continue their attack. Let’s listen to Rick Rozoff again: “The Armed Forces of Ukraine used the American anti-tank missile system Javelin in the hostilities in Donbas. This was announced by the head of the Main Intelligence Directorate of the Ministry of Defense of Ukraine Kirill Budanov in an interview….
Budanov said that ideally, the U.S. would help deter any Russian incursion, through additional military aid and increased diplomatic and economic pressure, including more sanctions against Russia and the seizure and blocking of Russian banking accounts.
Also, in addition to U.S. aid already promised and delivered, including Mark VI patrol boats, Javelin anti-armor systems and AN/TPQ-53 light counter-fire radar systems, Ukraine seeks additional air, missile and drone defense systems and electronic jamming devices, Budonov said. Patriot missile batteries and counter rocket, artillery and mortar systems are on Ukraine’s wish list.
The AN/TPQ-53 systems were used to great effect, Ukraine military officials have previously reported. Budanov said the Javelin systems have also been used against Russian forces. Those, along with Turkish-manufactured drones, used against Russian-aligned separatist artillery troops, have a significant psychological deterrent value, said Budanov.”
Why the difference? We think that the US should not have shipped arms to Ukraine. Doing this made the situation worse. But for what we’re saying now, it doesn’t matter what you think of the policy. The key point is that because there was no international outcry and no sanctions, the matter remained a local fight. If brain dead Biden and his gang had reacted to the so-called Russian “invasion” in the same way, the matter would have remained a local quarrel. Russia and Ukraine would have made a deal and that would be that.
The neocon warmongers and other defenders of “democracy,” who unfortunately include some deluded “libertarians” object. Don’t we have a duty to resist “aggression?” The answer is clear: No, we don’t. We do not have a duty to evaluate every foreign quarrel and assess who is at fault. We do not have a duty to require leaders of regimes we, or rather our masters in Washington, don’t like to accept existing boundaries of countries as unchangeable. We should reject the false doctrine of “collective security,” which makes every border disputes a world war. The great American historian Charles Beard recognized what was wrong with “collective security” in the 1930s. In his article, “Giddy Minds and Foreign Quarrels,” he asked: “On what … should the foreign policy of the United States be based? Here is one answer and it is not excogitated in any professor’s study or supplied by political agitators. It is the doctrine formulated by George Washington, supplemented by James Monroe, and followed by the Government of the United States until near the end of the nineteenth century, when the frenzy for foreign adventurism burst upon the country. This doctrine is simple. Europe has a set of ‘primary interests’ which have little or no relation to us, and is constantly vexed by ‘ambition, rivalship, interest, humor, or caprice.’ The United States is a continental power separated from Europe by a wide ocean which, despite all changes in warfare, is still a powerful asset of defense. In the ordinary or regular vicissitudes of European politics the United States should not become implicated by any permanent ties. We should promote commerce, but force ‘nothing.’ We should steer dear of hates and loves. We should maintain correct and formal relations with all established governments without respect to their forms or their religions, whether Christian, Mohammedan, Shinto, or what have you.”
Beard then responded to those who wanted to scrap our traditional policy of non-intervention with “collective security”: “In the rest of the world, outside this hemisphere, our interests are remote and our power to enforce our will is relatively slight. Nothing we can do for Europeans will substantially increase our trade or add to our, or their, well-being. Nothing we can do for Asiatics will materially increase our trade or add to our, or their, well-being. With all countries in Europe and Asia, our relations should be formal and correct. As individuals we may indulge in hate and love, but the Government of the United States embarks on stormy seas when it begins to love one power and hate another officially.”
We should heed Beard’s wisdom today. Otherwise, the world may go up in flames.”