from an interview with Daniel Ellsberg

....

DE: .... Biden has not so far gone to that, but why not? Why is it not that we’re—how can we not be doing what Zelensky asked Congress and many other parliaments to do, which is to get directly involved with our own forces in this war? And the answer is, Putin is using his nuclear weapons. Using them very effectively, the way you use a gun when you point it at somebody in a confrontation. If you get your way without pulling the trigger, that’s the best use of the gun. And you couldn’t do that without having it. Well, Putin in this case is making it clear that if we confronted him with defeat, even with conventional weapons, in Ukraine—whether via our support to Ukrainians, which he’s threatening against, or our direct involvement, which Zelensky has called for, which we haven’t yet done—he might use nuclear weapons against us. 

And with the knowledge on both sides that that risks blowing up the world—not the Earth, not the planet, but human civilization—that thus shields him, so far, from having us confront his aggression in conventional terms directly. It’s working for him at this point. We’ve used those threats in the past repeatedly, in maintaining our sphere of influence around the world, right up to the borders of the old Soviet Union or of China. He hasn’t in the past because in Europe, Russia had an overwhelming conventional superiority which it no longer has.

So almost since the fall of the USSR, the Russians have gone back to Eisenhower’s old New Look doctrine, massive retaliation doctrine, or reliance on nuclear threats, to compensate for the shortcomings of their conventional forces. They’re doing what we did in the fifties and the sixties.

And neither side has been willing to take a no-first-use policy or declaration—that is, a commitment never to initiate nuclear war. On the contrary, both sides have promised that they will initiate nuclear war if they find it necessary. It really is essential that we don’t make Putin believe that it’s necessary for him to do that. That puts enormous incentive for a negotiated solution of some sort, with concessions on both sides. The only way that you could get a negotiated end to this war. Unfortunately, there seems no sign that either side is willing to do that. So the world is hostage to the development of this conflict, which may go on for a long time.

RS: Well, maybe not. Maybe it’ll have an abrupt and horrible end. And you know, you and I—you were a nuclear war planner, you were in the government. I was something of a critic, ah, writing about it. And we both know that under Ronald Reagan there was a whole idea of defenses on nuclear weapons. The whole idea, more recently, of modernization of these forces. There has been a growing view that these are usable weapons. And that in the case—for instance, we’ve already seen delivery systems used by Putin for conventional, you know, cruise missiles that could have a nuclear warhead. We know modernization is supposed to give you that capacity. And after all, the United States is the one nation that has used nuclear weapons in war time, in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. 

And it seems to me there is a giddiness right now of, you know, you can push this guy and push this guy, and somehow those weapons will not come into play. And I suspect there is, just as there was on the U.S. side in the Cold War, and there was on the Soviet side—there’s a side there, and Moscow says, look, we built these weapons, and there are some that can be used tactically. And if that’s all we’ve got, and they’re talking about that we’re war criminals and we’re going to be tried and, you know, and this is the end of it–you could see people arguing for that. 

And the other thing we haven’t talked about is the first-strike capacity. How good are the Russians now at figuring out whether there’s been a submarine launch from the United States or some kind of preemptive first strike. And then of course the illusion about a defense against it, and that you could even win such a war. And there’s almost no discussion of that now. There’s a giddiness—you know, let’s push Putin up against it. And there seems to be an inappropriate feeling of sort of confidence that the nuclear weapons will not be used. 

DE: Bob, I hear a lot of people talking that way and preparing that way and spending that way. Does that mean they actually believe it? Not necessarily. Because the threats are potentially useful diplomatically, if they work, if the other people back off. And buying the material for them is very profitable all the time. So you don’t have to believe what you’re saying. As a matter of fact, I would say our forces have been built up almost from the beginning on the basis of a hoax.

Let me not go back right to the beginning, but to the period since the mid-sixties, 10 years into the nuclear era—20 years into the nuclear era, when we were confronting another heavily armed nuclear-weapon state, the Soviet Union. They didn’t really come anywhere near matching us in that until the mid-sixties, but that’s a long time ago. And during that period, carrying out any of our threats against Russia—or another nuclear weapons state, even North Korea with a tiny fraction of what the Russians had—would be insane. And most people understand that. As you say, there are a few people now—and that’s new, for the last generation or so—who really do think of using small tactical nuclear weapons. Not only buying them, which Trump was for and Biden is continuing.

And as I say, that’s good for Northrop Grumman. Fine, just threaten them, they’re for threatening, and they’re for making profits. But there are people—Elbridge Colby, who worked under Trump, and Brad Roberts, who worked under Obama, and others can be found, high officials—who do talk about using small tactical nuclear weapons to achieve our ends, using them in battle, not only threatening them. That’s a threat of an insane action. And if they really believe that can be limited, they’re exhibiting a kind of institutional madness that does occur. But I would say with the new ICBMs we’re buying—and now, I’ve been trying to avert that for years now, to eliminate ICBMs—I see no chance of doing that now, in this new Cold War mode. There wasn’t really much chance even a year ago, because of the profits and the jobs and the campaign donations and the executive in-and-out of the Pentagon. So Northrop Grumman was likely to get that contract as it is. Likely; now, it’s almost certain. And what has that meant? With those ICBMs, if they went second—well, first, not many of them would go second, because they’re very vulnerable. They can be attacked, and will be attacked, in a major nuclear war. Unlike our submarine-launched ballistic missiles which can’t be targeted and can’t be attacked. 

So these things are in a use-them-or-lose-them mode. And if there’s any warning, if the other side is about to attack, they will be used. To what effect, as I say, it won’t make any difference. Their own use will be suicidal or near-omnicidal in the world. There has been a hoax, which has been a very profitable hoax, for the last half-century and more, that bad as it may be to go first, as our ICBMs are built to do, it’s less bad than going second, where we lose them.

And it’s very plausible to people. It happens to be a total hoax, a delusion, and as I say, a very profitable one. Can countries really buy trillions of dollars worth of weapons on the basis of a hoax? Well, look, how many Americans right now—how many Republicans, official people running for office, nearly all of them—assert that they believe that Trump won the election last time? A total hoax. 

In Russia, how much of the Russian public believes what they’re getting from the state media, which is almost all there is now, that there is no war? They can’t mention the word “war,” there’s a special operation going in there to prevent genocide in the Donbass—which wasn’t happening. There was conflict going on; to call it genocide is as crazy as, by the way, for Biden to use the word genocide with respect to Ukraine. Yet the Russians haven’t come close to doing yet in Ukraine what they did in Afghanistan for 10 years, where a million people, perhaps a million and a half, were killed. That may still happen.

But we’re not there yet. What we did to Iraq or Afghanistan involved millions of deaths, and we’re not there yet. And to call even that genocidal was wrong. It was a war crime; these were all crimes against the peace. These were all huge massacres. But again, to call them genocide, and thus meaning anything goes when it comes to avoiding it—there’s no limits, you’ve got to stop this—is, you know, we can’t make any concessions of any kind, like control over the Donbass, to a side that’s genocidal. 

And all of this portends a very long war, unless it blows up, which would be even worse. Unless it goes nuclear. But if it doesn’t go nuclear, we’ve been preparing since 2015—I won’t go into the chronology on that, why that is—but just since Russia took the Crimea actually, and put Russian troops into Eastern Ukraine in the Donbass. Ever since then, we’ve been training Ukrainians in this country and elsewhere, and in Ukraine, for a prolonged guerrilla war. The kind the Soviets had for 10 years in Afghanistan with our encouragement, by funding the insurgents, the Islamic right, the mujahideen. We gave the Russians, as Brzezinski put it, we gave the Russians their Vietnam. I think the intent right now is to give—that was the Soviets—to give the Russians another Afghanistan. To bleed them—to make them, as we say very openly, weaker, more isolated in the world, at the cost of Ukrainian lives. In other words, kill Russians indefinitely, to the last Ukrainian, because what that means in terms of historical insurgencies is for every Russian who gets bled, who gets killed, there are five to 10 Ukrainians who are killed in retaliation. So this prospect of doing this—instead of negotiating, instead of trying to negotiate, which we’re not doing as far as we can see seriously—is a vicious policy with respect to Ukraine.

READ MORE:

https://scheerpost.com/2022/04/22/daniel-ellsberg-putin-is-already-using-his-nuclear-weapons/

READ FROM TOP.

— NO NATO IN UKRAINE.

— THE DONBASS REGION BEING AUTONOMOUS.

— CRIMEA IS RUSSIAN. 

SIMPLE.

THE USA SHALL GIVE UP THEIR DREAM OF CONQUERING THE HEARTLAND (RUSSIA AND CHINA). REPEAT. BUT THIS WOULD BE A KILLJOY TO THE "DEMOCRATISATION" OF THE WORLD, WOULDN'T IT?

FREE JULIAN ASSANGE NOW.....

BY JOHN V. WALSH

 New York Times Repudiates Drive for “Decisive Military Victory” in Ukraine, Calls for Peace Negotiations.

A week ago, we made note of a May 11 New York Times news article, documenting that all was not going well for the U.S. in Ukraine, and a companion opinion piece hinting that a shift in direction might be in order.

Now on May 19, “THE EDITORIAL BOARD,” the full Magisterium of the Times, has moved from hints to a clarion call for a change in direction in an editorial uninformatively titled, “The War Is Getting Complicated, and America Isn’t Ready.” From atop the Opinion page the Editorial Board has declared that “total victory” over Russia is not possible and that Ukraine will have to negotiate a peace in a way that reflects a “realistic assessment” and the “limits” of U.S. commitment. The Times serves as one the main shapers of public opinion for the Elite and so its pronouncements are not to be taken lightly.

Ukrainians will have to adjust to US “limits” and make sacrifices for newfound U.S. realism

The Times May editorial dictum contains the following key passages:

“ In March, this board argued that the message from the United States and its allies to Ukrainians and Russians alike must be: No matter how long it takes, Ukraine will be free. …”

“That goal cannot shift, but in the end, it is still not in America’s best interest to plunge into an all-out war with Russia, even if a negotiated peace may require Ukraine to make some hard decisions (emphasis, jw).”

To ensure that there is no ambiguity, the editorial declares that:

“A decisive military victory for Ukraine over Russia, in which Ukraine regains all the territory Russia has seized since 2014, is not a realistic goal. … Russia remains too strong…”

To make certain that President Biden and the Ukrainians understand what they should do, the EDITORIAL BOARD goes on to say:

“… Mr. Biden should also make clear to President Volodymyr Zelensky and his people that there is a limit to how far the United States and NATO will go to confront Russia, and limits to the arms, money and political support they can muster. It is imperative that the Ukrainian government’s decisions be based on a realistic assessment of its means and how much more destruction Ukraine can sustain (emphasis, jw).”

As Volodymyr Zelensky reads those words, he must surely begin to sweat. The voice of his masters is telling him that he and Ukraine will have to make some sacrifices for the US to save face. As he contemplates his options, his thoughts must surely run back to February, 2014, and the U.S. backed Maidan coup that culminated in the hasty exit of President Yanukovych from his office, his country and almost from this earth.

Ukraine is a proxy war that is all too dangerous

In the eyes of the Times editorial writers, the war has become a U.S. proxy war against Russia using Ukrainians as cannon fodder – and it is careening out of control:

“The current moment is a messy one in this conflict, which may explain President Biden and his cabinet’s reluctance to put down clear goal posts.”

“The United States and NATO are already deeply involved, militarily and economically. Unrealistic expectations could draw them ever deeper into a costly, drawn-out war..”

“Recent bellicose statements from Washington — President Biden’s assertion that Mr. Putin ‘cannot remain in power,’ Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin’s comment that Russia must be ‘weakened’ and the pledge by the House speaker, Nancy Pelosi, that the United States would support Ukraine ‘until victory is won’ — may be rousing proclamations of support, but they do not bring negotiations any closer.”

While the Times dismisses these statements as “rousing proclamations,” it is all too clear that for the neocons in charge of U.S. foreign policy, the goal has always been a proxy war to bring down Russia. This has not become a proxy war; it has always been a proxy war. The neocons operate by the Wolfowitz Doctrine, enunciated in 1992, soon after the end of Cold War 1.0, by the necoconservative Paul Wolfowitz, then Under Secretary of Defense:

“We endeavor to prevent any hostile power from dominating a region whose resources would, under consolidated control, be sufficient to generate global power.”

“We must maintain the mechanism for deterring potential competitors from even aspiring to a larger regional or global power.”

Clearly if Russia is “too strong” to be defeated in Ukraine, it is too strong to be brought down as a superpower.

The Times has shifted Its opinion from March to May. What Has Changed?

After 7 years of slaughter in the Donbas and 3 months of warfare in Southern Ukraine, has the Times editorial board suddenly had a rush of compassion for all the victims of the war and the destruction of Ukraine and changed its opinion? Given the record of the Times over the decades, it would seem that other factors are at work.

First of all, Russia has handled the situation unexpectedly well compared to dire predictions from the West.

President Putin’s support exceeds 80%.

165 of 195 nations, including India and China with 35% of the world’s population, have refused to join sanctions against Russia, leaving the U.S., not Russia, relatively isolated in the world.

The ruble, which Biden said would be “rubble” has not only returned to its pre-February levels but is valued at a 2 year high, today at 59 rubles to the dollar compared to 150 in March.

Russia is expecting a bumper harvest and the world is eager for its wheat and fertilizer, oil and gas all of which provide substantial revenue.

The EU has largely succumbed to Russia’s demand to be paid for gas in rubles. Treasury Secretary Yellin is warning the suicidal Europeans that an embargo of Russian oil will further damage the economies of the West.

Russian forces are making slow but steady progress across southern and eastern Ukraine after winning in Mariupol, the biggest battle of the war so far, and a demoralizing defeat for Ukraine.

In the US inflation, which was already high before the Ukraine crisis, has been driven even higher and reached over 8% with the Fed now scrambling to control it by raising interest rates. Partly as a result of this, the stock market has come close to bear territory. As the war progresses, many have joined Ben Bernanke, former Fed Chair, in predicting a period of high unemployment, high inflation and low growth – the dread stagflation.

Domestically, there are signs of deterioration in support of the war. Most strikingly, 57 House Republicans and 11 Senate Republicans voted against the latest package of weaponry to Ukraine, bundled with considerable pork and hidden bonanzas for the war profiteers. (Strikingly no Democrat, not a single one, not even the most “progressive” voted against pouring fuel on the fire of war raging in Ukraine. But that is another story.)

And while U.S. public opinion remains in favor of U.S. involvement in Ukraine there are signs of slippage. For example, Pew reports that those feeling the U.S. is not doing enough declined from March to May. As more stagflation takes hold with gas and food prices growing and voices like those of Tucker Carlson and Rand Paul pointing out the connection between the inflation and the war, discontent is certain to grow.

Finally, as the war becomes less popular and it takes its toll, an electoral disaster looms ahead in 2022 and 2024 for Joe Biden and the Democratic Party, for which the Times serves as a mouthpiece.

The NYT editorial signals alarm over the insane goal of the neoconservatives.

There is a note of panic in this appeal to find a negotiated solution now. The U.S. and Russia are the world’s major nuclear powers with thousands of nuclear missiles on Launch On Warning, aka Hair Trigger Alert. At moments of high tension, the possibilities of Accidental Nuclear Armageddon are all too real.

President Biden’s ability to stay in command of events is in question. Many people of his age can handle a situation like this, but many cannot and he seems to be in the latter category.

Alarm is warranted and panic is understandable.

The neocons are now in control of the foreign policy of the Biden administration, the Democratic Party and most of the Republican Party. But will the neocons in charge give up and move in a reasonable and peaceful direction as the Times editorial demands? This is a fantasy of the first order. As one commenter observed, the hawks like Nuland, Blinken and Sullivan have no reverse gear; they always double down. They do not serve the interests of humanity nor do they serve the interests of the American people. They are in reality traitors to the U.S. They must be exposed, discredited and pushed aside. Our survival depends on it.

READ MORE:

https://www.unz.com/article/new-york-times-repudiates-drive-for-decisive-military-victory-in-ukraine-calls-for-peace-negotiations/

SEE ALSO: https://yourdemocracy.net/drupal/node/43171

SEE ALSO: https://yourdemocracy.net/drupal/node/43171

SEE ALSO: https://yourdemocracy.net/drupal/node/43171

SEE ALSO: https://yourdemocracy.net/drupal/node/43171

 (We can't repeat this item too often)

READ FROM TOP.

FREE JULIAN ASSANGE NOW2222@@@@@!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!