A Dying Beast

Is the most dangerous one

Some concluding comments on the Ukrainian attack on Russia’s strategic fleet. Then I move to other topics.

Like I wrote earlier, it may take some time for the Russian response to come. Moreover, the attack was utterly futile in achieving any of the aims of the warmongers because, for example, Russia’s hypersonic strategic bomber Tu-160M went into mass production in April. Whatever number of Tu-95 and Tu-22 strategic bombers Ukrainian drones destroyed (which looks to be rather limited), they will soon be replaced with much more fearsome strategic bombers. Just the propaganda spewed around this topic should open your eyes to how much you are being lied to by the mainstream media and political and influencer warmongers in Europe and the U.S. Even I fell for it for a short while.

The Ukrainian attacks, including the terrorist bombings of civilian trains in the Kursk and Bryansk regions bordering Ukraine and the Kerch Strait Bridge, were, once again, nothing more than attacks aimed at a nuclear response from Russia. At the end of May last year, we at GnS Economics issued a grave warning, which I republished here, which noted that

Ukraine has struck another early-warning (over-the-horizon) radar, this time in the Orenburg region, near Orsk, some 1500 km from Ukraine. This radar did not even look at the direction of Ukraine, which makes the strike an act of madness, or something sinister.

These strikes to the Russian early-warning system can serve only two aims:

1. Ukrainian leadership is desperately trying to fully commit NATO to the war in Ukraine, or

2. Strikes are a preparation for nuclear strikes to Russia by the U.S.

As I mentioned before, my babysitter let me watch a documentary about a nuclear war when I was just eight years old. It burned a lasting mark into my psyche and also created an interest in understanding nuclear conflict and deterrence. As a result, I also utterly despise people who endanger humanity with stunts aimed at the launch of even a single modern nuclear warhead. This is what the administration of President Zelenskyy is doing. It’s utterly reckless and very dangerous. Like I note in my paper, backed by a swathe of nuclear scientists,

Alas, the risk is that any usage of tactical nuclear weapons would permanently change the world. While MAD would be avoided immediately after the tactical first strike, wars would be likely to become inherently more destructive because tactical nuclear weapons would become ’standard military issue’, and as a result, the threshold for an all-out nuclear war would become permanently lowered. This quite straightforwardly implies that the first (battlefield) use of tactical nuclear weapons would greatly increase the likelihood of MAD in the longer run.

I believe that the ‘war-triad’ is attempting to lead us (the world) to the first use of a tactical nuclear weapon in Ukraine, as this would pave the way for mass casualties and a potential nuclear war later. Ukraine is currently doing their bidding.

Just at the end of last year, the Russian nuclear weapons doctrine was updated to include a notion that “an attack on Russian soil by a non-nuclear power could be grounds for nuclear retaliation if Russia’s opponent was backed by a nuclear-armed state.” And so, enter Ukraine. However, I don’t think we will see a nuclear strike in Ukraine, at least not yet.