Russian-Americans Warn Nuclear War Will Leave Millions of Americans Dead. Which Candidate Most Likely to Deescalate?

A group of Russian-American political analysts have issued a detailed warning to US citizens.  They note that allowing the regime in Washington to attack or provoke Russia might leave the US in ruins and tens or hundreds of millions of Americans dead.  This could happen after a US attack on Russia, a provocation interpreted as an attack, or even simply a mistake, as has nearly happened numerous times in the past.

The analysts understand that Americans are still “excited” by war, since they are part of a relatively young country that has almost always been on the giving rather than the receiving end of the gun.  However, in contrast, Russians have been invaded by Europe numerous times and have lost tens of millions of citizens.  They “hate and fear war … but are also ready for it” with powerful and advanced weapons systems, the analysts say.

Contrary to prominent US corporate and government propaganda, “American anti-ballistic missile systems are incapable of shielding the American people from a Russian nuclear strike.” Russia will not initiate an attack, but if attacked itself, it can hit US targets with its “long-range nuclear as well as conventional weapons.”

“Even if the entire Russian leadership is killed in a first strike”, a prospect that makes some US elites giddy, “the so-called “Dead Hand” (the “Perimetr” system) will automatically launch enough nukes to wipe the USA off the political map.”

Thus, the Russian-Americans “appeal to the American people to take peaceful but forceful action to oppose any politician or party that engages in irresponsible, provocative Russia-baiting, and that condones and supports a policy of needless confrontation with a nuclear superpower that is capable of destroying America in about an hour.”

This raises the question of which US candidate is least likely to get us killed through nuclear war.  All of the remaining candidates (Clinton, Sanders, Trump) agree that nuclear war is currently a huge existential threat, and so do experts on the subject.  The Bulletin of Atomic Scientists puts us at three minutes to ‘midnight’ – meaning very close to nuclear war.  Why are we so close?

The reason is that the US, since the collapse of the Soviet Union, has broken its promise to halt expansion of its military empire (called ‘NATO’ in the region in question) and has instead muscled its militants and lethal hardware up to Russia’s border through a process that, most recently, has included backing neo-Nazi extremists and integrating them with a dictatorship Washington helped install in Ukraine after toppling its elected president.

Ukraine is on the traditional route Western Europe has used to invade Russia.  Thus, Russia has watched the expansion of a hostile US military alliance that is now pushing to take Ukraine, and feels as if the West may be thinking about another invasion of Russia or related scenario.  This is the cause of the current high risk of nuclear war.

What do the US candidates say about NATO?

Sanders, while having supported major war crimes and acts of aggression committed by the US involving its NATO military camps, now says he is “against the expansion of NATO because it provokes unnecessary aggression from Russia.”  Thus he is against further expanding a hostile military alliance towards Russia, not because doing so is Western aggression, but because it makes Russia respond aggressively, though without necessity, as US military expansion, since the time when US bases began being pushed towards Native American nations, is benign.

Partially contradicting himself or offering another option, Sanders has also said that NATO should be expanded, but to include Russia and some Arab states as partners.

Trump: The LA Times claims that Trump’s position on NATO is similar to that of Sanders, but it seems clear from the quotes they cite that Trump is actually more opposed to NATO than Sanders. The Times quotes Trump saying NATO is “obsolete. And there’s nothing wrong with saying it’s obsolete. But it is obsolete.” The Times only has Sanders saying Europe should pay more of the cost of NATO.  This is objectively less critical than saying NATO is obsolete, but apparently the Times wanted to connect Trump and Sanders on this issue.

Why does Trump say NATO is obsolete?  Prominent Russia scholar Stephen Cohen points out that Trump accurately recognizes that the stated reason for creating NATO was to counter-balance the Soviet Union.  He says Trump has thus pointed out that “NATO was founded 67 years ago to deter the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union ended 25 years ago”, which is what makes NATO “obsolete.” From this rhetoric, it would seem Trump would be less likely than Sanders to incite a nuclear war with Russia via NATO, though Sanders, while far more hostile towards Russia on this issue than Trump, does not seem highly likely to do so, either.

The third candidate, who has received more money from lethal weapons manufacturers than any other and is currently being considered by the FBI for criminal indictment, Hillary Clinton, is quoted by the LA Times issuing hyperbolic praise of NATO as “perhaps the most effective military alliance ‘in human history.'”

Clinton’s assessment of the situation in the region is closer to that of Sanders than Trump, but far more aggressive.  She assures that NATO’s military expansion is completely benign – NATO would never hurt a fly – and, like Sanders, says it is Russia that is being aggressive.  Going several steps further than Sanders, Clinton strongly supported the Western-backed overthrow of Ukraine’s elected president and the installation of a dictatorship integrated with neo-Nazis, partially by, in Orwellian terms given the neo-Nazi alliance to the US, referring to Russian president Putin as “Hitler”.  Clinton thus demonstrates that she means to be as aggressive as possible both in deed and rhetoric, and seems to have a laser-like focus on a neocon reconquest of Russia.

While Clinton issues dangerous rhetoric to support the expansion of NATO and possible conquest operations against Russia, Trump is continually belittled by the corporate Democrats, including Clinton herself, for being ‘friends’ with Putin, and so forth.

Indeed, as Robert Parry notes, even when, in a speech this week, Clinton was trying to paint Trump as the bigger nuclear threat, she still could not help but further propagandize about Putin’s so-called “aggression”.  She thus again illustrated, even while doing her best to prove the opposite, that a) she is obviously more aggressive towards Russia and is more likely to incite a nuclear war than the other candidates, and b) that she may lack the basic understanding, or simply not care, that the biggest threat of a nuclear war is between the US and Russia, because of the expansion of the military empire she aggressively supports (and not just in Europe).  Driving this apathy or lack of understanding home even further, she stressed that Russia would be happy if Trump were elected US president.  Yes… Russians would be happy to deescalate from the nuclear confrontation that has been inflamed by Hillary Clinton, the Obama regime, and the expansion of NATO and US-backed dictatorships up to Russia’s border.  That Clinton appears not to perceive the contradictions in her statements seems hard to believe, unless she is just that fundamental in her US religio-supremacism.  Maybe she is demonizing Russia as a tactic to stoke feelings of US superiority and attract US supremacist voters, but when nuclear destruction is on the line, that would seem quite careless.

John Pilger notes that the Obama regime, in which Clinton was perhaps the leading chicken-hawk until she left in 2013, has spent more on nuclear weapons than any other regime in the history of the weapon, and has also built more nuclear weapons than any other regime.  For these and many other reasons, the highly respected and experienced journalist, Pilger, has assessed directly that “Hillary Clinton is more dangerous than Donald Trump.”  Similarly, John V. Walsh has pointed out that while Trump issues ugly racist rhetoric and plans, so does Clinton, and given their records, she may be the bigger institutional racist.

A counter-point to Pilger’s assertion is given in the Huffington Post by Vincent Intondi, an associate professor of history at Montgomery college. He prefaces his piece by stating that after he read Pilger’s article on the dangers of Clinton (and Obama), he “simply could not answer. I was too infuriated to find the words”. Thus readers are warned early on that the author may have an emotional/ideological blind spot due to US party politics favoring the Democrats.  Continuing, we see some incredulous and vaguely threatening statements directed to Pilger such as “how dare you”, and “stay in your lane”.  Intondi also falls back on known lies and blatant omissions.  He praises Obama for aggressively bullying long-time US victim Iran into not seeking a nuclear weapon (which it was not seeking anyway), while ignoring that Saudi Arabia, under Obama, announced that it was seeking nuclear weapons, then that it obtained access to them via US ally Pakistan.  Saudi royals stressed that, unlike Iran, they would “never” renounce nuclear weapons.  Around the time of this process, the Obama regime made a deal with terrorist Salman bin Abdulaziz, Saudi Arabia’s “king”, to sell him more weapons than the US, already the world’s biggest arms trafficker, has ever sold any regime in its history.  This included internationally banned cluster bombs, which Abdulaziz has since used against Yemeni civilians, with US support.

In the last paragraph, Intondi suggests that because he has a “Hispanic wife, bi-racial niece, and hundreds of students each semester who are a majority nonwhite and immigrants”, he has thus “walked [further] in the shoes of those who have been most affected by Trump’s actions” than Pilger. This omits a) how Trump has managed to “affect” more nonwhite people than Clinton, who has been in or intimately connected to high seats of global power for several decades and involved in killing millions of nonwhite people (and even many white people, too), and b) that Pilger has been making documentaries in conflict zones around the world for over 40 years, some of which have looked at how the neoconservative/neoliberal policies Clinton has supported have killed millions of people.

Thus, the most prominent counter-point to Pilger’s piece, apart from the possibly confused and stunningly contradictory statements coming from Clinton herself, seems fraught with misinformation and omissions dictated by emotional, ideological blind-spots.

As the LA Times and others have shown, Hillary Clinton is clearly and by far, even by her own admission, the most aggressive towards Russia, and thus most likely to cause a nuclear war that could leave millions of US citizens dead and the country non-existent.

(If you haven’t checked her out, see Jill Stein – what a popular candidate might look like in a culture not dominated and corrupted by corporate cash.)

Robert Barsocchini is an internationally published author who focuses on force dynamics, national and global, and also writes professionally for the film industry. Updates on Twitter. Author’s pamphlet ‘The Agility of Tyranny: Historical Roots of Black Lives Matter’.

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail
This entry was posted in Energy / Environment, General, Media, Politics / World News, propaganda, Science / Technology. Bookmark the permalink.
  • kimyo

    simply superb, one of the top ten pieces ever posted here.

  • jo6pac

    What most Amerikans do know is this time Russia missiles will reach the mother land. The war will be here and the eu. http://www.timbuk3.com/discuss/?p=13876
    Thanks RB

  • MrLiberty

    My guess would be that the Libertarian Party candidate Gary Johnson, would be the least likely to escalate a war with Russia – but who knows – he is no libertarian.

  • ICFubar

    What has been left unsaid and is perhaps the most important aspect to this topic is that all three remaining main stream candidates are controlled and controllable by the power brokers inside the federal U.S. government. Yes Trump mouths talk on NATO and other subjects which may seem contrary on foreign and domestic policies being pursued by the last four administrations, but the lack of depth and substance of his comments and the contradictions in his comments are the tell that this is all campaign rhetoric without any real concrete policy behind these platitudes. Trump is as ready to take orders as either Clinton or the faux democratic socialist Sanders, representing as a sheep dog rounding up voters for the Democratic subsidiary of the wholly owned holding LLC known as the U.S. Federal Government. If Americans want to see any change whatsoever in the policies of this puppet government then they had best vote for other than the two subsidiaries that have dominated for far too long. If you are a true progressive I would suggest voting for Jill Stein and the Greens if on the ballot as a means to effect change. Conservatives also have third party choices. If a Green is not on the ballot just vote out the incumbent as a form of protest and destabilization of the current system and persons expecting to take up where they left off after the coming election.

    • cstahnke

      I’m not so sure about Trump. He may well be the proverbial “monkeywrench gang” all by himself. His wavering and seemingly crazy ideas make him, whatever he is, the first genuine post-modern candidate. A source I have who I trust to some degree claims that Trump is actually interested in assaulting the Deep State–this may be BS but the source has proven right before. But it is clear that only someone as clownish as Trump would be able to get beyond the Palace Guard. He is, to many voters, a “none of the above” candidate, a vote of “no confidence” in the powers that be. Having said that, I vowed never to vote for a mainstream candidate again after voting for that slick con-artist (knowing full well he was one) Obama.

      • ICFubar

        It seems the American public has been questioning more and more the democracy deficit at the state and federal levels as well they should be. The Apex Elites need the public to be engaged in the election cycle charade as the electorate’s emotional involvement and voting confers at least some legitimacy on the proceedings and shields the elites from this questioning with the election of “representatives” as middlemen. It is far less costly for these elites to run an election cycle and lobby (pay off) these middlemen than to fund an actual police state, with all the turmoil and danger to themselves that would ensue if the veil were to be dropped. As it is the people pay for their own repression through taxation. You do the math. The recent wave of violence at rallies I think points to the elites manipulation of the public to these ends. A small amount of seed money to spark violence, until this violence can grow its own legs, with small amounts of additional cash to keep it going, accomplishes three objectives for the power elites in one throw. It re engages the public with the faux political/election conversation while at same time keeping the people divided and not looking at the real culprits that have usurped all the power of the state for their own ends. This whole scenario reminds me of the elite instigated color revolutions we have seen in the past and recent past. This is the slickest damn marketing – manipulation – campaign – tactic – roll out yet in my opinion, but believe what your investigations on the state of politics in the USA, LLC inform you. Cheers…..

        • cstahnke

          As we all know the U.S. propaganda/mind-control regime has been the most sophisticated in the world since the Creel Committee.

          • ICFubar

            Yes. Reminds me of the quote attributed to CIA head William Casey “We will know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false.”.

  • U3O8

    Knowledge of “MAD” should be enough for any rational person that’s not a psychopath to understand none of it is necessary and nothing good will come out of Nukes. The people running & ruining not only the USA but, the planet are the people in charge of DC corporation & the USA.
    Russia historically has not been the aggressor in any major conflict in quite some time. Russia clearly gave Poland & Germany back as well & was defensive in WWll. On the other hand the tyrannical USA & NATO (North Atlantic Terrorist Organization) has been the aggressor & invader of countries for how long now ?

    The 3rd Reich became the 4th Reich via the 5th Column.

  • Jun 4, 2016 They Call us “Anti-Government”

    “In a world where government spies on you, lies to you, takes and wastes massive amounts of your money, wages wars in your name, restricts your right to defend yourself being “anti-government” isn’t a bad thing. It’s a badge of honor.”

    https://youtu.be/84jFDpuaL3Y

    • jo6pac

      Thanks, you always have the best vids along CH.

      • Thanks jo6pac, being a former web site administrator for well over a decade I have a open mind and have accumulated many, many, sources and resources. In honor of Washington’s blog this quote says it all, “If the freedom of speech is taken away then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter.” George Washington

  • ClubToTheHead

    When Hillary pushes for WWIII the sappy suckers for her serious demeanor will solemnly accept their demise as inevitable.

    When Trump arouses animal hatred with his buffoonery even Democrats will be strong in opposition.

    I oppose Trump for the demagoguery common to both parties of this
    demogogcracy, but if any real opposition to the worst of which we are
    capable of as humans will be aroused, it will be more strongly in
    response to Trump, not Hillary, because Trump is more transparent.

    But only the people, not the demogogcracy, can save the people from demogogcracy.

    So I seriously consider voting for Trump in the general election,
    because Hillary will continue the move toward war with Russia, a move
    that Bush II and Obama have continued, one that began with the
    incursions of Bill Clinton’s NATO push east to the Russian border.

    I oppose Trump (and Hillary), therefore I will vote for Trump in
    order to generate an opposition to the Democratic Party policies that
    even a Democrat could support.

    Clinton Urges NATO Expansion in 1999

    By ALISON MITCHELL

    Published: October 23, 1996

    DETROIT, Oct. 22— In a rare turn to foreign policy on the campaign
    trail, President Clinton today called for the North Atlantic Treaty
    Organization to extend full membership to a first group of former Soviet
    bloc nations by the spring of 1999, the 50th anniversary of the Western
    military alliance.

    http://www.nytimes.com/1996/10/23/us/clinton-urges-nato-expansion-in-1999.html

    • Know and share this with folks. October 03, 2012 Provoke an Attack on Iran? “Lets Bring it On… At the End of the Day… We Ought to Take ‘Em Out” Hillary Clinton laughs about possible war against Iran!

      http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=799_1348921063

  • Just Watching

    Washington will be vaporized. The fake left and fake progressives who strut on the American stage only know the hard stop. Don’t let all that identity politics fool you. Fanatics run the Democrat Party and Trump disrupted the fanatics in the Republican Party… The Russians know Clinton means war and Trump will cut a deal perhaps delaying the war.

  • Sarastro92

    “Russia will not initiate an attack, but if attacked itself, it can hit
    US targets with its “long-range nuclear as well as conventional
    weapons.” ”

    Don’t be so sure. As the US rings Russia with ABM systems, this creates at “use it or lose it” Scenario. What this means is that if the US/NATO instigates a first strike a attack against Russia, they have an ABM system in place to take out the Russian retaliatory strike. Which means the west has a big chance of surviving a nuclear attack. Since the Russians know this then they have a high incentive to strike first once it’s clear that hostilities on the verge of starting.

    • jo6pac

      You need to look into Russia new weapons most 3 generations ahead of anything the west has to offer. That comes from western experts. The Russians will not strike first.

      • Just Watching

        Russia will strike after Obama probes Crimea with jihadists and neo Nazi death squads. Washington incorrectly thinks that only a nuclear strike on Russia will trigger a all out attack on the US mainland… Crimea is now Russian. Attacks by CIA irregu!ars in Crimea will most likely trigger it.

      • Sarastro92

        The Russians have no way of stopping a nuclear first strike. That’s why they are freaked out over the ABM systems in Romania and soon in Poland, which give the US/ NATO the ability for a sneak attack and not have to worry about retaliation from the Russia. Effectively it’s the end of MAD..

        It is true on the conventional weapons platforms the Russians and Chinese can blind US satellites and probably sink the US Navy… But the ability to take out land and sea based ICBMs does not exist.

        It’s a pipe dream to think that warfare between East and West will be limited to conventional forces. Send escalation to nuclear is inevitable make sense just to skip right away into nuclear exchange.

  • Sarastro92

    Many commentators seem to forget the working premise of US geo-political strategy is unipolar hyper power hegemony that openly states even potential rivals to US supremacy will be annihilated.

    This dogma is referred to as Wolfowitz Doctrine. It has been operational for the past 25 years or so. It was embodied in the George W. Bush administration as a national security council memorandum and finding. There is a bipartisan consensus for the Wolfowitz doctrine just as there was post war bi-partisan consensus behind the doctrine of Soviet containment attributed to George Kennan.

    The dogma of US global supremacy Is so ingrained it’s rarely even discussed. Certainly not by any presidential candidate. While Paul Wolfowitz himself was a neocon luminary the Wolfowitz Doctrine has never been rescinded or repudiated by Obama or any other political faction.

    Inevitably the Wolfowitz doctrine puts the US is on a collision course with Russia and China forcing both of those nations to making a crucial existential decision on capitulating the US supremacy or launching a nuclear first strike. Very distressing indeed.

    • jo6pac

      I do hear and understand what your saying and what has been laid out by the neo-conns but Russia will not launch first. They will finish the job and sadly that will be Amerika and Europe. In WWII they died to stop Amerikas business interest Hitler. This time they can reach out and touch Amerika. The Amerikan weapons around Europe will do some damage but S-500 to S-400 ground to air will stop just about anything coming it’s way. Their new ICBM are faster than anything we have to stop them and carry nuke and non-nuke mirv war heads.
      The crazies that wrote the paper still live in the 70s to 90s and the Russian govt. and people live in the Now unlike our so-called elected leaders. Sadly it will be the Amerikas citizens the pay the price

      • Sarastro92

        The logic of nuclear war when ABM systems are in play changes everything. And that has to be taken into account. Unfortunately circumstances for both sides to rash and precipitous action. And that’s what makes it so dangerous.

        • jo6pac

          Yes and sadly the only rash thinking is from Russian leaders wither it’s Ukraine or Syria. Yes you pointed out the Amerika neo-conns are running Amerika to it’s death and that means their friends on wall street, dod vendors, or bought and sold congresscritters.
          Amerikas neo-conns have won so far and will push to nothing but war all the time. We are there now.
          I guess it time to invest in a small start ups that is building pitchforks & guillotines.
          I’m done on the subject of there are no winners except .0001%

          • Sarastro92

            Yeah right. Your neoNazi friends in Kiev and ISIS in Syria should not be supported by the West. Putin is on the right side and you and your friends are on the wrong side of decency and morality in the Ukraine and Syria.

          • jo6pac

            I’m the left, just saying. I might have made myself clear.

    • cstahnke

      This is all true and part of the ideology of Washington that includes both major parties. Both support “full spectrum dominance” but this is somewhat deceptive. What they want, as neocon writings explain, in not to have permanent war and massive bloodshed but to use international tensions to give purposes to American life. The writings tell us that these people believe, for a variety of interesting reasons, that without a broad purpose, Americans cannot remain unified and the best tool is to increase “threats” from something that can be shown to be irrational, hateful, evil, monstrous. Their goal is not war but control of the “natives” of whatever society. Despite obvious truths, easily verified, we prefer to live in the mythology of American Exceptionalism.

      • Sarastro92

        I agree with your insights that there are mixed motives and strategies baked into the bipartisan consensus. But events begin to create a life of their own and it’s hard to play the brinksmanship game and keep it completely under control. When NATO is amassing troops on the Russian border and taking ABM systems live it’s more and more difficult to start pulling back from the momentum that’s created by these ominous threats. That’s what really makes dangerous.

        It’s especially true when the logic compelling a nuclear first strike becomes overwhelming

  • OttoMaddox

    Only tens of millions? We’ll be lucky to have that many survive.

  • cstahnke

    Great stuff and important. However, we need to understand that the creation of the Russian “monster” by the propaganda organs is not to go to war with Russia. We live in an almost completely Orwellian milieu in the West. Everything we know and hear and see is a lie. We live in a fantasy generated by the oligarchs who have been honing their skills since the Creel Committee was established and the U.S. became the propaganda/mind-control center of the world. “Threats” like “terrorism” are a lie–most terror threats are artifacts of the Deep State–please note, not all are but usually there is some connection with some factions within that State which is not unified, btw. The Russian “threat” is obviously and clearly utter fantasy but it is used to extort and con money out of, mainly, U.S. citizens and scare (frankly) cowardly Europeans (who love comfort and security above all else).

    No one wants real War! anymore–if it happens it will be through a blunder of some kind but they do want a strategy of tension to keep the pathetic citizens of the West in line.

  • Dec 3, 2015 U.S. and Western Policy Towards Russia by Center for Strategic International Studies

    The Russian annexation of Crimea has led to over two years of debate regarding Washington’s strategy towards Moscow. Today, with Ukraine somewhat quieter and seeming progress towards cooperation on Syria, are more cooperative approaches possible? What should be Washington’s goals in engaging with Russia, or responding to it on the global stage? Are there tools that have not yet been tried, and what can they attain where other efforts have failed?

    https://youtu.be/4X45jEXej20

  • Seen2013

    Unfortunately, US ‘experts’ consider Victorian balance of power geopolitics as outdated and archaic, or they simply do that to ignore:
    -Russian and Chinese analysts believe the USSR failed by the US Dollar’s world’s reserve currency status granted it the advantage of time. This failure for the USSR to directly challenge the US led to its downfall.
    -Balance of power geopolitics makes violating buffer zones as The Baltics already regime changed, Eastern Ukraine, Syria, Iran, Pakistan, and North Korea a threat to Russia and China hence their responses including China seeking to ensure its maritime borders and resource interests in the East and South China Seas.
    Those are the main two, and both make analysts banking on a Cold War 2.0 dead wrong.

    If I can find it, they have no excuse

  • NoNameIsMyName

    A lot of big statements in this article without citations.