U.S. President Joe Biden said Russian President Vladimir Putin’s threat to use nuclear weapons is the biggest such threat since the Cuban Missile Crisis, as Russia’s military leadership faced a rare domestic public backlash over the war in Ukraine.

President Volodymyr Zelenskiy said Ukraine’s forces were swiftly recapturing more territory especially in the south of the country as Putin’s seven-month invasion unravels.

Biden said the United States was “trying to figure out” Putin’s off-ramp from the war, warning that the Russian leader was “not joking when he talks about potential use of tactical nuclear weapons or biological or chemical weapons, because his military is, you might say, is significantly underperforming”.

“For the first time since the Cuban Missile Crisis, we have a direct threat to the use of nuclear weapons, if in fact things continue down the path they’d been going,” Biden told Democratic donors in New York on Thursday.

“We have not faced the prospect of Armageddon since Kennedy and the Cuban missile crisis,” he said.

In the 1962 crisis, the United States under President John Kennedy and Soviet Union under its leader, Nikita Khrushchev, came close to the use of nuclear weapons over the presence of Soviet missiles in Cuba.

“I don’t think there’s any such thing as the ability to easily (use) a tactical nuclear weapon and not end up with Armageddon,” Biden said.

Putin, who marks his 70th birthday on Friday, has warned he would use all means necessary, including Russia’s nuclear arsenal, to protest Russian soil, which he now says includes four Ukrainian regions he annexed.

In remarks to Australia’s Lowy Institute, Zelenskiy said NATO should launch preventive strikes on Russia to preclude its use of nuclear weapons.

Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov denounced the comments as “an appeal to start yet another world war with unpredictable, monstrous consequences”, according to RIA news agency.

‘WHAT HAVE YOU DONE?’

Russia annexed Ukraine’s Donestk, Luhansk, Kherson and Zaporizhzhia regions, representing about 15% of the country, after holding what it called referendums – votes denounced by Kyiv and Western governments as illegal and coercive.

Since Europe’s biggest attempted annexation since World War Two, a Ukrainian counter-offensive has pushed Russian forces into further retreating and regained large parts of the southern Kherson region.

Zelenskiy said in a video address on Thursday that Kyiv’s forces recaptured more than 500 square kilometres (195 square miles) and dozens of settlements in Kherson in October.

“There are successes in the east as well. The day will surely come when we will report on successes in the Zaporizhzhia region (in southeastern Ukraine) as well, in those areas that the occupiers still control,” the president said.

Reuters could not independently verify battlefield accounts.

Ukrainian forces have regain control of thousands of square kilometres (miles) of territory since the beginning of September as the Russian front line has crumbled, first in the northeast, and, since the beginning of this week, also in the south.

In rare but growing public criticism of Russia’s top military officials, Kirill Stremousov, the deputy head of the Russian-backed administration in Kherson region, said the “generals and ministers” in Moscow failed to understand the problems on the front lines.

There was no immediate comment from Russia’s defence ministry.

Discontent has begun to bubble up among even loyalist state television commentators.

“Please explain to me what the general staff’s genius idea is now?” Vladimir Solovyov, one of the most prominent Russian talk show hosts, said on his livestream channel.

“Do you think time is on our side? They have hugely increased their amount of weapons,” he said of Ukrainian forces.

“But what have you done in that time?”

‘ADVANCING IN BROAD SWEEP’

In the northeastern Kharkiv region where Ukrainian forces regained a large swathe of territory in September, the bodies of 534 civilians including 19 children were found after Russian troops left, police official Serhiy Bolvinov told a briefing.

The total included 447 bodies found in Izium. He also said that investigators had found evidence of 22 “torture rooms”. There was no immediate comment from Russia.

On Thursday, a regional governor said a missile demolished an apartment block and killed seven people in the city of Zaporizhzhia in the southern region of the same name, which Russia says it has annexed.

Eduard, a 49-year-old man who survived the attack, said he was woken at around 5 a.m. by a strong explosion. “The room filled with smoke and dust. I jumped up to go see what had happened,” he said.

In an online address to new security and energy co-operation forum the European Political Community, Zelenskiy accused Russia of targeting the same spot twice to kill responders.

“In Zaporizhzhia, after the first rocket strike today, when people came to pick apart the rubble, Russia conducted a second rocket strike. Absolute vileness, absolute evil.”

Russia says it does not deliberately target civilians. source

Biden’s statement on nuclear ‘Armageddon’ risk brings back recollections of ‘60s in Jacksonville

President Joe Biden said the risk of nuclear ‘Armageddon’ is at highest level it’s been in 60 years

If you are under 50, you may not know about fallout shelters and nuclear bomb threats.

President Joe Biden said Thursday night that the risk of nuclear “Armageddon” is at the highest level it’s been in 60 years.

Military experts are saying there is no new intelligence about the threat, but the president’s statement does open up concerns.

News4JAX on Friday spoke with local authorities and others about Jacksonville and civil defense and what, if anything, can be done to protect you.

Members of the United Service Organizations were downtown on Friday — not for any military reason but to prepare for a half-marathon on Saturday. But this shows how Jacksonville is a big military town, and because of that, a possible target in the event of an attack.

It’s something Jacksonville took very seriously during the Cold War and the Cuban Missile Crisis in the 1960s.

An old clip of “Duck and Cover” is how many remember the nuclear era. It might seem comical now, but during its day, it was a very real concern. News4JAX on Friday talked with Terry Terrell about that.

“I don’t think that really anything you do to protect yourself from radiation fallout,” Terrell said. “I remember seeing videos where they would do the air raid, or the bomb thing, and you see the kids get under their desks and everything. But it would never help.”

Those who are younger have a whole different take.

“Well, if there is a nuclear event, we’re probably screwed, right?” said one person named Larry, who had never heard of a fallout shelter or anything of that nature.

In the ‘60s in Jacksonville, the old Prudential building was a nuclear fallout shelter, and that’s where people were told to go in the case of a nuclear event, but now you don’t see these shelters anymore.

A film was shot in the ‘60s shot by WJXT and produced by the old Jacksonville civil defense department, which no longer exists. It showed how those shelters were stocked and prepared for an emergency. This was a film that was actually used nationwide for training. This was during the Cuban Missile Crisis.

Air raid shelter signs were once commonplace — not anymore. Air raid sirens are no longer tested, and in the event of a nuclear emergency, information would come locally from the emergency operations center.

News4JAX reached out for comment and received a statement from the Jacksonville Fire and Department.

“The Emergency Preparedness Division plans and prepares for all types of disasters and emergencies while maintaining a constant posture of readiness for events that could impact our community. JaxReady.com has information to help residents ready their households for emergencies, including instructions for sheltering in place and reacting to a major terrorism or hazardous material incident. source

Biden: Nuclear ‘Armageddon’ risk highest since ’62 crisis

A photo of US President Joe Biden speaking at an IBM facility in Poughkeepsie, New York, US, on Thursday, Oct. 6, 2022.

Dana Ullman | Bloomberg | Getty Images

President Joe Biden said Thursday that the risk of nuclear “Armageddon” is at the highest level since the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis, as Russian officials speak of the possibility of using tactical nuclear weapons after suffering massive setbacks in the eight-month invasion of Ukraine.

Speaking at a fundraiser for the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, Biden said Russian President Vladimir Putin was “a guy I know fairly well” and the Russian leader was “not joking when he talks about the use of tactical nuclear weapons or biological or chemical weapons.”

Biden added, “We have not faced the prospect of Armageddon since Kennedy and the Cuban Missile Crisis.” He suggested the threat from Putin is real “because his military is — you might say — significantly underperforming.”

U.S. officials for months have warned of the prospect that Russia could use weapons of mass destruction in Ukraine as it has faced a series of strategic setbacks on the battlefield, though Biden’s remarks marked the starkest warnings yet issued by the U.S. government about the nuclear stakes.

It was not immediately clear whether Biden was referring to any new assessment of Russian intentions. As recently as this week, though, U.S. officials have said they have seen no change to Russia’s nuclear forces that would require a change in the alert posture of U.S. nuclear forces.

“We have not seen any reason to adjust our own strategic nuclear posture, nor do we have indication that Russia is preparing to imminently use nuclear weapons,” White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre said Tuesday.

The 13-day showdown in 1962 that followed the U.S. discovery of the Soviet Union’s secret deployment of nuclear weapons to Cuba is regarded by experts as the closest the world has ever come to nuclear annihilation. The crisis during President John F. Kennedy’s administration sparked a renewed focus on arms control on both sides of the Iron Curtain.

Biden also challenged Russian nuclear doctrine, warning that the use of a lower-yield tactical weapon could quickly spiral out of control into global destruction.

“I don’t think there is any such a thing as the ability to easily use a tactical nuclear weapon and not end up with Armageddon,” Biden said.

“This is something that we are attuned to, taking very seriously, and communicating directly with Russia about, including the kind of decisive responses the United States would have if they went down that dark road,” Sullivan said.

Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelenskyy said earlier Thursday that Putin understood that the “world will never forgive” a Russian nuclear strike.

“He understands that after the use of nuclear weapons he would be unable any more to preserve, so to speak, his life, and I’m confident of that,” Zelenskyy said.

Biden’s comments came during a private fundraiser for Democratic Senate candidates at the Manhattan home of James and Kathryn Murdoch. He tends to be more unguarded — often speaking with just rough notes — in such settings, which are open only to a handful of reporters without cameras or recording devices. source

AVOIDING NUCLEAR ARMAGEDDON

THE NUCLEAR NATIONS MUST START MEANINGFUL DIALOGUE ON CURBING NUCLEAR ARMS RACE AND ELIMINATE NUCLEAR ARSENALS BY 2045

I. General assessment of the level of nuclear confrontation and the situation in the nuclear arms control sphere

The overall assessment of the developments in these two interwoven domains is rather negative:

•  the level of nuclear confrontation during last several years has sharply increased;
•  the process in the nuclear arms control area has actually stalled, being characterized by unilateral withdrawal of the USA from the bilateral INF Treaty with Russia and the multilateral Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action Plan known as the Iranian Nuclear Deal, a clear-cut statement of the USA not to ratify the multilateral Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, and Washington’s intention to resume nuclear testing at Nevada desert and to install two types of low-yield nuclear weapons on strategic offensive arms delivery systems.

The present-day nuclear arms control process may be described by the following features:

1) retaining of nuclear strategy of the first-use or the first-strike of nuclear weapons by many nuclear nations;  2) watering down the functional features between offensive and defensive nuclear arms;  3) lowering down the threshold of using of nuclear weapons – both strategic and tactical, including the low-yield nuclear warheads;  4) seeking nuclear arms supremacy over other nuclear nations;  5) substantial increase in nuclear arms spending, including the percentage of spending on nuclear weapons in relation to overall military budgets;  6) wrong interpretation of the “strategic stability” terminology in the nuclear arms sphere;  7) neglecting the principle of equality and equal security in nuclear arms control;  8) lack of joint approach of the P-5 nations or the de jure nuclear powers towards nuclear arms control steps, and all nine nuclear-weapon states – both de jure and de facto – have assumed a negative stance on the existing Nuclear Weapons Prohibition Treaty. As of April 6, 2020, only 81 states have signed the Treaty and 36 have ratified it. But that is not enough, because it will enter into force if totally 50 countries will ratify it.

If such eight features are not reconsidered and still remain in force, the sound, practical, constructive and mutually beneficial nuclear arms control process will be impossible to attain for many years to come.

No doubt that the nuclear arms race that the world community has inherited from the last century, will be complemented by two new arms races, namely in missile defense and in outer space.

II. The situation is complicated by the fact that there are 13 unresolved issues in arms control between the USA and Russia:

1) U.S. negative stance on the New START extension for the next five years; 2) U.S. still has positive view to Tactical Nuclear Weapons’ Employment still stored outside the continental USA for nearly 70 years;  3) U.S. desire to deploy the new INF-related nuclear missiles in Europe and Asia; 4) U.S. intention to use a low-yield nuclear weapons having the yield of less than 5 kiloton;  5) U.S. use of Heavy Strategic Bombers near Russia, the People’s Republic of China, Iran and North Korea in the framework of the frequent air-patrol missions;  6) U.S./NATO Operation “Baltic Air Policing” conducted 24h/365 days over three Baltic nations (Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia), plus Poland involving Dual Capable Aircraft from all three Western nuclear nations;  7) retaining by the USA the First-Nuclear-Strike or First-Nuclear-Use clause, as well other directives such as “launch-on-warning”, “launch-prior-to-launch”, “escalation to de-escalation” reflected in the 2018 U.S. Nuclear Posture Review, and plus existing “nuclear sharing agreements” between the USA and many NATO countries;  8) U.S. refusal to proliferate the INCSEA or Incidents-At-Sea-Prevention-Agreements to SSBN/SSN sailing under water near Russian territory – with the aim to avoid collisions between them;  (9)  U.S. lack of desire to show the Russian inspectors some U.S. strategic nuclear arms delivery systems fitted in words for non-nuclear missions; 10) U.S. unlimited missile defense interceptors versus Russian strategic nuclear arms;  11) the USA has BMDS sites in Europe and Asia fitted with MK-41 that can load nuclear-tipped Ground-launched Cruise Missiles and Hypersonic Vehicles; 12) no U.S. desire to accept a proposal on moratorium for the INF-related missile in Europe and Asia-Pacific Region; and finally, 13) U.S. refusal to repeat once more the famous Presidents Reagan-Gorbachev’s saying that: “Nuclear war cannot be fought, because it cannot be won.”

III. New U.S. Nuclear Strategy: short analysis

President Donald Trump’s new national nuclear strategy enacted named as the 2018 NPR or Nuclear Posture Review contained much more reason to use nuclear arms in a first strike. The vagueness of some provisions implying a clear freedom of action in the use of nuclear missile weapons, says about the irresponsible approach of the American Administration to its use – almost at any time, and anywhere in the world.

The military and political core of the new U.S. nuclear strategy is the possibility of the initiative use of nuclear weapons in the first strike against almost any state in the world, including those that will use against the United States even general-purpose forces involved in any, even on a small scale and with minimal consequences. The list of grounds for the use of nuclear weapons also includes an attack using conventional weapons against nuclear forces, their control facilities and missile warning systems of the United States and its allies.

The 2018 NPR differs from the 2010 NPR stamped by President Barack Obama: in all it has 14 reasons for using nuclear weapons, while the latter had six reasons.

The 2018 NPR mentioned the following grounds for using nuclear weapons: the emergence and build-up of nuclear and non-nuclear strategic threats, including the threat of chemical, biological and cyber weapons, as well as the significant use of strategic non-nuclear weapons. It was stated that nuclear weapons could be used in the event of a nuclear attack on the United States, its allies and partners and in case of occurrence of new enemies of the United States, changes in policies and doctrine of these enemies, create new alliances among the opponents and the further spread of nuclear weapons and even the technological surprises in other states. The possibility of using nuclear weapons was not ruled out in the event of damage to American nuclear forces. In the introductory part to the 2018 NPR there was also a wording that allows the American President to use nuclear weapons in the event of a change in the geopolitical situation.

All these postulates indicate the expansion of the range of circumstances and reasons that can cause the order of the U.S. President to use nuclear weapons in the first strike. In this context, it should be recalled that in 2018, for the first time in more than forty years, the American Congress drew attention to the real possibility of the President of the USA to issue his own and final order to use nuclear weapons against any state in the world without authorization from the supreme legislative body and without declaring war on such a state.

President Donald Trump ignored this decision of Congress, which believed that such an order can be brought by the head of state to the country’s nuclear missile forces within 3-5 minutes, which can actually use nuclear weapons in the next 4-12 minutes. During his election campaign ten former nuclear launch officers who once manned missile silos and held the keys to execute a launch order signed a letter saying Donald Trump should not “have his finger on the button” because of his temperament.

The 2018 NPR clearly stated that Washington will not abandon the postulate of the use of nuclear weapons in the first strike and will not support proposals to lower the level of combat readiness of national nuclear forces, but will keep in force the agreement of the mid-90s reached with Russia according to its initiative on mutual de-targeting of strategic nuclear missiles on each other’s territory.

Donald Trump’s NPR calls for the use of NW in the event of multilateral potential risks and threats –  six grounds clearly stated and eight deliberately vaguely formulated.

Namely, in the first batch of six grounds there are the following reasons for using nuclear weapons: 1) to deter potential adversaries from nuclear and non-nuclear attack of any scale  and under any conditions on p.20; 2) to respond to any non-nuclear strategic attack on p.21; 3) to protect its allies and partners from nuclear and non-nuclear attack on p.21;  4) if attack is launched vs nuclear forces of the U.S. allies on p. 21; 5) to respond to any attack vs the USA, its allied or partner civilian population and infrastructure on p. 21; and 6) to use low-yield nuclear weapons as a credible deterrence against regional aggression on p. 54. They have been clearly formulated.

However, there are too vague reasons, still not explained by Washington what the USA has in mind, namely: 1) if “operational shortfalls” reduce the effectiveness of the U.S. nuclear forces on p.38; 2) to deny “unexpected challenges” on p.38; 3) in the event of “a geopolitical challenge” that threatens an element of U.S. nuclear forces on p. 40; 4) to respond against “multiple future risks and uncertainties” on p.48; 5) to respond to  “new forms of aggression” on p. 21; 6) to respond to “emergence of new adversaries”, expansion of adversary nuclear forces, changes in adversary strategy and doctrine on p.38; 7) to use vs NPT member-states, if they violate it (p.21); and 8) to overcome  “technical  challenges”  or  “adversaries’ technological breakthroughs”, and in case of any cyberattacks (p.38).

As has been repeatedly recognized in American military and political documents, in the next ten years, the Pentagon will receive up to US $ 400 billion dollars for strengthening the nuclear missile component, and in the next 30 years – US $ 1.2 trillion at constant prices, or US $ 1.7 trillion adjusted for inflation. No country in the world can spend such enormous amount of money for such weapons of mass destruction.

V. Current Russian nuclear strategy

It is fundamentally important that the Russian nuclear doctrines of 2010 (the previous one) and 2014 (the current one) do not contain provisions on the possibility of using Russian nuclear weapons in regional or local conflicts, which is attributed by some Western researchers. There is no indication of the separate use of strategic and tactical nuclear weapons. The present Russian military doctrine of 2014 annulled all the different opinions on this topic expressed before its adoption by various experts who did not declare an official point of view.

In addition, in the Russian military doctrine of 2014 there is no word about any desire of Moscow to implement the strategy of extended nuclear deterrence or forward-based nuclear deterrence, that is, by placing its own nuclear weapons on the territory of foreign states closer to American territory. Crucially, the updated version of Russia’s 2014 military doctrine lacks language about its desire to deploy strike elements of the global missile defense infrastructure in the territories of foreign countries.

Paragraph 8 of the 2014 military doctrine uses the term “non-nuclear deterrence system”, which referred to a set of foreign policy, military and military-technical measures aimed at preventing aggression against the Russian Federation by “non-nuclear means”. Paragraph 16 of the 2014 Russian military doctrine recognized that nuclear weapons will remain an important factor in preventing the nuclear military conflicts and military conflicts involving conventional weapons in large-scale war and regional warfare. Of fundamental importance is the provision of paragraph 20 of that Russian doctrine which stated that the prevention of a nuclear military conflict, like any other military conflict, is the basis of the military policy of the Russian Federation.

Paragraph 27, which fixes two possibilities for using nuclear weapons by the Russian Federation: in the case of use against it and (or) its allies of nuclear and other weapons of mass destruction (i.e., chemical and bacteriological weapons), as well as in the case of aggression against the Russian Federation with the use of conventional weapons, “when the very existence of the state is threatened.”

Thus, the current nuclear doctrine of the Russian Federation in brief can be qualified as the doctrine of “conditional defensive nuclear deterrence”. In contrast, the current American nuclear strategy can be characterized as the doctrine of “unconditional offensive nuclear deterrence”, since it provides for the initiative of the first preventive and pre-emptive nuclear strikes on almost any state of the globe, at any time and under any pretext.

VI. Potential human and environmental damages of using nuclear weapons

Many widely renown scholars and experts believe that even a limited use of nuclear weapons in a regional conflict will bring huge human losses and devastating material and environmental damages to many nations. Those case studies conducted in the last century and today by Western nuclear scientists arrive to the same sad and negative conclusions: any use of nuclear weapons – however limited – will bring an Armageddon scenario to many people.

Only one nuclear bomb dropped on Amsterdam with the population of around one million will sweep completely away this wonderful European city and its surrounding areas in a moment. One nuclear warhead of 500 kiloton delivered to New York or Moscow will kill nearly 5 million people in each case.

On June 19, 2019 Ted W. Lieu (D-Los Angeles County) announced a provision he proposed banning the production of low-yield nuclear weapons passed the House the same day as a part of an appropriations package. The provision prohibits the research, development, production and deployment of low-yield nuclear warheads for submarine-launched ballistic missiles. In his introduction it was stated that so-called low-yield nuclear weapons have the potential to lower the threshold for using nuclear weapons and increase the risk of entering the U.S. into nuclear war.

In 2018 and 2019, he also introduced and reintroduced the Hold the LYNE Act – or Low-Yield Nuclear Explosive Act, which would prohibit the research, development, production and deployment of low-yield nuclear warheads for submarine-launched ballistic missiles.

In his words, “Low-yield nuclear bombs would yield horrific results. With the power to kill at least 80,000 people, these bombs could drag the U.S. and our allies into a devastating nuclear conflict. … A low-yield bomb simply puts us at risk for all-out nuclear Armageddon. I’m grateful this provision was included in this year’s Defense appropriations bill, so we can stop low-yield nuclear weapons from creating a high-risk situation”.

In that Act it was mentioned that a new low-yield nuclear weapon to be carried on a ballistic missile submarine “risks lowering the threshold for nuclear use and increasing the chance of miscalculation that could escalate into all-out nuclear exchange” and “when launched, such a low-yield nuclear warhead would be indistinguishable to an adversary from the high-yield W76 and W88 submarine launched warheads.”

The Act also warned that: the ballistic missile submarines of the United States have never carried low-yield nuclear warheads, and setting a historical precedent could undermine the unique and paramount role of ballistic-missile submarines as the assured, survivable second-strike capability of the United States to deter large-scale nuclear war. The Act concluded that the USA should reject policies that increase the likelihood of nuclear war and weaken national security, including investments in low-yield nuclear weapons.

Despite such opposition, a new nuclear warhead designed and produced during the Donald Trump Administration, has been deployed aboard a nuclear submarine of SSBN-class, the Pentagon confirmed at the end of 2019. The deployment of the W 76-2, a low-yield variant of the nuclear warhead traditionally used on the Trident SLBM, was first reported January 29, 2020 by the Federation of American Scientists. The first submarine to move out with the new weapon was the USS Tennessee (SSBN-734), deploying from Kings Bay Submarine Base in the state of Georgia at the end of 2019, FAS reported.

The creation of a low-yield submarine launched warhead was one of two new designs called for in the 2018 Nuclear Posture Review. The warhead is designed to be smaller than the weapon detonated at Hiroshima, Japan, during World War II. The design is a modification of the W76-1 warhead for the Navy’s Trident ballistic missile that allowed the National Nuclear Security Administration to quickly turn around the design and production in roughly a year.

Opponents of the weapon question whether that doctrine is realistic, and also argue that no nuclear system can truly be non-strategic. Specific to the W76-2, members of the nonproliferation community have raised concerns that having a low-yield and high-yield warhead launched on the same SSBN creates a situation where an adversary doesn’t know which system is being used and therefore reacts as if the larger warhead has been launched.

Asked about the reported deployment of a new low-yield nuclear missile on Tennessee SSBN, a Pentagon spokesman stated that it is U.S. policy to neither “confirm nor deny” the presence of nuclear weapons abroad any naval vessel and declined to comment on the specific details of the FAS report what kind of naval platform was involved. However, in his statement, Undersecretary of Defense for Policy John Rood confirmed that the Navy has fielded the weapon that has been mentioned.

Such deployment “strengthens deterrence and provides the United States a prompt, more survivable low-yield strategic weapon; supports our commitment to extended deterrence; and demonstrates to potential adversaries that there is no advantage to limited nuclear employment because the United States can credibly and decisively respond to any threat scenario,” John Rood directly wrote in the statement.

Taking into account his statement one can arrive at the conclusion that any type of the U.S. low-yield nuclear missiles should be considered as a very destabilizing weapon of mass destruction, because it can be used in many cases, and under many circumstances, and anywhere in the world.

There is a danger that any limited employment of nuclear weapons will be converted into a large-scale nuclear confrontation. In the first several hours of an all-out nuclear war 34 million people will die and 57 million will be injured. There will be a huge radioactive contamination of large populated areas and industrial centers. The situation may worsen if nuclear power plants or huge water dams will be destroyed in an exchange of nuclear arms attacks – be them conducted with strategic or tactical nuclear weapons.

VII. Practical suggestions: seven proposals to contain the nuclear arms race

There are the most immediate steps, and gradual measures to contain the ongoing nuclear arms race.

Amongst them there could be:

1. As the first step to be implemented in 2020: Russia and the USA plus all other nuclear-weapon states have to agree on no first-use or the first-strike of nuclear weapons.

2. The USA should extend the New START for the next five years, and return to the compliance with the INF Treaty (Russian SSC-8 or 9M729 missile is not covered by the former INF Treaty); the USA has to pull back all its TNW from Europe and pledge not to field them and the INF-related nuclear and non-nuclear missiles in Europe and the Asia-Pacific Region.

3. The USA and Russia should set up a proportion between missile defense system (MDS) interceptors & strategic offensive nuclear arms delivery systems, and agree about MDS no-deployment zones. The USA has to dismantle its MDS bases in Romania and Poland, South Korea and Japan.

4. The USA has to ratify the CTBT and pledge not to explode any nuclear devices at Nevada test site. Note: Russia has ratified it in 2000.

5. Russia and the USA have to proliferate the INCSEA accord on the SSBN and SSN while submerged at their respective Navies Training Areas.

6. The USA and NATO as a whole have to cancel «Baltic Air Policing Operation» in the airspace of three Baltic states and Poland where it uses the DCA aircraft.

7. Space-faring nations have to sign the international PAROS or Prevention of Arms Race in Outer Space/NFEWS Treaty or Now-First Employment of Weapons in Space Treaty.

If such arrangements will be impossible to implement as a package deal, at least one first step has to be examined with due attention: to reach a commitment of all P-5 on no-first nuclear strike against each other. It will constitute the real action to avoid an all-out nuclear war that has become highly likely in the present-day tense and hostile military and political environment.

All these measures can also be debated at the suggested the P-5 Summit on arms control if it is arranged later this year, presumably in New York city during the next regular UN General Assembly Session. No doubt that such measures will enhance predictability between the P-5 and improve regional and global security, and planetary strategic stability. As for nuclear risks, Moscow is working on a joint statement with the other permanent members of the UN Security Council on the inadmissibility of a nuclear war.

Unfortunately, the United States has failed to respond to Russia’s proposal to repeat once more the well-known Gorbachev-Reagan formula in a bilateral format. In this case Russia will try to make such a reconfirmation in a multilateral format during the upcoming P-5 Summit.

It is very sad that in light of the situation related to the COVID-19 pandemic the 2020 NPT Review Conference has been postponed to a later date, “as soon as the circumstances permit”, but no later than April 2021. Russian stance and priorities in nuclear disarmament have been comprehensively described in the Russian Working Paper submitted to the second Preparatory Committee for the 10^th NPT Review Conference. It stipulates a consensus-based incremental approach that implies consistent work on creating the right conditions that help the global community to continue down the path toward nuclear disarmament. Moscow still believes that complete elimination of nuclear weapons is only possible within comprehensive and complete disarmament and under conditions of equal and indivisible security for all, including nuclear states, in accordance with the NPT.

My personal view is that a nuclear-free world can be built by 2045 – by a centenary of the tragic use of nuclear bombs versus Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Or earlier than by 2045, if there is a world-wide consensus.

And the final brush: the highly virulent COVID-19 pandemic has brought so far too many innocent victims amongst almost all countries all over the world, and caused tremendous economic and financial losses needed to fight this horrible decease. At the beginning of April 2020 more than 1 million people have been infected by COVID-19, and more 65 thousand died.  Sat the end of May the same year more than 5.5 million people have got this highly virulent disease, and nearly 350 thousand passed away. It is a very sad reality.

But it will be much sadder reality, if any nuclear conflict intentionally or unintentionally will erupt – God forbid! – with much horrible consequences around the globe than the Corona virus per se has done. If you compare such results reached in the first several hours of an all-out nuclear war with figures already mentioned: 34 million people dead and 57 million injured. Or more.

That is why all of us will have to bear it in mind, and to take specific steps to avoid such a gloomy scenario. source

]]> https://goodshepherdmedia.net/china-aids-russias-war-in-ukraine-whats-next-world-war-3/ Sun, 05 Feb 2023 19:38:12 +0000 https://goodshepherdmedia.net/?p=11102 China Aids Russia’s War in Ukraine, Trade Data Shows

 What’s Next World War 3 ?

WASHINGTON—China is providing technology that Moscow’s military needs to prosecute the Kremlin’s war in Ukraine despite an international cordon of sanctions and export controls, according to a Wall Street Journal review of Russian customs data.

The customs records show Chinese state-owned defense companies shipping navigation equipment, jamming technology, and fighter-jet parts to sanctioned Russian government-owned defense companies.

Those are but a handful of tens of thousands of shipments of dual-use goods—products that have both commercial and military applications—that Russia imported following its invasion last year, according to the customs records provided to the Journal by C4ADS, a Washington-based nonprofit that specializes in identifying national-security threats. Most of the dual-use shipments were from China, the records show.

China’s backing for Russia while it wages war on Ukraine was supposed to be on the agenda for discussion during Secretary of State Antony Blinken’s travels to Beijing this weekend. That trip was indefinitely postponed Friday after the Pentagon said that it had tracked a Chinese reconnaissance balloon over the continental U.S. earlier in the week.

Russia’s foreign, defense and economic ministries didn’t respond to requests for comment. “Russia has enough technological potential to ensure its security and conduct the special military operation. This potential is constantly being improved,” Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said.

While Russia has the capability to produce much of its basic military needs domestically, it relies heavily on imports for dual-use technology, such as semiconductors, that is essential for modern warfare.

Western officials said their economic pressure campaign launched last February would cripple Moscow’s war machine by targeting those exports to Russia, including computer chips, infrared cameras and radar equipment.

But customs and corporate records show Russia is still able to import that technology through countries that haven’t joined the U.S.-led efforts to cut off Moscow from global markets. Many of the export-controlled products are still flowing through nations such as Turkey and the United Arab Emirates, whose governments are accused by Western officials of flouting the sanctions and controls. Turkish officials have said the sanctions are ineffective and that Ankara is playing an important role as an interlocutor with Russia. Under pressure from the U.S., Turkey has moved to halt some financial and business ties.

The U.A.E. embassy in Washington, D.C. didn’t comment.

The records reviewed by the Journal, however, show Chinese companies—both state-owned and private—as the dominant exporters of dual-use goods that U.S. officials say are of particular concern.

The Journal analyzed more than 84,000 shipments recorded by Russia’s customs office in the period after the West launched the economic pressure campaign that focused on commodities the Biden administration red-flagged as critical to the Russian military. The official Russian customs records, which C4ADS said might not include all records, detail each shipment into the country, providing dates, shippers, recipients, purchasers, addresses and product descriptions.

The Journal also identified from the records more than a dozen Russian and Chinese companies targeted by the U.S. under the Russia pressure campaign, as well as all other sanctions programs.

Industry and government officials said the data offers substantial evidence of how Russia is able to sidestep the centerpiece of the West’s response to Russia’s war against Ukraine.

“Despite international scrutiny and sanctions protocols, reliable global trade data shows that Chinese state-owned defense companies continue to send military-applicable parts to sanctioned Russian defense companies,” said Naomi Garcia, an analyst at C4ADS. “These Russian companies have been recorded using these same types of parts directly in Russia’s war in Ukraine.”

To tighten the enforcement of the international pressure campaign, U.S. officials have said they are investigating the export of banned products and business dealings, trying to wrangle compliance through diplomatic outreach around the world, and have said they are preparing sanctions against new targets thought to be facilitating the Kremlin’s war.

On Wednesday, the U.S. Treasury Department added to its sanction rolls nearly two dozen individuals and the companies they are allegedly using to procure weapons and other goods for Russian state defense firms.

Just before Russia’s full-scale assault on Ukraine last February, Russian President Vladimir Putin and Chinese leader Xi Jinping declared a “no limits” partnership aimed at countering the U.S. Since the invasion, Beijing has attempted to strike a cautious balance, saying it is opposed to the war in Ukraine while keeping its diplomatic, financial and trade ties open to Russia.

“The allegation that China provides ‘aid’ to Russia has no factual basis, but is purely speculative and deliberately hyped up,” Liu Pengyu, China’s spokesman at its Washington embassy told the Journal. Mr. Liu reiterated the long-held view by Beijing that China opposes what it calls unilateral sanctions that have no basis under international law.

The customs records include examples of exports of parts for the type of weapons used by Russian forces in Ukraine.

China’s state-owned defense company Poly Technologies on Aug. 31, 2022, shipped navigation equipment to Russia’s state-owned military export firm JSC Rosoboronexport for M-17 military transport helicopters. Earlier that month, Chinese electronics firm Fujian Nanan Baofeng Electronic Co. supplied to Rosoboronexport—through an Uzbek state-owned defense firm—a telescoping antenna for the RB-531BE military vehicle, which is used for communications jamming. On Oct. 24, Chinese state-owned aircraft firm AVIC International Holding Corp. shipped to AO Kret, a subsidiary of sanctioned government-owned defense giant Rostec, $1.2 million worth of parts for Su-35 jet fighters.

Wang Shaofeng, general manager of Fujian Baofeng Electronics Co., Ltd., said in an emailed response that a third party may be illegally using his firm’s name, and that it doesn’t include “Nanan.” He also said his company doesn’t produce telescoping antennas and doesn’t have a record of shipping to any Uzbek state-owned defense firm. “This report lacks factual basis and is inconsistent with the facts,” Mr. Wang said.

U.S. Federal Communications Commission documents filed by Fujian Nanan Baofeng Electronic Co. for U.S. sales of two-way radios records matching contact details and is signed by a “Wang Shao Feng.”

The other Chinese and Russian firms didn’t respond to requests for comment.

In the past, Russian officials have said they would adapt to the Western sanctions campaign by turning to Asia, including China.

Other foreign-government suppliers found in the customs data include China Taly Aviation Technologies Corp., a procurement unit of China’s Air Force Equipment Department. The Chinese aviation company didn’t respond to requests for comment.

Among that firm’s shipments were parts sent on Oct. 4 to Russia’s sanctioned state-owned missile-manufacturer Almaz Antey for use on the 96L6E mobile radar unit. Russia uses the radar to detect enemy jet fighter, missiles and drones as part of its S-400 antiaircraft missile system being used in Ukraine, according to arms analysts. The Russian firm didn’t respond to requests for comment.

Kret and a host of other Russian companies that contract with the government’s intelligence, military and security services also used privately held Chinese firms. Sinno Electronics, sanctioned late last year by the U.S. Treasury Department for allegedly procuring banned goods for Russia’s defense sector, was one of the most prolific exporters of dual-use goods, sending more than 1,300 shipments between April and October worth more than $2 million, according to customs data. Neither Kret nor Sinno Electronics responded to requests for comment.

The data also shows shipments of Chinese DJI quadcopters to Russia after the sanctions and export controls were imposed. Military analysts say the drones are being used by the Russian forces to locate and surveil Ukrainian forces, then target them with artillery.

Some of these drones are delivered directly by a Chinese retailer to Russian distributors, according to customs records, but other DJI quadcopters transit through the United Arab Emirates. The emirates’ embassy in Washington, D.C., didn’t respond to requests for comment.

DJI said the company opposes military use of its drones, suspended its operations in Russia in April and requires global agents to comply. The company added, however, “We cannot stop users or organizations from buying in countries or regions other than Russia and Ukraine, and then transporting or giving them to Russia and Ukraine.”

Among the supplies critical to Moscow’s war efforts, U.S. officials say, are the computer chips that are used in weapons that target Ukrainian forces and infrastructure, and in electronic circuitry that makes possible satellite geolocating, radio communication, surveillance and navigation systems.

Exports of such chips and associated components were more than cut in half after the U.S. and its allies first imposed strict export restrictions, according to the customs records. But those levels quickly began to rise, and by October hit nearly $33 million, just shy of the $35 million monthly level Russia averaged since the U.S. started targeting Russia with sanctions in 2014 after Putin’s army occupied Crimea, according to the Journal’s analysis of the Russian custom records and the United Nations’ Comtrade database.

Unlike previous export-control regimes that banned the direct provision of certain dual use goods, Western authorities in February said they were targeting the entire supply chain. That means transshipments—goods produced in third countries using U.S. dual-use items, such as chips, that are then shipped to Russia—are also targeted.

Silverado Policy Accelerator, a Washington-based think tank that seeks to bolster U.S. competitiveness, said in a report published this month that Russia is increasingly relying on transshipments of dual-use goods through China, and especially Hong Kong, to meet its military needs.

“These measures have had a pretty significant impact on Russia’s capabilities,” said Sarah Stewart, chief executive of Silverado, referring to the allied sanctions and export controls, “but they have not yet delivered a death blow.” source

Story by Helene Cooper, Eric Schmitt and Julian E. source

WASHINGTON — For years, the United States has insisted that Crimea is still part of Ukraine. Yet the Biden administration has held to a hard line since Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, refusing to provide Kyiv with the weapons it needs to target the Crimean Peninsula, which Russia has been using as a base for launching devastating strikes.

Now that line is starting to soften.

After months of discussions with Ukrainian officials, the Biden administration is finally starting to concede that Kyiv may need the power to strike the Russian sanctuary, even if such a move increases the risk of escalation, according to several U.S. officials who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss the sensitive debate. Crimea, between the Black Sea and the Sea of Azov, is home to around 70,000 dug-in Russian troops and numerous Russian military bases.

The moderation in position has come about as the Biden administration has come to believe that if the Ukrainian military can show Russia that its control of Crimea can be threatened, that would strengthen Kyiv’s position in any future negotiations. In addition, fears that the Kremlin would retaliate using a tactical nuclear weapon have dimmed, U.S. officials and experts said — though they cautioned that the risk remained.

The new thinking on Crimea — annexed illegally by Russia in 2014 — shows how far Biden administration officials have come from the start of the war, when they were wary of even acknowledging publicly that the United States was providing Stinger anti-aircraft missiles for Ukrainian troops.

But over the course of the conflict, the United States and its NATO allies have been steadily loosening the handcuffs they put on themselves, moving from providing Javelins and Stingers to advanced missile systems, Patriot air defense systems, armored fighting vehicles and even some Western tanks to give Ukraine the capacity to strike against Russia’s onslaught.

Now, the Biden administration is considering what would be one of its boldest moves yet, helping Ukraine to attack the peninsula that President Vladimir V. Putin views as an integral part of his quest to restore past Russian glory.

American officials are discussing with their Ukrainian counterparts the use of American-supplied weapons, from HIMARS rocket systems to Bradley fighting vehicles, to possibly target President Vladimir V. Putin’s hard-fought control over a land bridge that functions as a critical supply route connecting Crimea to Russia via the Russian-occupied cities of Melitopol and Mariupol.

However, President Biden is not yet ready to give Ukraine the long-range missile systems that Kyiv would need to attack Russian installations on the peninsula.

Ukrainian officials have long insisted that Crimea is an important target for their attacks, and that continuing military pressure on Russian bases there is a significant part of their strategy. Ukrainian military officials have also discussed with American officials the importance of increasing pressure on Russia’s rear echelon in Crimea, which supports military operations elsewhere in Ukraine.

With the Black Sea fleet, a major Russian air base, command posts and logistics hubs supporting Russian operations in southern Ukraine, the peninsula represents a major focus in Kyiv’s battle plans.

In deciding to give the Bradleys to Ukraine, the Biden administration moved closer to providing Kyiv with something for which senior Ukrainian officials have been imploring the United States for months: direct American help for Ukraine to go on the offense — including targeting Crimea.

The Bradleys are armored personnel carriers mounted with powerful 25-millimeter guns and guided missiles that can take on Russian tanks.

Frederick B. Hodges, a retired lieutenant general and former top U.S. Army commander in Europe, said that in the coming months the Bradleys could be used by Ukrainian troops to help sever the land bridge.

Being able to rely on military bases in Crimea for staging was the primary reason Russian forces were able to seize land in southern Ukraine last year, a U.S. official said. Making those forces less capable is a key battlefield goal of the Ukrainians.

“Ukraine could use Bradleys to move forces down major roads, such as the M14, which connects Kherson, Melitopol and Mariupol,” added Seth G. Jones, a senior vice president at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. “Any Ukrainian infantry advancing through these areas would face significant fire from Russian positions, and Bradleys offer helpful firepower and protection for troops.”

The Bradleys, along with British tanks and the armored combat vehicles that France and Germany have agreed to send, could be the vanguard of an armored force that Ukraine could employ in a counteroffensive this winter or spring, government and independent analysts say.

“We think now is the right time to intensify our support for Ukraine,” Britain’s foreign secretary, James Cleverly, said Tuesday while on a visit to Washington. “We can’t allow this to drag on and become a kind of First World War attritional-type stalemate.”

The British Defense Ministry said in a Twitter message last week that in recent weeks, Russia had bolstered defensive fortifications in central Zaporizhzhia, a province in southern Ukraine near the land bridge, and where Russia maintains a large force.

If Ukraine does focus on reclaiming Zaporizhzhia, then preliminary attacks could include hitting targets in nearby Crimea. “A major Ukrainian breakthrough in Zaporizhzhia would seriously challenge the viability of Russia’s ‘land bridge,’” the British assessment said.

Ukraine also has American-provided HIMARS, long-range rocket systems. With the reclaiming last year of Kherson in the south, Ukrainian forward lines can now use them to hit the main supply routes coming out of Crimea, one American military official said in an interview.

This week, top U.S. and Ukrainian commanders will hold a high-level planning meeting in Germany to game out the offensive planning, another senior U.S. official said. The drill, the official said, is meant to align Ukraine’s battle plans with the kinds of weapons and supplies NATO allies are contributing.

Ukrainian officials fear their country cannot survive years of a stalemated conflict while Russia continues to pound cities and towns. So they see little choice but to target Crimea and put it in jeopardy, a senior U.S. official said, noting that the issue has come up at recent high-level meetings at the White House.

Still, despite the additional weaponry, the Biden administration does not think that Ukraine can take Crimea militarily — and indeed, there are still worries that such a move could drive Mr. Putin to retaliate with an escalatory response. But, officials said, their assessment now is that Russia needs to believe that Crimea is at risk, in part to strengthen Ukraine’s position in any future negotiations.

By demonstrating an ability to strike in Crimea, American officials say, Ukraine could show that Russian control is not established. The Biden administration also increasingly believes that hitting Russia’s rear lines coming out of Crimea could severely damage Moscow’s ability to push its front lines further, officials say.

“Without Crimea, the whole thing falls apart,” said Evelyn Farkas, the top Pentagon official for Ukraine during the Obama administration.

Contributing to the shift is a dampening of fears that targeting Crimea would drive Mr. Putin to use a tactical nuclear weapon, officials say. “It feels to me like increasingly, the administration is recognizing that the threat of Russian escalation is perhaps not what they thought it was earlier,” General Hodges said.

While Ukrainian strikes inside Russia proper still bring escalatory concerns from U.S. officials, Moscow’s reaction to periodic Ukrainian special operations or covert attacks in Crimea, including against Russian air bases, command posts and ships in the Black Sea fleet, has been tempered.

“There is more clarity on their tolerance for damage and attacks,” said Dara Massicot, a senior policy researcher at the RAND Corporation. “Crimea has already been hit many times without a massive escalation from the Kremlin.”

Still, Mr. Putin and the Russian public view Crimea as part of Russia, so strikes there could solidify Russian support for the war.

For their part, U.S. officials say they do not know how Mr. Putin will react if Ukraine attacks Crimea using American-supplied weapons.

Ms. Massicot said none of Ukraine’s handful of attacks on Crimea so far have threatened Russia’s ability to maintain its claim on the peninsula. “So they may not be an accurate test of Russia’s resolve on this point,” she said.

Last month, Secretary of State Antony J. Blinken reiterated standing American policy on Ukraine — that the Biden administration was seeking to help the country take back territory seized during and after the Russian invasion last year.

“Our focus is on continuing to do what we’ve been doing, which is to make sure that Ukraine has in its hands what it needs to defend itself, what it needs to push back against the Russian aggression, to take back territory that’s been seized from it since Feb. 24,” Mr. Blinken told the Wall Street Journal CEO Council summit. By Mr. Blinken’s definition, that territory does not include Crimea.

That position, critics say, has largely given the Russian military an untouchable sanctuary from which to attack Ukraine.

“We have in essence put limits on Ukraine, saying this war is going to be fought on your soil and not on Russian soil,” said Philip Breedlove, a retired four-star Air Force general who was NATO’s supreme allied commander for Europe when Russia invaded Crimea in 2014. “To give Russia sanctuary from which to fight, without fear of reproach, is absolutely absurd. It makes no military sense.”

• Russian cyberattacks on Ukraine’s critical infrastructure could equate to war crimes, Ukraine said.
• Ukraine is gathering evidence of Russian cyberattacks linked to military strikes, per Politico.
• The coordinated efforts directly impact Ukrainian civilians, said Ukraine’s top cyber official.

A senior Ukrainian cybersecurity official said Russian cyberattacks on critical and civilian infrastructure could equate to war crimes.

Victor Zhora, the chief digital transformation officer at the State Service of Special Communication and Information Protection of Ukraine (SSSCIP), told Politico that Ukrainian officials are gathering evidence of Russian cyberattacks to share with the International Criminal Court (ICC) in The Hague.

The cyberattacks in focus are those linked to more traditional military attacks, said Zhora, who leads cybersecurity operations for SSSCIP, per Politico.

“When we observe the situation in cyberspace we notice some coordination between kinetic strikes and cyberattacks, and since the majority of kinetic attacks are organized against civilians — being a direct act of war crime — supportive actions in cyber can be considered as war crimes,” Zhora told Politico.

In the interview, the cybersecurity official cited several examples of Russian cyber warfare linked to military strikes, including an attack on DTEK, Ukraine’s largest private investor in the energy industry, last July.

That month, DTEK said in a press release that Russia carried out a cyberattack on its infrastructure at the same time as a missile attack on the Kryvorizka power station.

“Their thermal power plant was shelled, and simultaneously, their corporate network was attacked,” Zhora told Politico of the incident. “It’s directed and planned activity from Russians, which they did both in conventional domain and in cyber domain.”

Zhora noted other examples of coordinated attacks in Odesa, Lviv, and Mykolaiv, Politico reported.

The cybersecurity official said that shelling was supported by cyberattacks on “local authorities, websites, or on local internet service providers,” per the media outlet.

A June 2022 Microsoft intelligence report highlighted numerous examples of coordinated kinetic and cyberattacks on Ukraine by Russia-backed groups.

These types of coordinated efforts directly impact Ukrainian civilians by disrupting the IT infrastructure, power grids, telecommunications, and critical infrastructure they depend on, Zhora told Politico.

Russia’s attacks on Ukrainian civilian infrastructure, including energy facilities, were last month described by the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights as possible war crimes.

Russian President Vladimir Putin confirmed last month that Russia is targeting energy infrastructure but accused Ukrainian forces of doing it first. “Yes, we are doing it, but who started it?” Putin said in a video reported on by Politico.

Russia has been accused of multiple war crimes since it launched its invasion of Ukraine in February 2022. Ukraine’s prosecutor general, Andriy Kostin, said in September that his office had documented some 34,000 potential war crimes committed by Russian forces.

Investigators are looking into events in Bucha, Mariupol, and the rape and torture of children, with the idea that these could be brought before judges in The Hague.

We are just thinking about it. They weren’t shy to openly talk about it during the past years,” Putin said, referring to the U.S. policy, as he attended a summit in Kyrgyzstan of a Moscow-dominated economic alliance of ex-Soviet nations.

For years, the Kremlin has expressed concern about U.S. efforts to develop the so-called Conventional Prompt Global Strike capability that envisions hitting an adversary’s strategic targets with precision-guided conventional weapons anywhere in the world within one hour.

“Speaking about a disarming strike, maybe it’s worth thinking about adopting the ideas developed by our U.S. counterparts, their ideas of ensuring their security,” Putin said with a thin smile, noting that such a preemptive strike was intended to knock out command facilities.

He claimed that Russia already has commissioned hypersonic weapons capable of carrying out such a strike, while the U.S. hasn’t yet deployed them. He also claimed that Russia now has cruise missiles that surpass their U.S. equivalents.

While Putin appeared to refer to conventional precision-guided weapons when he talked about possibly mimicking the U.S. strategy, he specifically noted that the U.S. hasn’t ruled out the first use of nuclear weapons.

“If the potential adversary believes that it can use the theory of a preemptive strike and we don’t, it makes us think about the threats posed by such ideas in other countries’ defensive posture,” he said.

In Washington, advisers to President Joe Biden viewed Putin’s comments as “saber-rattling” and another veiled warning that he could deploy a tactical nuclear weapon, according to a U.S. official who was not authorized to comment and spoke on the condition of the anonymity.

The official noted that Russian military doctrine has long stated that Moscow reserves the right to first use of a nuclear weapon in response to large scale military aggression.

John Erath, senior policy director for the Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation, also viewed Putin’s statement as yet another attempt to raise the nuclear threat.

“He doesn’t quite say we’re going to launch nuclear weapons, but he wants the dialogue in the U.S. and Europe to be, ’The longer this war goes on, the greater the threat of nuclear weapons might be used,’” Erath said.

Putin was asked Wednesday at a Kremlin conference whether Russia could commit to forswearing a first strike and responded that such an obligation might prevent Russia from tapping its nuclear arsenal even if it came under a nuclear attack.

“If it doesn’t use it first under any circumstances, it means that it won’t be the second to use it either, because the possibility of using it in case of a nuclear strike on our territory will be sharply limited,” he responded.

He elaborated on that answer Friday, saying Russia’s nuclear doctrine is based on the “launch on warning” concept, which envisions nuclear weapons’ use in the face of an imminent nuclear attack spotted by its early warning systems.

“When the early warning system receives a signal about a missile attack, we launch hundreds of missiles that are impossible to stop,” he said, smiling. “Enemy missile warheads would inevitably reach the territory of the Russian Federation. But nothing would be left of the enemy too, because it’s impossible to intercept hundreds of missiles. And this, of course, is a factor of deterrence.”

Russia’s nuclear doctrine states the country can use nuclear weapons if it comes under a nuclear strike or if it faces an attack with conventional weapons that threatens “the very existence” of the Russian state.

Since sending Russian troops into Ukraine in February, Putin has repeatedly said that Moscow was ready to use “all available means” to protect its territory and has rejected Western criticism of nuclear saber-rattling.

“I understand that ever since nuclear weapons, the weapons of mass destruction have appeared, all people — the entirety of humankind — have been worried what will happen to the planet and all of us,” he said.

Speaking Friday at U.S. Strategic Command, which has responsibility for the nation’s nuclear weapons, Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin said Putin’s repeated threats were irresponsible.

“As the Kremlin continues its cruel and unprovoked war of choice against Ukraine, the whole world has seen Putin engage in deeply irresponsible nuclear saber-rattling,” he said in a reference to Putin’s earlier nuclear threats without addressing his latest remarks. “So make no mistake, nuclear powers have a profound responsibility to avoid provocative behavior and to lower the risk of proliferation and to prevent escalation and nuclear war.”

—-

Aamer Madhani and Tara Copp in Washington contributed.

cited https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/putin-says-russia-could-adopt-us-preemptive-strike-concept/ar-AA156lpb?cvid=b8619c5afaa941dba85aa9eb815c32b6

Russia invades Ukraine in largest European attack since WWII

Russian forces invaded Ukraine on Thursday by land, air and sea in the largest military attack of one state against another on the European continent since the Second World War.

Russia’s all-out attack on Ukraine has killed at least 57 people and wounded 169 during the first day of President Vladimir Putin’s full-scale invasion, Ukraine’s Health Minister Oleh Lyashko said Thursday.

President Biden said Thursday afternoon that he’s reached a full agreement with G7 leaders to limit Russia’s ability to be part of the global economy, stunt their ability to finance and grow Russia’s military and impair their ability to compete in a high-tech, 21st century economy.

Secretary of Defense Gen. Lloyd Austin ordered the deployment of approximately 7,000 additional U.S. troops to Germany in a move aimed at bolstering NATO defense and deterring Russian aggression.

The wide-ranging attack on Ukraine hit cities and bases with airstrikes or shelling, as civilians piled into trains and cars to flee the country. Ukraine’s government said Russian tanks and troops rolled across the border in a “full-scale war” that could rewrite the geopolitical order.

After several hours of fierce battle, Russian forces seized control of the Chernobyl nuclear power plant, and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy earlier Thursday raised concerns of repeated of the 1986 disaster.

A senior U.S. Defense Department official told reporters earlier Thursday that Putin’s goal appears to be seizing the capital of Kyiv, “decapitating the government” and “installing his own method of governance.”

He claimed Putin indicated this himself during his overnight speech.

According to the U.S. Embassy Riga, U.S. troops from the Army’s 173rd Airborne Brigade arrived in Latvia Thursday morning. They were the first U.S. forces being repositioned to the Baltics to demonstrate the U.S. commitment to Allies and bolster NATO’s eastern flank.A second axis extends from north central Ukraine to the south from Belarus toward Kyiv. A third axis in the south is spreading from Crimea, which Russia annexed in 2014, to the Ukrainian city of Kherson.

Ukrainian Ambassador to the U.S., Oksana Markarova, called for Russia to be removed from SWIFT, or the Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication, and for allies to support them through devastating financial sanctions against Russia, through defensive anti-air supplies, and by cutting all diplomatic ties with Russia.

Recognizing Ukraine is not a member of NATO, Markarova said she did not expect U.S. troops to defend Ukraine but expected other support give their “strategic friendship.”

British Prime Minister Boris Johnson condemned Russia’s attack on Ukraine before the House of Commons Thursday and moved to freeze assets of Russian banks. He announced the “largest ever” set of sanctions against Russia and vowed to eliminate Europe’s reliance on Russian oil and gas.

Anti-Russian demonstrations have popped up across Europe and in the U.S. in cities including New York, London, Dublin, Edinburgh, Paris and Berlin. Meanwhile, Russian authorities began cracking down on anti-war protests across the country, reportedly arresting more than a thousand demonstrators in several cities.

Ukraine Foreign Minister Dmytro Kuleba said the country severed diplomatic relations with Russia and called “on all our partners to do the same. By this concrete step you will demonstrate that you stand by Ukraine and categorically reject the most blatant act of aggression in Europe since WWII.”

While the attack on Ukraine was largely condemned by the West, it’s unclear whether forces will intervene, something Russian President Vladimir Putin warned would show grave consequences. NATO is sending additional forces to bolster defenses in eastern Europe.

Oleksiy Arestovich, an adviser to Zelenskyy, said Thursday about 40 people have been killed so far in the Russian attack on the country, The Associated Press reported. Several dozen people have been wounded. He didn’t specify whether casualties included civilians.

Zelenskyy said he would be providing weapons to citizens who want to help defend the country, instructing them on Twitter to “be ready to support Ukraine in the squares of our cities.”

“The future of the Ukrainian people depends on every Ukrainian,” he said Thursday, urging all those who can defend the country to come to the Interior Ministry’s assembly facilities.

Russia “has embarked on a path of evil,” the president said, but Ukraine “is defending itself & won’t give up its freedom no matter what Moscow thinks.” Zelenskyy said sanctions would be lifted “on all citizens of Ukraine who are ready to defend our country as part of territorial defense with weapons in hands.”

“Russia treacherously attacked our state in the morning, as Nazi Germany did in #2WW years,” Zelenskyy tweeted. “As of today, our countries are on different sides of world history.”

The attacks came first from the air. Later, Ukrainian authorities described ground invasions in multiple regions, and border guards released security camera footage Thursday showing a line of Russian military vehicles crossing into Ukraine’s government-held territory from Russian-annexed Crimea in the south.

In the north, video showed tanks rolling over the border from the Russian ally of Belarus through Senkivka. Russian forces also landed in the port cities of Odessa and Mariupol.

The Russian military claimed to have wiped out Ukraine’s entire air defenses in a matter of hours, and European authorities declared the country’s airspace an active conflict zone.

Russia’s claims could not immediately be verified, nor could Ukrainian ones that it had shot down several Russian aircraft, according to The Associated Press. The Ukrainian air defense system and air force date back to the Soviet era and are dwarfed by Russia’s massive air power and precision weapons.

Western counties were anticipating hundreds of thousands of people to flee from the attack on Ukraine, Reuters reported. Highways outside of Kyiv swelled with traffic Thursday leading to Poland, and lines of people waited for gasoline, to withdraw money or to purchase other supplies, such as food and water.

Kyiv Mayor Vitaly Klitschko advised residents to stay home unless they are involved in critical work and urged them to prepare go-bags with necessities and documents if they need to evacuate.

Ukraine said columns of Russian troops were passing over the border into the Ukrainian regions of Chernihiv, Kharkiv and Luhansk, Reuters reported. Russian missiles also targeted several Ukrainian cities, and explosions could be heard before dawn in the capital of Kyiv, home to 3 million people.

After weeks of denying plans to invade, Putin justified his actions in an overnight televised address, asserting that the attack was needed to protect civilians in eastern Ukraine — a false claim the U.S. had predicted he would make as a pretext for an invasion. He accused the U.S. and its allies of ignoring Russia’s demands to prevent Ukraine from joining NATO and for security guarantees.

In a reminder of Russia’s nuclear power, Putin said “no one should have any

doubts that a direct attack on our country will lead to the destruction and horrible consequences for any potential aggressor.”

Among Putin’s pledges was to “denazify” Ukraine. World War II looms large in Russia, after the Soviet Union suffered more deaths than any country while fighting Adolf Hitler’s forces. Kremlin propaganda sometimes paints Ukrainian nationalists as neo-Nazis seeking revenge — a charge historians call disinformation. Ukraine is now led by a Jewish president who lost relatives in the Holocaust.

The head of the National Police of Ukraine on Thursday raised all units to combat alarm and warned civilians not to go outside in uniform or tactile clothing and to report all suspicious objects or people, especially those with red items on their clothing, to a special police line.

Zelenskyy has declared martial law in the country.

“Regarding the aggression of the Russian Federation in Ukraine, police have intensified measures to ensure law and order on the streets,” Ukrainian national police said in a statement. “The Head of the National Police of Ukraine also ordered the issuance of weapons to the veterans of Internal Affairs who have expressed willing to protect Ukraine from the Russian Federation’s armed aggression.”