Sec. of State Blinken Wants to Bomb Russia Itself and Provoke a Thermonuclear War
811,342,343,059 out of 811,342,343,080 people think this is the most bat-shit crazy dangerous evil idea there ever was or could be!
As reported by Alexander Mercouris in his video below, Secretary of State Blinken is now advocating for the U.S. to give Kiev a green light to use U.S. weapons to launch attacks inside pre-1914 Russia. Russia has made it clear that nations that supply weapons for such an attack are legitimate targets for a Russian counter-attack, and that if Russia perceives such attacks on itself as an existential threat (i.e., a threat to its regime and status as a sovereign nation) then it will use its nuclear bombs in retaliation.
As Mercouris also points out, never at any time during the Cold War did either the United States nor the Soviet Union allow one of its proxy states to launch an attack directly on the other nation. This mutual agreement during the Cold War prevented the outbreak of thermonuclear war. But now Sec. of State Blinken wants to reject that mutual agreement and thereby increase the risk of thermonuclear war.
We are thus one more step further along the road to thermonuclear war.
Earlier along that road Putin in a speech announcing the invasion of Ukraine on Feb. 24, 2022 gave a veiled but unmistakable warning that if the West intervened in what he has called a "special military operation" he could use nuclear weapons in response.​
"No matter who tries to stand in our way or ... create threats for our country and our people, they must know that Russia will respond immediately, and the consequences will be such as you have never seen in your entire history," he said according to a Kremlin translation.Â
[https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/might-russia-use-nuclear-weapons-ukraine-war-2022-05-06/ ]
Just recently Russia began nuclear drills:
Here are what I consider to be the most important, though censored in the West, facts about this threat of thermonuclear war.
The mission of Russia’s special military operation in Ukraine is a just mission, as I explain here.
The Russian government is a government of the haves that oppresses the have-nots, as I explain in footnotes 9, 10 and 15 in the same article linked to above.
An egalitarian government would never use nuclear weapons, as I will discuss next, but because Putin’s government is NOT an egalitarian government it very well might use nuclear weapons.
Nuclear Weapons?
As I have written earlier elsewhere, "An egalitarian foreign policy would never deliberately direct, or threaten to direct, violence against non-combatants. This means destroying our nuclear bombs unilaterally. It also means never invading other nations to direct violence against non-combatants as the U.S. did in Vietnam and Iraq." I condemn Putin's (and the U.S.'s) threats to use nuclear weapons, no matter what the circumstances; egalitarians everywhere should do likewise.
Are Nuclear Weapons the Only Way to Prevent Being Destroyed by US/NATO the Way Libya (Without Nuclear Weapons) Was, and the Way North Korea (With Nuclear Weapons) Is Not?​
There are two things that can make the rulers of the US/NATO fear to attack a nation. The first thing is fear that the nation will counter-attack with nuclear weapons. The second thing (which is not currently a factor, but could be in the future as discussed below) is fear that a US/NATO attack on a nation will strengthen egalitarian revolution and thereby threaten to remove the US/NATO rulers from power.
The reason this second thing is not currently a factor is because Russia (obviously!) is not an egalitarian nation/society and, of course, it is not promoting egalitarian revolution in the rest of the world. But if Russia were an egalitarian society and if it were explicitly and clearly supporting the egalitarians (who are most people!) in the rest of the world--including inside the US/NATO nations--by supporting all of peoples' struggles to make their society more equal and democratic, then the general public in all of these nations would understand, despite the US/NATO propaganda, that an attack on Russia--especially a threatened nuclear attack!--was an attack on them, on egalitarians everywhere in the world. The general public everywhere would be made angry--FURIOUS!--by any attack on Russia, and any such attack or its credible threat would likely increase the general public's efforts to remove US/NATO rulers from power.
But because Russia is not such an egalitarian nation, it is quite easy for US/NATO to enlist the support of the general public in many nations for an attack on Russia. Russian Tsars and subsequently its extremely anti-democratic Marxist rulers in the past attacked good people in other nations and thereby created popular support there for any US/NATO attack on Russia today. Elsewhere, the general public has no particular reason for seeing an attack on Russia as an attack on themselves, since they know that Russian rulers are essentially a plutocracy enriching themselves at the expense of the have-nots; why, they understandably might ask (especially if Russia's rulers are threatening to kill us with nuclear bombs!), should we have-nots anywhere have any sympathy for the Russian rulers when they are attacked by US/NATO?
The reason, therefore, why Russia's rulers today are so reliant on the immoral threat to use nuclear weapons is this: Russia is not an egalitarian society.
Egalitarians should not support Russia's current policy of using nuclear weapons only in retaliation after a first nuclear attack on itself (even though Russia's current invasion into Ukraine is for a just cause of defending Russian-speaking people against Nazi oppression) because if nuclear weapons are used 90% or more of the world's population (almost all good and decent innocent people) will be killed! We should work to build the egalitarian revolutionary movement everywhere, and defend all just struggles but without using nuclear weapons. In doing this we have no guarantee of success; but in resorting to using nuclear weapons we guarantee the worst possible failure.