Euro-American Prospects for Nukular War With Russia

Britain and the United States have led the efforts to bring a renaissance of Cold War to the post-Cold War era with some measured success. It is now possible to envision a nuclear conflict some time ahead even if the odds of war are low. What diplomacy has made the prospects brighter for nuclear war?

For the answer to that question we must consider the distant past in the immediate post-Cold War environment and even the critical transition period to the new era of peace. President Reagan’s effort to end the Cold War coincided with changes in the Soviet world view simultaneously with economic hardships the Soviet Empire experienced in competition with the western economy. Yet there were complex and subtler reasons for the Soviet Union to end the Cold War and transition to the free market system that presently has to a certain extent excluded the New Russia from the global free market system to the best of its capacity.

Russia had to feed its vast Muslim population in arid Muslim majority districts within the Soviet Union. The Afghanistan War proved that Muslim resistance to a godless atheist’s communist system in defense of its religious ideals would be strong and present a potential internal problem for the Soviet Union. Islam was a dagger embedded near the heart of the Soviet Union that would try to twist its way to the heart and kill it over time. Ending the Soviet Union allowed Russia to rid itself of the Muslim problems including food redistribution and security. Reducing the threat of nuclear conflict was also an incentive. In fact a reduced scale, leaner, meaner Russia with a free market system stood ahead as a better way to enter the challenges of the new Millennium yet obviously the west did not allow it to work out that way.

The west and its one percenters viewed the new Russia as something to be preyed upon; the strong take advantage of weakness. To the victor go the spoils. President Clinton moved Russia to give up many of its nuclear weapons with leverage. The NATO attack on Serbia demonstrated the powerless condition of Russia to disagree with the west on military affairs in the aftermath of the breakup of Soviet command and control structures. Boris Yeltsin gave up the Ukraine in ending the Soviet Union on a signature. He formed C.I.S. He gave up as much of the former Soviet States including those that were historically part of Russia as he possibly could. Fear and pragmatism were perhaps factors. NATO was dominant and Anglo-American leadership tended to regard it as their right to dominate the post-Soviet Russia real estate. President Bill Clinton was an agent for Anglo-American hegemony over post-Cold War Russia. Not only did he place President Yeltsin on the White House law running about stone drunk in his underpants, he deregulated Wall Street and unleashed the Wall Street one percent lust for rapid acquisitions, takeover and economic growth that would enrich the one-percent that eventually resulted in the global derivatives crash and the exporting of millions of U.S. jobs to China and elsewhere, NAFTA and so forth. None at the time realized the extrema and collateral nature of the one percent front. It was an invisible elephant most did not anticipate arising from wonderland. Yet it did.

At that point Russia was doomed as far as economic equality went with the west. Americans largely forgot the Russia nuclear arsenal and didn’t worry about it during the prosperity of the 1990s and even after 9-11. Russia was tame and could be contained and sanctioned into submission as was needed if it did not elect a cooperative President willing to let the one percent economically rape Russia and its land. Unfortunately for the one percent, President Yeltsin hand-picked a strong successor.  President Vladimir Putin, who choose to rebuild Russia with such tools as he had available in large, rich nation with a small yet scientifically educated population. Russia retained its nuclear and chemical weapons, even upgrading them, and participated in the global economy so far as the one percent did not put off limits with sanctions.

The United States media became a mouthpiece for the one percent and the government leadership became sycophants of one percent policy. The Supreme Court ruled by decree and forced homosexual marriage upon the nation with the full support of the one percent. As a result, not only must Russia elect a President who would cooperate with rape of its vast natural resources, it must also satisfy the homosexual and feminist as well as new anti-Christian evolutionary populist elements of the west that hate Russia for not dittoing those new political positions evolved in England and pulled over the United States as a sort of Knighthood States of Queendom in drag broadcast tailored to youth, if Russia wants to be accepted as a full and spineless jellyfish member in good standing in the free market democracies of the west.

Diplomacy could easily have prevented a return to something like a renewed Cold War, yet diplomacy can only represent the real interests of nations unless it is intended to deceive, so interestingly diplomacy was doomed to fail concurrent with the rise of too big to fail financial institutions, zero-interest loans to the one percenters from the U.S. Federal Reserve and the transition of the Democratic political party to being a leader for left-wing corporatism drawing the feminist, homosexual, non-white groups into an atheist anti-Christian coalition pursuing interests politically other than broad economic class based politics. Vast tax cuts were affirmed by a Democratic Congressional minority and President Obama who needed only to let them expire to receive a complete tabula rasa for negotiating custom tax cuts benefiting the poor and middle class rather than surrendering complete and total advantage to the richest. President Putin finds himself in the unenviable position of encountering the naked west that is not only not a good and respectful neighbor that loves Russia as itself, it faces a British led evolutionary Plutocratic supremacy that would conquer the world in something of an economic over-reach. So it is thus useful to consider the disregarded prospects for nuclear War between Russia and the west should Russian leadership tire of the incessant attack and sanctions used as economic leverage tools routinely.

The poisoning of a Russia double agent from military intelligence; a traitor worthy of the death penalty under Russian law, with some sort of military nerve agent; perhaps GA, GB or VX, may have had a more subtle message embedded within. It may have been a warning shot over the bow of Anglo-American hegemony letting them now that the use of weapons of mass destruction on London is not unthinkable given the perpetual Anglo-American abuse of Russia economically and in the media.

That brings me to the consideration of war between Russia and England. In September 1988 I was completing Nuclear, Biological, and Chemical School in a U.S. Army school before returning home to Fairbanks Alaska. One happy experience at school was flying about in a helicopter practicing searching for nuclear fallout. We learned something about wind drift and radiometers, alpha, beta and gamma radiation characteristic and so forth. I had personally hoped that war would not occur and worked to understand the potential enemy with Russian history courses. Ending the Cold War was my goal in military service so I am disappointed that the creature has returned and American leadership is so much the reason (under British influence of course). Ending serious conflicts is a two way affair; in wars generally both parties believe they are right. One utilizes self-defense while another attacks. In my opinion Russia has the interior lines in the present pre-war situation and the west the exterior. One could perhaps find consonance in Clausewitz and Sun Tzu for that viewpoint, yet the western media propaganda of course paints it the other way; that Russia is trying to reestablish the territories of the former Soviet Union that it got only after rolling up the Nazi forces that invaded those nations and properties during the second world war along the Eastern front.

In 1989 after the Exxon Valdez oil spill I took some creative writing courses and science fiction etc. at the University of Alaska-Fairbanks. I mailed a science fiction story all over the place trying to sell it, including to a woman’s magazine in Moscow. Later I went on active duty in September 1989 and attended the Army stinger shoulder-fired rocket school. Late in the year, the day I was to get a security clearance, a Sergeant handed me a rejection letter from the woman’s magazine in Moscow rejecting my story with the information that it was too violent; the ending of the story had skyrockets being fired over Coney Island. In my opinion the Russian verdict was too harsh. A month or two later the Soviet Army troops withdrew hundreds of thousands of soldiers from East Germany to Russia. The Cold War was over; now it is back.

So in my opinion regarding the course of a potential hot war with Russia, this is it. Russia would use cruise missiles and ICBMs to take out a hundred U.S. cities and 15 European, and maybe Shanghai, Beijing and Mecca, while the U.S.A. would end yet would launch nuclear weapons on ten Russian cities effectively ending Russia yet not quite starting the dreaded nuclear winter in full. It would be a milder nuclear winter of shorter duration. World population would decrease to four billion more or less through starvation and economic collapse. The world would continue without the U.S.A. or Russia, England or France and Germany, Poland and China, yet people would survive from all those nations and the one percent would not arise for quite a while.

It is remarkable the way society repeats its own historical mistakes and walks blindly into its own traps.

In the day I enjoyed reading world history. I got a score of 99% on CLEP General Social Science and History exams and the Civilization to 1648. I sought to read of every continent, to find something I was entirely unfamiliar with and so I read Russian history too. Needless to say the political and leadership elites of the west usually are ignorant of anything except the history of western Europe or the United States although that has expanded to include some Oriental, Latin American and African history these days in a minor sort of way. In some respects Russia and Vlad Putin who will probably be in office another six years before hand-picking a strong successor, is required to be the sane player strait man to the wise-guys of the one percent howling at the gates. It’s a tough place to be with Russia having a history of invasion after invasion from the east, west and south. The one-percenters are insatiably greedy and U.S. democracy has been reduced to a condition roughly equivalent to that of the Iranian Majlis working the will of elites. It is a democracy just symbolically and all policy must follow that of the corporatists and their media eventually or be marginalized. Such a state of affair is of course dysfunctional.

The United States has two primary Holy texts and a third new one comparatively. They are the US. Constitution, Adam Smith’s The Wealth of Nations and Charles Darwin’s On the Origin of Species. The Bible formerly shared the Holy text role with the Constitution yet it has been demoted by Harvard elites, scientists and leftist-atheists. Notably though two of three primary Holy texts are more than two centuries old and the third is nearly so. Without reform of the economic text parameters and the constitution to recognize reality the third text serves as the anything goes guideline for the one percenters having everything their way, and that isn’t good. It is worth remembering that those who fought the ideological battle with the former Soviet Union and its communist system fought again atheism as Christians-even forming an ad hoc alliance with Muslims. They also defended free enterprise and political self-determination. Those are values no longer supported by the western elites in preference for globalism, atheism and corporatism.

The Danish philosopher Soren Kierkegaard wrote in a book titled The Concept of Irony, about the incompleteness regarding world-view that society inevitably possesses. It is a kind of Godelian Incompleteness Theorem for macro—economic and social politics. People commonly misunderstand the way things work and in working for self-interest too narrowly work against the actual interests of society. One learns that Kierkegaard modeled himself after Socrates as best he could in attempting to bring society to better understand its own rationale and circumstance. The west in regarding Russia as an enemy for convenience while in a superior power relation endangers its own existence needlessly. That is the present irony and illustration of Kierkegaard’s Concept of Irony.

Russia has always had a strong leader. It has virtually never had democracy. It is therefore unreasonable to expect Russia to perfectly evolve a democracy after the collapse of the former Soviet Union. It is especially unreasonable in an atmosphere where external threats from the West and Islam challenge Russia’s development.

Russia’s masses were serfs until 1867. After that they had little effect on voting and selection of the leadership that was still royal with a Tsar and Aristocrats and a social table of ranks. There were many Russians that sought to revolt against the Russian government. One was Lenin’s brother who was executed by the Tsar. That stimulated V.I. Lenin to evolve from law school to revolutionary. Americans should realize that in human history and especially Europe societies overthrew their oppressive royal leadership and established democracy only rarely and at great cost. In 16th century Holland’s people were dying of starvation as the royals lived the high life through the winter. In fact Europe was great at war and war technology and incessantly fought other nations and often invaded Russia to occupy, plunder and withdraw. Wars in Europe stopped only because there was no way for them to go further; Russia and the United States were victors, each had nuclear weapons and Britain had lost its empire. Yet with the Serbian conflict Europe demonstrated that it has not lost the taste for blood if it is opportune.

The Russian revolution that occurred within the collapse of the former Soviet Union brought forth a political phenomenon never before experienced; a complete political change in a great nation without bloodshed. Russia was challenged to create a new social structure, political economy and order starting from scratch. That was a challenge that easily might have required a half century to accomplish. Today and for some time there are critics that expect a perfect democracy to naturally arise and perhaps that the private sector with a little government support would assure that no Russian would starve or lack needed jobs and medical care etc. . . . Of course those are and were entirely unreal expectations.

I believe the Italian Dictator Mussolini-had a PhD He wasn’t dumb and invented the political economic system known as corporatism. Fundamentally the corporate sector and government sector work together as such as during the 2008 U.S. banking and financial crash. Corporate leaders such as Henry Paulson moved from Goldman Sachs to Government to design corporate bailouts. The Federal Reserve issued trillions of dollars of zero-interest loans. The economist Jeff Sachs worked with Russia to reform its economy with only partial success. To a large extent the U.S.A. has moved away from its revolutionary origin with egalitarianism that removed concentrated British aristocratic wealth and power to Mussolini’s system of corporatism. Since the exemplary democracy of the United States is abandoning democracy for corporatism what should one expect of Russia? Should it evolve a democracy with a minimum income for the poor and free walk-in medical care for citizens, or should it more likely evolve a form of corporatism with strong leaders first over corporations that may have plundered the industrial carcass of the former communist state enterprises before drawing people to work for strong nationalistic corporations?

Personally I don’t like corporatism. It is owned by one percenters that prevent any business or tax policy that removes power or control from the extreme minority. Business can make hostile takeovers, nations should not. Fundamentally corporatism is a drag on human social, intellectual and economic development though some progress continues even so. It would have been better for the west, and still would, to respect Russia’s real historical boundaries and interests and work with it carefully and tolerantly (the tall or powerful must tolerate) and with patience over the next half century. Constructive engagement is probably better than war.