Vi har i flera artiklar tidigare diskuterat risken för storkrig. Ökar risken för krig eller inte? Finns risk för världskrig? Hur stor ungefär är i så fall risken?
Jag publicerar nedan en analys av den undersökande historikern Eric Zuesse, författare bl.a. till ”They’re Not Even Close: The Democratic vs. Republican Economic Records, 1910-2010. Artikeln har publicerats på Tredje världskriget närmare än någonsin Denna artikel har många länkar och referenser! Det finns andra viktiga aspekter på frågan som jag hoppas kunna återkomma till.

* Jag tror att risken för storkrig och för krig som engagerar Sverige (förutom Sveriges deltagande i krigen i Mali och Irak) har ökat. Möjligen har risken för storkrig minskat efter valet av Trump till president Återkommer om detta!

*Zuesses artikel skrevs före presidentvalet.

* Daily Mail skriver nu ”The Kremlin says a victory for Clinton would have sparked World War Three and electing Trump saved the world from Armageddon. News of Trump’s election was greeted with jubilation in Moscow
Presidential adviser Sergei Glazyev said: ’Americans had two choices: World War Three or multilateral peace’
He described Hillary Clinton as a ’symbol of war’
Vladimir Putin has said he hopes for an improvement of US-Russian relations under Trump.”
Daily Mail

* Massmedia rapporterar USA:s ÖB – Hillary Clintons Syrienpolitik innebär risk för världskrig Blogginlägget om detta
Ordföranden i den amerikanska Joint Chiefs of Staff marinkårsgeneralen ”Fighting Joe” Dunford varnade kongressen för att tillstyrka en flygförbudszon, en central del av Hillarys utrikespolitiska strategi för Syrien, då detta skulle kunna resultera i ett tredje världskrig.
Under vittnesmål inför senatens utskott för Armed Services i slutet av september alarmerade general Dunford för att förändring som blir allt tydligare i Washington efter kollapsen av den vapenvila som förhandlades fram av USA och Ryssland i Syrien skulle kunna resultera i ett stort internationellt krig som han inte är beredd att förespråka.
Senator Roger Wicker (Republikan) frågade om Hillary Clintons förslag till en flygförbudszon i Syrien som svar på anklagelserna om att Ryssland och Syrien har intensifierat sin luftbombardemang av militanter i östra Aleppo sedan kollapsen av vapenvilan.

Men den amerikanska generalstabschefen menade att politiken var alltför hökaktig även för militära ledare, och sa att ”… att kontrollera luftrummet i Syrien skulle medföra krig mot Syrien och Ryssland. Det är en ganska grundläggande beslut som jag inte kommer att ta”.

* Nu börjar Trump att liksom Obama utsättas för systematisk (des)information, en daglig hjärntvätt av den subversiva, terroriststödjande tortyrorganisationen CIA, vilket lär öka risken för storkrig.

* Jag brukar vänligen informera ”Twitterland” om de flesta av mina blogginlägg och här finns många inlägg om ett Tredje Världskrig bara de sista dagarna.

Artikeln.
Vi är närmare ett världskrig nu än någon gång sedan Kuba-krisen 1962.
Under det kalla kriget var de två sidorna eniga om att varje krig mellan den kapitalistiska sidan och den socialistiska sidan skulle eskalera till kärnvapenkrig mellan USA och Sovjetunionen och medföra en ömsesidig förstörelse (Mutually Assured Destruction, M.A.D.). Därför utbröt inget krig mellan USA och Sovjet under 45-årsperioden kallad ”det kalla kriget. Kärnvapen är vapen som sista utväg för att förhindra förlust. Det är vad de existerar för. Om Japan hade leverans kärnvapen, då i slutet av andra världskriget skulle ha varit avsevärt försenat. Japan haft kärnvapen i slutet av andra världskriget skulle mycket varit annorlunda.

Men M.A.D. är fungerar bara så länge inte en av de två sidorna börjar tro att den kan vinna ett kärnvapenkrig. Under åren före 2006 började man inom USA:s ledning börja tror att man skulle kunna vinna en kärnvapenkrig mot Ryssland kärnvapen blev nu det avgörande vapnet i en nya USA-strategi för att vinna ett krig (called “nuclear primacy”).

Efter 1991, när Warszawapakten inte längre existerade, inbjöd Nato bjudit in alla de tidigare delstaterna i Sovjetunionen utom Ryssland (vilket indikerar NATO:s fortsatta fientlighet mot Ryssland) och även Sovjetunionens forna Warszawapaktsallierade så att Nato kom att sträcka sig ända fram till det försvagade Rysslands egna gränser. Detta hade USA vägrat att låta Sovjetunionen göra 1962, när Sovjetunionen ville placera kärnvapenmissiler i Kuba bara 15 mil från USA:s gräns.

Nu när USA och dess allierade tror att kärnvapenövermakt är på väg att uppnås, så kan man ändra strategin så att man uppger att Ryssland inte kan besegras med konventionella vapen varför användning av kärnvapen är nödvändigt direkt vid krig.Så blir en kärnvapenattack motiverad” som ett ”nödvändig defensiv svar” mot Ryssland.

USA och NATO håller på att bygga upp sina konventionella invasionsstyrkor nära Rysslands gränser. Detta inkluderar även vissa amerikanska allierade som inte är i Nato – som Sverige (Anders). ”Motiveringen” för denna ansamling av invasions-styrkor inpå Rysslands gränser är ”försvar mot ”Rysslands aggression” alltsedan Ryssland gjorde det möjligt för invånarna i Krim att återförenas Krim som del av Ryssland i mars 2014. Detta är det proklamerade skälet för NATO:s uppbyggnad mot vad som kan bli Tredje världskriget.
Sedan 19 februari 2016 har USA lagrat stridsvagnar och artilleri, tillräckligt ”för att stödja 15.000 Marines” i ”hemliga” norska grottor. Norge har en 200 mila gräns med Ryssland. CNN:s nyhetsrapport om det åtföljdes av en video rubriken ”Ryssland avslöjar aggressiva militära planer”. Det rapporterade att Rysslands demokratiskt valde president Vladimir Putin, flyttade soldater och vapen mot Norges gräns. (Hur skulle USA reagera om Ryssland skulle lagra invasion-utrustning och soldater i Mexiko nära den amerikanska gränsen?) Hitlers Tyskland använde dessa typer av media-taktik, men den här gången Obamas Amerika gör det.) Marine Corps Times skrev 24 oktober, ”Mer än 300 Marines väg till Norge i januari ”.

USA, och dess kraftigt utvidgade Nato, omger alltså nu Ryssland inte bara med sina tanks etc., men med sina missiler och bombplan, inpå och i närheten av Rysslands gränser. Flygtiden från start till kärnvapenbombning (om en markinvasion i Ryssland möter nederlag) kommer att vara mindre än tio minuter, ibland till och med mindre än det tar för Ryssland att få sina egna missiler klara för vedergällning mot vår. En amerikansk blitz kärnvapenattack mot Ryssland kan tänkas bli ett helt ensidigt krig. Här är hur det scenariot – i slutet av fysisk M.A.D. – Har faktiskt blivit eftersträvas av den amerikanska regeringen (och nödvändig bakgrundshistoria för USA: s krigs borrar på Rysslands gränser) mål:

Följaktligen i den nuvarande amerikanska och Nato operation på och nära Rysslands gränser, är alliansen börjar uppbyggnaden av sina traditionella invasionsstyrkor. Detta inkluderar även vissa amerikanska allierade som inte är i Nato. Den förmodade ”motivering” för denna ansamling av invasions-styrkor på Rysslands gränser är att ”försvara” mot ”Rysslands aggression” när (i mars 2014 bara några veckor efter den blodiga USA kupp i Ukraina) Ryssland gjorde det möjligt för invånarna i Krim att återförenas Krim som delen av Ryssland, där Krim hade varit tills Sovjet diktatorn Chrusjtjov godtyckligt överföras Krim till Ukraina 1954. det oenighet om Krim är den förmodade grundorsaken till NATO: s inblandning, även om Ukraina är fortfarande inte (och tidigare inte ville att vara) en medlem av Nato-alliansen. Hur som helst: detta är rationalisering för NATO: s uppbyggnad mot vad som kan bli WW III.

In 2006, the U.S. aristocracy published in the journal Foreign Affairs, from their Council on Foreign Relations, the first article which said that the U.S. goal should no longer be a continuation of M.A.D., but instead “The Rise of U.S. Nuclear Primacy”, by which the U.S. aristocracy meant the rise of America’s ability to win a nuclear war against Russia.

It established this stunning goal merely by saying that such an objective could be achieved and that it should be achieved, and by the article’s being published by the U.S. aristocracy itself (the people who control this country), and by furthermore the U.S. aristocracy not condemning and rejecting and repudiating it but simply letting that article stand with little to no public discussion (and no public debate) about it, much less with the chorus of public condemnations of it in the U.S. press, such as would have happened if America were a democracy — but this nation no longer is a democracy, it has become an aristocracy, and this aristocracy had now published the “Nuclear Primacy” article. (By contrast, in the obscure journal China Security was published in the Autumn 2006 issue the main critique against it, “The Fallacy of Nuclear Primacy”. That article had no impact.)
The Foreign Affairs article even was so bold as to assert that “U.S. leaders have always aspired to this goal” (nuclear primacy) — a wild and unsupported allegation that’s not much different from alleging that not only George W. Bush but all U.S. Presidents after World War II were aspiring to have the ability to conquer Russia (and the authors were asserting that only now was this supposedly terrific ability coming within reach). It was explicit about G.W. Bush’s having this desire: “The intentional pursuit of nuclear primacy is, moreover, entirely consistent with the United States’ declared policy of expanding its global dominance. The Bush administration’s 2002 National Security Strategy explicitly states that the United States aims to establish military primacy.” That allegation was tragically true, which is one of the reasons why Bush (like his father, who actually started the determined policy to achieve nuclear primacy) was so dangerous and harmful a President. His invasion of Iraq was merely a sympton of that deeper disease.

And, so, this article about “The Rise of U.S. Nuclear Primacy” and “The End of” M.A.D., was now — since it was published by the CFR and not rejected by any influential group — accepted within the U.S. as a goal, “Nuclear Primacy,” which the U.S. government could and should strive for. That idea, of a winnable nuclear war (winnable by the U.S., of course), was no longer heretical, no longer viewed as repugnant. In fact, this article had been introduced and accepted by Harvard University simultaneously in its longer form and simultaneously published by their scholarly journal International Security, which is the leading (it’s the world’s most influential) scholarly journal dealing with that subject, and its title there was “The End of MAD?”. (The periods are customarily removed from the acronym “M.A.D.”, perhaps in order to associate the M.A.D. concept with the pejorative term, insanity. So — at least in the United States — the termination of M.A.D. has always had a favorable ring to it, even before that goal became effectively U.S. policy, which it has been at least ever since 2006.) And no one was saying that Harvard and its journal and the CFR were the ones who were at all “mad” or anything similar, such as “insane.” The aristocracy’s stamp of approval upon the concept of nuclear primacy was clear, from at least 2006 on. Although M.A.D. continued as regards Russia’s side, it no longer remained operative thinking on America’s side. That’s now clear, and this is Russia’s predicament — and the world’s (because a nuclear war involving even just one of the two nuclear superpowers would destroy the world).

U.S. President Barack Obama is putting the goal of nuclear primacy into place, starting with implementation of Ronald Reagan’s proposed “Star Wars” Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) defense system, now called the Ballistic Missile Defense (BMD) system, and technically called by the name of its current embodiment: Lockheed Martin’s, Boeing’s, and Raytheon’s, Aegis Ashore system, which Obama first made operational in Romania on 12 May 2016. It’s designed so as to enable a surprise nuclear attack against Russia in which any missiles that Russia might be able to launch in retaliation will supposedly (if the system works 100%) be annihilated during their launch-phase. Officially, however, its purpose is to defend Europe from being attacked by Iranian missiles. Any public U.S. admission that this ‘defensive’ system is actually preparation for a blitz U.S. nuclear assault on Russia is obviously out of the question. And, obviously, Russians know that Obama is lying and that this is preparation by the U.S. for a blitz nuclear attack against Russia. The West’s ‘news’ media might be such ‘fools’ as not to be aware of that fact, but Putin has made quite clear that he is not, and he is preparing Russia to deal with it.

Obama’s action here was made possible by U.S. President George W. Bush’s 2002 unilateral termination of the 1972 Anti-Ballistic-Missile Treaty with Russia’s predecessor, the Soviet Union. Bush rushed forward with Reagan’s “Star Wars” program even despite there having been no successful tests of the necessary technology: the existing technology consistently failed but Bush decided to invest $53 billion of U.S. taxpayers’ money in it. Bush in 2004 received British Prime Minister Tony Blair’s participation and provisioning of locations and facilities to implement the plan, and Bush was also pressing both Poland and the Czech Republic to allow the U.S. to position ABMs there. Obama came into office criticizing the ABM plan and pretending not to be hostile toward Russia. He deceived Vladimir Putin into thinking that Obama sincerely wanted to pursue peace and cooperation with Russia. As soon as Obama became re-elected, his verbal smiling teeth immediately became actual glaring fangs. Then, soon after his regime overthrew in a bloody February 2014 coup the Moscow-friendly democratically elected President of Ukraine, bordering Russia, Russia started in the summer of 2014 to ignore the 1987 Intermediate Nuclear Forces Treaty, because for Washington the next step (beyond Ukraine) clearly now would be Moscow and so all bets were off.
The installation of the Aegis Ashore in Romania likewise violates that Treaty, which is one important reason why Obama lies to say that all of the Aegis Ashore facilities will be targeted against Iran — and maybe also North Korea — but never against Russia.

The full Aegis Ashore system, which will require several such sites, isn’t yet operational. NATO’s PR-arm the Atlantic Council, has mentioned among the Aegis Ashore’s benefits, that for the next such site, in Poland, “Poland announced in late April that it would buy eight Patriot missile batteries from Virginia-based Raytheon Co. in a deal that could generate at least $2.5 billion in US export content.” The U.S. government officials and their friends who have invested in Raytheon and the other ‘defense’ firms didn’t need to be informed of this by any PR person. They already knew of it from more reliable sources, and perhaps they even have invested in nuclear bunkers for themselves and their friends and their friends’ friends. Lots of money is changing hands during this build-up.

Also in 2006, later in that year, specifically on 18 November 2006, was published at Global Research, which is an independent Canadian online international site dealing with geostrategy, a superb summary of the connection that this plan has to America’s string of invasions in the Middle East. It’s titled “Plans for Redrawing the Middle East: The Project for a ‘New Middle East’,” by Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya, who explains:

It should be noted that in his book, “The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and Its Geo-strategic Imperatives,” Zbigniew Brzezinski, a former U.S. National Security Advisor, alluded to the modern Middle East as a control lever of an area he, Brzezinski, calls the Eurasian Balkans. The Eurasian Balkans consists of the Caucasus (Georgia, the Republic of Azerbaijan, and Armenia) and Central Asia (Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Afghanistan, and Tajikistan) and to some extent both Iran and Turkey. Iran and Turkey both form the northernmost tiers of the Middle East (excluding the Caucasus4) that edge into Europe and the former Soviet Union.

A relatively unknown map of the Middle East, NATO-garrisoned Afghanistan, and Pakistan has been circulating around strategic, governmental, NATO, policy and military circles since mid-2006. It has been casually allowed to surface in public, maybe in an attempt to build consensus and to slowly prepare the general public for possible, maybe even cataclysmic, changes in the Middle East. This is a map of a redrawn and restructured Middle East identified as the “New Middle East.”

Note: The following map was prepared by Lieutenant-Colonel Ralph Peters. It was published in the Armed Forces Journal in June 2006, Peters is a retired colonel of the U.S. National War Academy. (Map Copyright Lieutenant-Colonel Ralph Peters 2006).

Although the map does not officially reflect Pentagon doctrine, it has been used in a training program at NATO’s Defense College for senior military officers. This map, as well as other similar maps, has most probably been used at the National War Academy as well as in military planning circles.

Brzezinski’s advocacy of “American Primacy” fits perfectly with the aristocracy’s support of “Nuclear Primacy,” and appeared eight years before it. His 1998 book was seminal also in many other ways. And, as that Nazemroaya article made clear, Brzezinski’s plan was already being put into effect by the U.S. government, even before 2006.

However, the person who actually made the seminal decision behind all of this, the decision to conquer Russia, was U.S. President George Herbert Walker Bush, on the night of 24 February 1990, just before the Soviet Union ended. He was the person who decided that after the USSR and its Warsaw Pact terminated, NATO would continue that cold war until Russia has been surrounded by U.S. allies, who are Russia’s enemies, when Russia will ultimately either surrender or else be destroyed by the U.S. and its friends.

Even if Russia assumes that any such nuclear war would be M.A.D., the government of the U.S. no longer does. That’s Russia’s predicament — and the world’s.

However, military planners in the U.S. and its vassal nations, do not include in their calculations the world: the impacts that such nuclear winter and all the rest will have if their dream of ‘nuclear primacy’ amounts to anything more than merely the vicious hoax that it is. This fact, of their ignoring the world, is scandalous — against our military planners. They are so obsessed with ‘victory’, that they are willing to participate in this false and potentially mega-catastrophic dream, of ‘nuclear primacy’.

Unless and until nuclear weapons are totally eliminated (which might never happen), their constructive function, of preventing WW III, must continue, not end as a result of ‘nuclear primacy’ and other such lies and delusions. However, the ‘news’ media, especially in ‘The West’, are not pointing out those lies and distortions, but instead reinforcing them.

If there is to be a WW III, it will end the world. That is the key fact, which is ignored by ‘The West’s’ military planners.

NATO needs to end now, just as the Warsaw Pact did in 1991 — when an indecent, oligarchic, ‘The West’ continued the Cold War despite the Warsaw Pact’s end, and now is making it hot.”

Några artiklar i frågan om risken för världskrig.
http://jinge.se/allmant/usas-militare-overbefalhavare-varnar-hillary-clintons-syrienpolitik-innebar-varldskrig.htm (USA:s ÖB – Hillary Clintons Syrienpolitik innebär världskrig);
Se ackompanjerande bilden nedan!

http://jinge.se/allmant/gorbatjov-nato-okar-risken-for-varldskrig-kan-vi-hejda-det.htm (Gorbatjov: NATO ökar risken för världskrig);
http://jinge.se/allmant/tredje-varldskriget-har-borjat.htm (John Pilger: Tredje världskriget har börjat)
http://jinge.se/natur/kan-varldskrig-undvikas.htm (PC Roberts Kan världskrig undvikas);
http://jinge.se/mediekritik/kriget-i-ukraina-forspel-till-tredje-varldskriget.htm (Kriget i Ukraina förspel till tredje världskriget anser Ukrainas förra USA-ambassadör)
Globalresearch: Hillary Clinton – Mrs Strangelove
A queen of chaos should not throw stones in a glass house/En drottning av kaos ska inte kasta sten i glashus
US takes big steps towards war with Russia

intressant.se världskrig, Ryssland, fascism, politik, USA, statskupp krig, desinformation ekonomi imperialism, krig NATO EU, kärnvapen