Click to see full-size image
Written by Scott Ritter. Originally published on GlobalResearch
Wars should be avoided at all costs. Nuclear conflict should never be contemplated.
These two truisms are often spoken, but rarely adhered to. Wars occur all too frequently, and so long as nations possess nuclear weapons, their use is contemplated on a continuous basis.
The ongoing Ukrainian-Russian conflict has put the world’s two largest nuclear powers on opposing sides, with the U.S. supporting a Ukrainian military that has become a de facto proxy of NATO, and Russia viewing its struggle with Ukraine as including the “collective West.”
Since the initiation of Russia’s “special military operation” in Ukraine, both the U.S. and Russia have played their respective nuclear cards.
Russia has made it clear that any intervention by NATO would be considered an existential threat to the Russian nation, thereby invoking one of the two clauses in the Russian nuclear posture in which nuclear weapons could be used. (The other would be in response to a nuclear attack against Russia.)
The U.S. has made it clear that any attack by Russia against a NATO member would invoke Article 5 of the NATO charter (the “collective defense” clause), resulting in the totality of the alliance’s military capabilities, including nuclear weapons, being made available in response.
Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelensky joins NATO meeting in Madrid in June via video link. (President of Ukraine)
So far, neither side has directly challenged the red line of the other, although the United States has edged right up to it with the provision of tens of billions of dollars of advanced weaponry, financial assistance and intelligence and communication support for Ukraine.
This material support isn’t provided for Ukraine’s defense, but rather to enable Ukraine to retake territory lost to Russia and to inflict losses among the Russian forces of such a magnitude as to weaken Russia for an extended period.
From the Western perspective, the massive infusion of military aid appears to be succeeding. Ukraine is perceived as having pushed back an initial Russian effort to capture Kiev in the opening weeks of the conflict. It is also seen as having held back a concerted Russian offensive in the Donbass long enough to deploy a reconstituted army — trained and equipped by NATO — which succeeded in recapturing the totality of the Kharkov region.
The fact that the Kiev “victory” has been described by Russia as a strategic feint, and not a defeat, and that the Kharkov offensive, together with a parallel failed offensive in Kherson, cost Ukraine so many casualties that it was more Pyrrhic than political in nature, is secondary.
The Kremlin, March 2016. (State Department)
From the perspective of both Ukraine and NATO, the Russian army is no longer viewed as invincible, but actually vulnerable. Both NATO and Ukraine appear ready to continue an aggressive military posture designed to attrite Russian forces while recapturing Ukrainian territory.
For its part, Russia believes that it has the upper hand in the conflict, having both inflicted massive casualties on the Ukrainian military and seizing control of approximately 20 percent of Ukrainian territory.
Moreover, by holding referenda in the occupied territories about joining Russia (all of which passed by an overwhelming majority), Russia has changed the very nature of the conflict, transforming it from a fight between Ukraine and Russia on Ukrainian soil, to an existential battle with the “collective West” over Mother Russia itself.
Russia has also ordered a partial mobilization of some 300,000 troops which, once trained and deployed into the Ukraine theater of operations, will provide sufficient military power to successfully complete Russia’s original tasks — demilitarization and denazification.
NATO and Ukraine both believe that the Russian forces, even after receiving the 300,000 mobilized troops, will not be able to defeat Ukraine. This inability to achieve the desired objectives, they believe, will compel Russia to resort to the use of tactical nuclear weapons on Ukrainian targets in order to break the will to resist on the part of the Zelensky government.
Nuclear Postures
U.S. President Joe Biden and Russian President Vladimir Putin meeting at the at the Villa La Grange in Geneva, June 16, 2021, with U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken on left, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, right. (White House/ Adam Schultz)
The reality, however, is that Russian nuclear doctrine does not allow for such a scenario. Indeed, there are only two conditions where Russian nuclear doctrine permits the employment of nuclear weapons.
No 1. “[I]n response to the use of nuclear and other types of weapons of mass destruction against it and/or its allies,” the 2020 Russian Nuclear Posture document states, or
No 2. “in the event of aggression against the Russian Federation with the use of conventional weapons when the very existence of the state is in jeopardy.”
U.S. nuclear posture, however, does allow it.
“[T]he United States will maintain the range of flexible nuclear capabilities,” the 2018 U.S. Nuclear Posture Review (NPR) declared, “needed to ensure that nuclear or non-nuclear aggression against the United States, allies, and partners will fail to achieve its objectives and carry with it the credible risk of intolerable consequences for potential adversaries now and in the future.”
It should be noted that the 2018 NPR was promulgated during the administration of President Donald Trump. Although the Biden administration initiated the NPR process in September 2021, it has yet to publish an updated document.
By ignoring stated Russian nuclear policy, and instead mirror-imaging U.S. nuclear policy onto Russian behavior, the U.S., NATO and Ukraine are setting themselves — and the world — up for disaster.
Russian bombardment of telecommunications antennas in Kiev, March 1. (Ministry of Internal Affairs of Ukraine/Wikimedia Commons)
Indeed, using a hypothetical Russian tactical nuclear attack on Ukraine as a working assumption, the Biden administration has developed a range of non-nuclear options in response, including — according to Newsweek — a “decapitation” strike targeting Russian leadership, to include President Vladimir Putin.
According to Jake Sullivan, President Joe Biden’s national security adviser, the White House has “communicated directly, privately, to the Russians at very high levels that there will be catastrophic consequences for Russia if they use nuclear weapons in Ukraine.”
Sullivan noted that the Biden administration has “spelled out in greater detail exactly what that would mean” in its communications with the Kremlin. Just to be clear: the White House has communicated to Russia its intent to respond in a non-nuclear manner to any potential Russian nuclear attack against Ukraine.
Andrey Gurulyov
Enter Andrey Gurulyov, a former Russian general officer and current member of the Russian Duma.
Gurulyov is from the Russia United Party (Putin’s party), and is said to be closely connected to the senior Russian leadership. He gave me a wide-ranging interview on the Sept. 29 edition of my “Scott Ritter Show” (a joint effort with Russian producers of “Solovyov Live” featuring the well-known Russian commentator Vladimir Solovyov). We discussed the future of Russia’s “special military operation” in Ukraine in the aftermath of the referenda and partial mobilization.
Gurulyov indicated that given the reality that the Ukrainian military was operating as a de facto proxy of NATO, the “demilitarization” task set forth by Putin in invading Ukraine now meant the complete destruction of the Ukrainian military.
Likewise, given that the Russian government has labelled the government of Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky a Nazi regime, “denazification” would require regime change in Kiev and Russian troops advancing up to the western reaches of Ukraine that border NATO itself.
These objectives would be accomplished through a strategic air campaign that would destroy the totality of Ukraine’s critical infrastructure, severely impacting command and control and logistics of the Ukrainian military.
According to Gurulyov, such a campaign could last up to three weeks, after which the Ukrainian military would be a sitting duck for the newly reinforced Russian military.
Gurulyov was confident that the reinforced Russian military would be able to defeat the NATO-enhanced Ukrainian armed forces without resorting to the use of tactical nuclear weapons.
Indeed, Gurulyov was adamant that tactical nuclear weapons would never — and indeed, could never — be used by Russia against Ukraine.
He was less so when it came to using tactical nuclear weapons against NATO.
Gurulyov was convinced that the nature of Russia’s military victory over Ukraine would be so decisive that NATO might feel compelled to intervene to stop Russia.
If NATO were to indeed dispatch troops into Ukraine, and those troops engaged in large-scale ground conflict with Russian forces, then Gurulyov envisioned that Russian nuclear weapons could, in fact, be used against NATO targets.
Gurulyov was convinced that the United States, fearing Russian strategic nuclear-retaliation capabilities, would not unleash its own nuclear arsenal against Russia, even if NATO were struck by Russian nuclear weapons. But here Gurulyov was operating from a false premise — U.S. nuclear doctrine clearly states that “They [Russia ] must understand that there are no possible benefits from non-nuclear aggression or limited nuclear escalation.”
Indeed, U.S. nuclear doctrine emphasizes that “any nuclear escalation will fail to achieve their objectives and will instead result in unacceptable consequences for them [Russia].”
From these two fundamental misunderstandings — that a) Russia could be preparing to use nuclear weapons against Ukraine that would generate a non-nuclear response on the part of the U.S., and b) Russia believes that the U.S. would not respond with nuclear weapons if Russia were to use its own nuclear arsenal against NATO, the world now faces the real prospect of imminent nuclear conflict between the U.S. and Russia.
From the U.S. perspective, Russia’s unwillingness to use nuclear weapons against Ukraine underscores the overall impotence of Russia and its leadership, and therefore opens the door for decisive NATO intervention, including boots on the ground, in case of any Russian non-nuclear threat against Kiev itself.
From the Russian perspective, the documented U.S. reluctance to employ nuclear weapons in the case of a decisive Russian military victory over Ukraine opens the door for Russia ’s use of a tactical nuclear weapon against NATO in the case of a major NATO military intervention in Ukraine.
From this foundation of misrepresentation and misunderstanding only disaster can ensue.
Putin, in announcing the formal incorporation of Kherson, Zaporizhia, Donetsk and Lugansk into the Russian Federation, has turned up the rhetorical heat regarding Ukraine and the “collective West.” Soon words will be transformed into action, initiating the very scenarios U.S. military planners and Russian authorities such as Andrey Gurulyov have spoken about.
We are, literally, on the eve of destruction. Now is the time for the kind of political maturity leaders rarely demonstrate. The onus is on Joe Biden and Vladimir Putin to make sure that even while events on the ground in Europe devolve into chaos and violence, the leaders of the world’s two largest nuclear arsenals do not allow emotion to get the better of reason. The consequences of failure in this regard are, for humanity, terminal.
Scott Ritter is a former U.S. Marine Corps intelligence officer who served in the former Soviet Union implementing arms control treaties, in the Persian Gulf during Operation Desert Storm and in Iraq overseeing the disarmament of WMD. His most recent book is Disarmament in the Time of Perestroika, published by Clarity Press.
The *Anus is on Biden
we were never so close to a nuclear conflict. Now, a simple translation mistake or even a small accidental launching could lead to the end of the Western civilization
Ukraine will NEVER give in to Pooh-tin & his Orcs & will NEVER forget Bucha!
Bucha was set up for the wests media campaign like so many others and I’m willing to bet your part of that set up. Never forget what the Ukrainian army did in 2014 you dumb f@#k. I just saw a video of Ukrainian neo Nazis beating a boyfriend and girlfriend in the head to death with a baseball bat because they spoke Russian. F@#k you you f@#kin racist little cunt. Your the orc you little scum bag. Get the f@#k off these comments and go talk trash somewhere else. I’m sick of seeing your ridiculous posts. BITCH
I agree. But thats both ways. Dont forget You live in a highly infected quagmire yourself.
Brooms and soap is not only for witches.
The Ukra PM and President should reduce Your problems. You should be able to listen and implement whats better.
I verry like it both ways.
Typical very well made propaganda version for, whats going on.
Puttig in Biden in what Putin, Medevev and Lavrov propose and lies about is discusting. That goes for nukes as well.
Its totally ignored what the rest of the world says about it too. Russia should not be member of UN anymore. UN might even need reforms. It was a good helper for the time after WW2 replci g the many colonies to be their own or more their own.
Just as for the collpased hemisphere USSR so many are not able to solve vital programs in economy as well as making tools for keeeping peace among each others.
Here and there its even tempting to see some partly colonialisme come back. Thats a very sad conclusion, but there are so many civile wars and etnic cleansing so many places.
They are standstill as Russia and even worse. They cant keep the population growth and the economic part in balance or in at least smaller improvements.
stfu troll, you cant even write properly
I ccan write verry much properly. My Anglish is battter then my Danish.
Me verry smartz and edrucated.
gagala again
Danes are not very smart.
how smart do you actually need to be to catch a herring? funny thing is, sometimes the herring still outsmarts them.
but I bet your Yiddish is better than both the other adopted languages you attempt.
Thats not even a comment.
If a man crosses his legs, he’s gay.
why do you keep posting articles from scott ritter? this guy is the biggest controlled op there is. twice arrested, and sentenced to prison for child sex related crimes. your discrediting your org
seems to me that gives him total credentials as a regular American male between the ages of….
Will the NATO games set off nukes that will be blamed on Russia and this used as a causus Belli obviously a fake one, to wage war on Russia by NATO itself. Then Will Iran and China enter?
Scott. Being a Gulf War Veteran that has been watching the “Pox” American $hit $how for more than 30 years should know better than to be blaming Russia for a war on their borders since 1992 that went above and beyond limit in 2014 with Maidan!…
You say nothing about the impetus for the U.$. “collective” doing this because they believe they are in control of Russia’s energy resources via the $USD just as Saddam Hussein encountered in 2003 when he broke off payment options in that currency and “reaped the wind” when he tried to enforce payment in “anything else”!…
But this isn’t Iraq!… And this isn’t the United $tates circa 2003 given the stakes and the adversary 19 years later facing a $1 quadrillion in interest on principal debt problem paying for all the global energy looting operations in earnest to the holdouts ever since with 9/11 being offered up as the excuse to do so!
Why did Russia let the Americans blow up their pipelines and steal 360 billion dollars? Do any Russian ruling class people give a shit about Russia?
If you are a Ruler or a Country Strategyst is easy to discover, Russia wants to improve their technologies and create industries (engineers, technicians, workers)… they wanted to advance and their industries to have more experience. And yes, they always knew USA would bomb both Streams connecting to Europe. Main Geopolitic goal of Russia was never Europe, its ASIA, watch now they will construct Pipelines in Turkey and in East Asia, just sit and read how Russia would construct pipelines but NOT to Europe anymore.
There will be NO NUCLEAR war, so I guess they are just HYPYNG the threat in order to push internally their agendas in both countries USA and Russia… also USA was clever and haves all controll over NATO and the new iron wall v2.0 was already build using Ukraine War as an excuse so they could insert into NATO to Sweden and Finland… USA would give Nukes to NATO in the eastern front of Europe, so European Shield is actually USA Shield, USA Land is safe behind Europe and Russia has a Knife in their throath because USA are using all their satellites countries to do economic damage in Russia. Main Goal of USA is overthrown the Russian Goverment and put a puppet democracy in Russia to plunge all their natural resources and using war to save the US Dollar and Western Economy from collapse.
Even the best laid plans go astray when faced with reality, and first contact with the other side. Or as Mike Tyson said, “Everyone has a plan until they get punched in the mouth.”
I agree with you so far , but believe this will not happen ( “regime change in Russia” etc ) , because the country is really strong and united now. And all the satelites and the US themselves will so desperately weaken in this war , that there will be no power for regime change.
they will also not “save the US-Dollar and Western Economy from collapse” . It is allready collapsing (see Germany). There is nothing more to save.
Only when military infrastructures in the US itself are destroyed and the ‘war’ is brought home will the US administration get the required reality shock and come back to its senses, as it is, this conflict is still far away from American shores.
Senile pedophile and his Zionist masters need to fully understand the second they attack Russia, 1.hundreds of RS-36, RS-28, URN-100 Stiletto ICBM’s will be flying to thousands of predetermined city, infrastructure, military targets all across mainland USA (each missile carying 10-15 warheads with 250-500 kiloton yields ~ 200-300 times more powerful than Hiroshima bombs) That is thousands of nuclear warheads smashing USA. Not only that, but 2. nuclear tipped Iskander, Khinzal flattening all NATO military targets in Europe and the Middle East. 3. strategic bombers launching hundreds of nuclear armed cruise missiles at NATO city and military targets in Europe 4. 14 Delta and Borei class submarines launching hundreds of Bulava ICBM at NATO/USA mainland/USA targets in Asia with hundreds of warheads.
In other words, Americunt Land and all its bases and allies in Europe, The Middle East, Africa, and Asia would cease to exist and be vaporized by a nuclear triad response. Thousands of warheads exchanged by both sides would block out the sun for at least 10 years destroying all plant and ocean life. All for a cocaine addicted Zionist midget who pretends to be an ethnic Slav.
Survival and recovery after the nuclear strike and nuclear winter favors the remaining surviving in Russia, due to its massive land mass compared to USA and Europe. So much larger change of surviving Russians to band together rebuild society which would take long time, compared to americuntland or european countries.
France Britain and USA using nuclear submarines would annihilate Russia with trident missiles before they could even think of attempting a nuclear counterattack. Dream on. Russia could never destroy America or NATO in a nuclear scenario, their missiles are too far, while NATO’s missiles are closer and US Navy nuclear armed submarines are lurking super close to Russia’s waters at all time. No change for Russia in a nuclear war. They’d be destroyed and at most, 1 or 2 NATO cities or maybe a few US cities would be damaged, but not destroyed, and not even near as destroyed as Russkie land.
“From these two fundamental misunderstandings — that a) Russia could be preparing to use nuclear weapons against Ukraine that would generate a non-nuclear response on the part of the U.S., and b) Russia believes that the U.S. would not respond with nuclear weapons if Russia were to use its own nuclear arsenal against NATO, the world now faces the real prospect of imminent nuclear conflict between the U.S. and Russia.”
sorry , but here is something in these statements , which bothers me.
“b) Russia believes that the US would not respond… if Russia were to use … nuclear … against NATO”
But who is going to strike first? And who believes that? Russia? Or is this wishful thinking , Russia would use the nuclear weapons first? This is also not , what Gurulyov really said.
Or just (my suspicion) the media meddling to spread the fears , Russians are going to use nuclear weapons in Ukraine first.
There is the nuclear doctrine of Russia , which defines exactly , when Russia could use nuclear weapons. Loosing in Ukraine is none of these cases , because it is no “No2. in the event of aggression against the Russian Federation with the use of conventional weapons when the very existence of the state is in jeopardy”
So , there is no way Russia could execute or even plan the nuclear strike on Ukrainian/NATO troops in Ukraine first. This is the very point. Only if the US strikes first , could it be possible, as a retaliatory strike. This is what Russian doctrine says , this is what Putin says , and this is what Scott Ritters should also say.
Looks like US trying to bait Russia into first use to justify probably a bombing and push button campaign with no ground force to kill Russians in Ukraine. By this policy statement the US is implying by deductive thinking that nuclear war in their end game and want to blame it on Russia.
“Fundamental Misunderstandings” are what the USA does best…who can explain to a retard that they are retarded?