PEOPLE FOR NUCLEAR DISARMAMENT

OpEdNews Op Eds 2/11/2015 at 11:26:32

On the Precipice of Nuclear War


http://www.opednews.com/articles/On-the-Precipice-of-Nuclea-by-Joseph-Clifford-Nuclear-War_Nuclear-Weapons_Putin_Ukraine-150211-84.html

By Joseph Clifford (about the author)    Permalink      (Page 1 of 1 pages)
Related Topic(s): Nuclear War; Nuclear Weapons; Putin; Ukraine;
Ukraine, Add Tags Add to My Group(s)


From commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Operation_Upshot-Knothole_-_Badger_001.jpg:
282px-Operation_Upshot- ...
282px-Operation_Upshot- ...
(image by commons.wikimedia.org)

Corporate media's misleading information on the Ukraine is bizarre,
incomplete, not factual, and designed to bring about yet another war.
It's the run-up to Iraq all over again. By their standards Putin is a
monster, has invaded Kiev, and has an insatiable appetite for war.
Compare the number of nations the US has bombed with that of Russia.
Compared to the US they are a passive nation, which media refuses to
disclose. What is truly frightening is the very distinct possibility
of a nuclear confrontation between Russia and the US, a fact also
completely ignored by corporate media. It is time for some relevant
information on the Ukraine before the insane deciders bring us to a
nuclear confrontation with Russia, which we all know no one wins.

For almost two centuries the US has insisted on enforcing the Monroe
Doctrine in this hemisphere, and no major US politician would dare to
suggest it is illegal or invalid. All would say it is America's right
to maintain control of this hemisphere in order to protect ourselves.
Why then does Russia not have the right to keep foreign powers from
its borders, just as the US? The US, through its puppet NATO, has
forced its way to the very doorstep of Russia, even though after the
fall of the Soviet Republic, we agreed not to expand into any of the
former Soviet states. We completely reneged on that promise, another
unreported fact by corporate media, and encircled Russia in Eastern
Europe with weapons and bases. Remember how swiftly the US risked
nuclear war with Russia over the Cuban Missile Crises?? Imagine how
Russia feels with the endless NATO military bases right at Russia's
door. In 2008 the Russians bluntly told the US they would not tolerate
further expansion into their sphere of influence, but the US
completely disregarded that warning.

In an attempt to capture the Ukraine, the US poured 5 billion dollars
into anti Ukraine government organizations, then picked a new leader,
and when the European's called for restraint, Victoria Nuland, the
foul mouthed US ambassador eloquently insulted them with her infamous
quote: "F---- the Europeans". A coup of a democratically elected
leader of the Ukraine was orchestrated and assisted by the US, and Ms.
Nuland's champion, Yatsenyuk, ("Yatz is our man") emerged from the
coup as the new US puppet. Neocons who planed this, were shocked that
all Ukrainians would not accept our handpicked leader of the illegal
government which is backed by neo Nazis and fascists. Seems Ukrainians
believed they should have a say and were reluctant to accept Ms.
Nuland's man as their leader. A civil war occurred and the US bears
much responsibility for it by meddling and orchestrating an overthrow
of a democratically elected leader in Russia's back yard.

According to German intelligence, over 50,000 people have been killed
in their civil war and now the neocon warmongers and Mr. Obama, the
neocon puppet, is preparing to arm the illegal government against
those who resist and want self-determination. Mr. Obama says they are
facing "separatist's aggression", a phrase I assume he would apply to
the "Minutemen" of New England and the "Sons of Liberty" who led the
American Revolution fighting for our freedom.

Europe has finally realized decision makers in the US are quite
willing to get us into a nuclear war, and have stepped back. While the
US most likely will send weapons to the illegal government in the
Ukraine, all other sane nations have ruled that out, a fact ignored by
corporate media. Germany, France, and others have flatly said no to
sending arms, and most credible experts (not politicians) have warned
against arming Kiev. It remains to be seen if the US can impose its
will and drag Europe into this conflict. They seemingly have realized
neocons don't care about a nuclear war with Russia, and are now
independently seeking a diplomatic solution, much to the
disappointment of the US. We don't like diplomacy, we like war. Recall
recently, how disappointed we were when those pesky Russians managed
to get Assad of Syria to give up all his chemical weapons (that
Russian aggression yet again) when we were prepared to bomb them into
oblivion. Russia frustrated the US, who prefers bombs to diplomacy.

Former leader of the Soviet Union, Nobel Peace Prize winner, and one
time media darling, Mikhail Gorbachev, recently warned in the German
publication Spiegel: "A war of this kind would unavoidably lead to a
nuclear war." "We won't survive the coming years if someone loses
their nerve in this overheated situation." "This is not something I'm
saying thoughtlessly. I am extremely concerned."

Want a war with Russia? Want a nuclear war? Better do something. The
inmates are running the asylum!











http://www.globalresearch.ca/this-is-no-time-to-ship-lethal-arms-to-ukraine/5431048


This is No Time to Ship Lethal Arms to Ukraine

By Jonathan Power
Global Research, February 13, 2015
Transnational.org
Region: Russia and FSU
Theme: US NATO War Agenda

Please put your hand up if you support giving lethal arms to the
Ukrainian army and also supported the US going to war with Iraq in
2003 and with Libya in 2011, the former which unbalanced much of the
Middle East and the latter which has left a country almost destroyed,
semi-ruled by malicious militias.

Also raise your hand if you supported in 1998 the West going to war
against Serbia in order to wrest away its province of Kosovo and give
it independence- a move which ironically Russia (and Spain, worried
about its Basques) opposed, arguing that this would set a precedent
for territorial separation by force of arms.

If you supported all these three interventions don’t take offence if I
question your judgment on the issue of arms for Ukraine.

I am trying to work out where President Barack Obama stands on all
this. His vice-president, Joe Biden, seems to be running with the
foxes while he himself is running with the hares. Take the president’s
interview on CNN the weekend before last. Until then the official
White House line had been that the crisis was instigated by President
Vladimir Putin to block Ukraine from creating a democratic government.

But in that broadcast, as my esteemed fellow columnist, William Pfaff,
has observed, “Obama conceded to an American TV audience that the
official US narrative concerning the war in Ukraine isn’t true”.

On CNN Obama said that “Mr. Putin made this decision around Crimea and
Maidan not because of some grand strategy, but essentially because he
was caught off-balance by the protest in the Maidan and Ukraine’s
then-president (Viktor Yanukovych) fleeing after we (the U.S. and the
European Union) had made a deal to broker power in Ukraine.”

Pfaff adds his own authoritative interpretation of the reasons for
what happened next: “Believing that the Maidan demonstrations last
February had been secretly contrived by the West (easy for Putin to
suspect because of the presence of EU representatives, as well as an
American Assistant Secretary of State and a visit to Kiev by CIA
officials), Putin retaliated by adroitly seizing Crimea, for many
years a Russian territory, but Ukrainian only since 1954”.

I find it easier to work out where German Chancellor Angela Merkel
stands. Although she was party to the counterproductive EU attempt to
pull Ukraine into the EU orbit by insisting that a new trade deal
would mean that Ukraine should shun Russia’s own Eurasian Economic
Community, whereas it should have been allowed to face both ways, and
also party to a Western policy that still refuses to say loud and
clear that Nato does not expect Ukraine ever to join NATO, she now
realises the West has put itself on the slippery slope.

She is trying to persuade both sides from sliding down it. The other
day, confronting those who seek tougher sanctions on Russia and
sending arms to Ukraine, she urged patience: “I am surprised at how
faint-hearted we are and how quickly we lose courage.” By stealing the
language of the “hard” school she has pulled the carpet from beneath
them. It is they who have to prove that this won’t lead to a dangerous
confrontation with Russia- even war.

The Western publics will never agree to that. What? Fight over a piece
of “far away country between people of whom we know little”? They will
not.

This is not Chamberlain’s appeasement. What is appeasement is that the
Russian government until recently accepted with barely a murmur, that
the West, ignoring its own implied promises, would not expand NATO so
far east.

Russian has appeased the West, not vice versa. Now, belatedly, the
expansion right up to Russia’s border rankles. The West’s behavior in
Ukraine has convinced Putin that the West would like nothing better
than to push the reach of Nato up to Ukraine’s border with Russia.

If Obama does let himself be swept along by hard line advisors and
senators and orders the military to ship in heavy weapons the US won’t
have the other big Nato powers going along with it. Neither Germany
nor France, nor Spain, nor Italy, nor the UK. Leaders know their
electorate would not tolerate it.

I don’t think Obama will. Apart from the CNN quote (above), which
suggests he understands Putin’s point of view, Obama certainly does
not want to leave office with a proxy war with Russia raging. If he
doesn’t want to attack Syria or put boots on the ground to fight ISIS,
if he is happy to get the US out of Afghanistan and not to seriously
re-enter the Iraq imbroglio, he is not going to go up against Russia,
even via the indirect proxy of the Ukrainian army.

That’s how I read it. How do you?







http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-illusion-of-peace-in-ukraine/5430972

The Illusion of Peace in Ukraine. It’s Three Minutes to Midnight

By Stephen Lendman
Global Research, February 13, 2015
Region: Russia and FSU
Theme: US NATO War Agenda
In-depth Report: UKRAINE REPORT

On Tuesday, Contact Group envoys representing France, Germany, Russia
and Ukraine held talks ahead of Wednesday’s Minsk summit attempt to
resolve ongoing conflict conditions diplomatically.

Previous efforts failed. Will this time be different? Don’t bet on it.
More on this below.”

Obama and Putin spoke. A White House statement combined the usual
America supports peace rubbish with blaming Russia for US/Kiev crimes.

Obama turned truth on its head saying “if Russia continues its
aggressive actions in Ukraine, including by sending troops, weapons,
and financing to support the separatists, the costs for Russia will
rise.”

Fact: Washington wants war, not peace. Stop NATO highlighted what’s
ongoing headlining “US Deploys More Warplanes (in Europe) In Expanding
(its) Anti-Russian Campaign.”

Fact: Russia alone continues going all-out for resolving Ukraine’s
conflict diplomatically. It’s the only country supplying large amounts
of desperately needed humanitarian aid to Donbas residents.

Washington and Kiev want them isolated, slaughtered and starved to death.

Fact: Conflict continues. Rebels continue making gains. At the same
time, Colonel Cassad reported “a whole number of frontline
cities…subjected to a large-sale artillery shelling of a terrorist
nature…to improve the front line before Minsk” talks.

Reuters said rebel advances “diminished hopes (for a Minsk) deal.”
Donetsk People’s Republic (DPR) parliament Speaker Denis Pushilin said
it’s too early to talk of a deal.

An unnamed Russian source said Minsk discussions will focus on
creating a demilitarized zone – not a document resolving the conflict.

One rebel commander likely spoke for others saying fighting won’t stop
with junta forces being battered.

“We are absolutely against” a ceasefire, he said. “They will have time
to regroup. We have them now.”

Pushilin said success in Minsk “depends on (how) Contact Group
(leaders) respond to our proposals.”

Lugansk negotiator Vladislav Deinego said “(w)e have handed over (to
Contact Group members) a draft protocol outlining a set of measures of
both political and military character aimed at a peaceful settlement
of the situation.”

Military measures are “temporary,” he explained. “Achieving a stable
peace is possible only through a political solution” granting Donbas
political autonomy.

A previous article explained failed Moscow peace talks. On Wednesday,
Hollande, Merkel and Putin continue discussions.

Illegitimate oligarch Ukraine president Poroshenko joined them. Expect
no more success now than earlier.

Obama wants war, not peace. He didn’t initiate proxy conflict to quit.
He wants total control over Ukraine nationwide.

He wants it as a platform to target Russia. Things head perilously
closer to direct confrontation.

Last November, the London-based European Leadership Network (ELN)
think tank explained at least 40 NATO/Russian forces near misses.

Saying relations between both sides are characterized by “mistrust,
fear, and shortened leadership decision times…(A) volatile stand-off
between (nuclear powers) could prove catastrophic.”

Given Washington’s rage for war, fears may become reality. Things
perhaps are closer to nuclear confrontation than ever before.

Washington bears full responsibility. Its rage for world dominance may
cause armageddon.

The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists (BAS) “speak(s) knowledge to
power.” It calls today’s threat “serious.” Time is short to resolve
things, it stresses.

Its Doomsday Clock shows three minutes to midnight. The only time it’s
been there since 1984. At the time, it noted US/Soviet Russia “icy
nadir” relations.

“Every channel of communications (was) constricted or shut down; every
form of contact has been attenuated or cut off. And arms control
negotiations (were) reduced to a species of propaganda.”

In late January, BAS headlined “2015: IT IS 3 MINUTES TO MIDNIGHT,” saying:

“Unchecked climate change, global nuclear weapons modernizations, and
outsized nuclear weapons arsenals pose extraordinary and undeniable
threats to the continued existence of humanity, and world leaders have
failed to act with the speed or on the scale required to protect
citizens from potential catastrophe.”

“These failures of political leadership endanger every person on Earth.”

“(T)he United and Russia have embarked on massive programs to
modernize their nuclear triads – thereby undermining existing nuclear
weapons treaties.”

“The clock ticks now at just three minutes to midnight because
international leaders are failing to perform their most important duty
– ensuring and preserving the health and vitality of human
civilization.”

Some historical perspective: In 1947, BAS began Doomsday Clock
readings. At the time, it stood at 7 minutes to midnight.

In 1949, it plunged to 3 minutes to midnight after Soviet Russia
tested its first nuclear device – “officially starting an arms race.”

In 1953, it was at 2 minutes to midnight after America tested its
first thermonuclear (H-bomb) device. Nine months later, Soviet Russia
tested its own.

In 1960, the Clock stood at 7 minutes to midnight. “For the first
time, (US and Soviet Russian officials) appear(ed) eager to avoid
direct confrontation,” said BAS.

In 1963, it was at 12 minutes to midnight after both sides signed the
Partial Test Ban Treaty. All atmospheric testing ended.

In 1968, it was 7 minutes to midnight because of America’s escalating
Vietnam War. Other disturbing issues included France and China
developing nuclear weapons.

At the time, BAS said:

“There is little reason to feel sanguine about the future of our
society on the world scale.”

“There is a mass revulsion against war, yes; but no sign of conscious
intellectual leadership in a rebellion against the deadly heritage of
international anarchy.”

In 1969, the Clock stood at 10 minutes to midnight after nearly all
nations agreed to Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) provisions.

Israel, India and Pakistan notably remain nuclear outlaws. Washington
most of all despite being an NPT signatory.

In 1972, the clock was at 12 minutes to midnight after America and
Russia signed the Strategic Arms Limitation Treaty (SALT) and
Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty (ABM).

Washington never observed SALT provisions. In December 2001, Bush
abandoned ABM, renounced NPT, and asserted the right to develop and
test new nuclear weapons.

He refused to adopt proposed Fissile Material Cutoff Treaty (FMCT)
provisions, prohibiting further weapons-grade uranium and plutonium
production.

He rescinded the 1972 Biological Weapons Convention (BWC),
prohibiting development off new biowarfare weapons.

He renounced the 1989 US Biological Weapons Anti-Terrorism Act
prohibiting “the Development, Production, and Stockpiling of
Bacteriological (Biological) and Toxin Weapons.”

Obama continues potentially humanity destroying Bush policies. He
escalated them by proxy war in Ukraine. Goading Russia into possible
catastrophic conflict. More on this below.

In 1974, BAS’ Doomsday Clock stood at 9 minutes to midnight after
India tested it first nuclear device.

In 1980, it was at 7 minutes to midnight 35 years after the start of
the nuclear age. At the time, BAS said:

Soviet Russia and America “behav(e) like what may best be described as
‘nucleoholics’ – drunks who continue to insist that the drink being
consumed is positively ‘the last one,’ but who can always find a good
excuse for ‘just one more round.’ ”

In 1981, the Clock was at 4 minutes to midnight after Soviet Russia’s
Afghanistan invasion hardened America’s nuclear posture.

In 1984, it registered 3 minutes to midnight after dialogue between
the world’s superpowers “virtually stop(ped).”

“The United States seems to flout the few arms control agreements in
place by seeking an expansive, space-based anti-ballistic missile
capability, raising worries that a new arms race will begin,” said
BAS.

In 1988, the Clock was at 6 minutes to midnight after America and
Russia signed the Intermediate Range Nuclear Forces Treaty.

In 1990, it registered 10 minutes to midnight in the wake of the
Berlin Wall’s fall.

In 1991, it was at 17 minutes to midnight after America and Russia
began nuclear arsenal reductions.

“The illusion that tens of thousands of nuclear weapons are a
guarantor of national security (was) stripped away,” said BAS.

In 1995, the Clock registered 14 minutes to midnight after hopes for
renouncing nuclear weapons faded.

Especially because US “hard-liners (don’t) soften their rhetoric or
actions (then or now)…(T)hey claim that a resurgent Russia could
provide as much of a threat as the Soviet Union,” said BAS.

In 1998, the Clock stood at 9 minutes to midnight after India and
Pakistan held nuclear weapons tests three weeks apart.

In 2002, it dropped to 7 minutes to midnight after Washington
expressed intent to develop and produce more destructive nuclear
weapons.

In 2007, it was at 5 minutes to midnight with America and Russia
“ready to stage a nuclear attack within minutes,” said BAS.

In 2010, it was at 6 minutes to midnight during US/Russian Strategic
Arms Reduction Treaty follow-up talks.

In 2012, it registered 5 minutes to midnight. “(I)t is difficult to
see where the capacity lies to address(ing)” the challenge of “ridding
the world of nuclear weapons,” said BAS.

It’s now “3 MINUTES TO MIDNIGHT.” Potentially things head disastrously
toward a dangerous all-time low.

Neocons infesting Washington deplore peace. They want endless wars.
They want all independent countries eliminated.

They want planet earth colonized. All nations made subservient to US
interests. US-dominated NATO used as a global police force.

Wars on humanity without end to exert and maintain control. Lunatics
in charge risk potential life-ending nuclear war with Russia.

BAS warnings go unheeded. Obama heads recklessly toward what no
responsible leader would dare. The unthinkable may become reality.

Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago. He can be reached at
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it . His new book as editor and contributor
is titled “Flashpoint in Ukraine: US Drive for Hegemony Risks WW III.”
http://www.claritypress.com/LendmanIII.html Visit his blog site at
sjlendman.blogspot.com. Listen to cutting-edge discussions with
distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the
Progressive Radio Network. It airs three times weekly: live on Sundays
at 1PM Central time plus two prerecorded archived programs.








http://www.examiner.com/article/world-war-3-prepping-russia-conducts-nuclear-sub-drills-under-north-pole

World War 3 prepping: Russia conducts nuclear sub drills under North Pole

February 11, 2015 10:34 PM MST

As ice thaws, nations and militaries have their eye on the Arctic in
hopes they can lay claim to its resources.
on.aol.com

Russia is not only stepping up its military presence in Ukraine, the
superpower just conducted naval exercises with its nuclear submarines
under the North Pole. If not prepping for World War 3, which is what
many fear, what could possibly be the point? But instead of preparing
for a third world war, Russian authorities say the maneuvers were
conducted to reinforce its position with regard to the Arctic, now
highly prized in that many resource experts believe the region holds
an immense wealth of oil and gas deposits.

Business Insider reported (via Yahoo News) Feb. 9 that Russian nuclear
units conducted exercises in the international waters under the North
Pole over the weekend leading into February. And although they may
have been conducted without the world's knowledge, Russian officials
had no problem announcing what their naval forces had been up to under
the northernmost ice cap once the exercises were complete.

Western authorities believe the maneuvers were a response to NATO's
reinforcement of its forces along Russia's borders in eastern Europe.
But Russian military officials say otherwise.

“In particular we focused on hazard and threat detection, but also on
missile launching and navigation manoeuvres, ice reconnaissance,
submerging and emerging from ice, using torpedoes to undermine ice and
many other issues,” Vadim Serga, captain of Russia's North Fleet, was
quoted in a translation provided by Newsweek.

But while some are worried about mounting tensions and moves that
could very well provide the ramp-up to World War 3, Russia's claims to
the Arctic are positionings that speak toward a long-term approach.
The economically stagnant nation has become increasingly contentious
about the Arctic, making its claims along with several other nations
to the Arctic sea bed. Geological experts in the U. S. estimates that
upwards of 15 percent of the earth's remaining oil, 30 percent of its
natural gas, and 20 percent of its liquefied natural gas are stored in
reservoirs beneath the sea floor in the Arctic.

Russia is also funding major construction across the Arctic region,
including ten Arctic search-and-rescue stations, 16 deepwater ports,
13 airfields, and ten air-defense radar stations along the extensive
nation's Arctic coast. Russia also plans to construct a military
reconnaissance drone base only 420 miles away from Alaska, having
already begun construction of an Arctic military base of operations 30
miles away from Finland's border.

News of the Russian nuclear submarine exercises come just days after
British Typhoon fighters were scrambled to escort two long-range
Russian bombers flying without their transponders on came alarmingly
close to U. K. airspace. According to BBC News, the British Foreign
Office admitted that the bombers never actually entered U. K.
airspace, they represented "part of an increasing pattern of
out-of-area operations" by Russia.

The European Leadership Network, a London-based think tank, released a
report in November where it revealed that NATO had admitted that its
fighters had recorded over 100 intercepts and encounters with Russian
military aircraft as of October 2014, which reflected a three-fold
increase over 2013. The report concluded that such an escalation in
encounters increased the potential for confrontations that could
easily spiral out of control, leading to possible military conflict.