Home > LAMERIKANO, Politick, Warning > Putin’s doomsday scenario, by Marius Creati

Putin’s doomsday scenario, by Marius Creati

Can we dismiss the notion of a remote possibility that Putin could finally involve nuclear power?

About a year after the start of the conflict in Ukraine, today more than ever we feel that we have reached a high level of alarm that threatens to trigger the fateful Armageddon, which anyone until now would have feared in the remote possibility of an almost impossible nuclear war. But in the current position of the various states involved, in this millennial wind of death, the belligerent escalation that could involve nuclear weapons on Ukrainian territory are felt at the peak of our experience more close than in our past. The ideology of a point of no return is there waiting around the corner and, according to a different logic of the full-blown events, some far-sighted men can even see its tail.

However this becomes possible when a state of war is rumored, nothing is left to chance! America and Russia launch accusations against each other, presenting them as unique and true, they lament the offensive while contending for a vast territory, each for their own reasons, and in the chaos of propaganda and disinformation mere mortals have to draw hasty conclusions locked up in the ravines of one’s own lucidity.

Who could really justify the explosion of an atomic bomb?

Who could define whether the planning of a “dirty nuclear bomb” folded on Moscow’s responsibilities is contextually true or false news?

Who could establish the exact planning of the Ukrainian forces against the Russian antagonists?

And who, in return, could justify its launch if the reasons for the Pentagon’s concern about Russian falsehoods were unfounded, which is why the motivations of the Russian counterpart would assume a degree of truth?

So in that case how could Russia not involve nuclear if the Ukraine armed by America, probably also with nuclear power, is preparing to make an illicit use of it on itself by folding its detonation on Vladimir Putin!

Who could blame him then? Who could exhort him to desist, for what reason?

What might distract one’s mind from a definite and correct strategic situation on the battlefield in Ukraine is the idea that Russia may have suffered a setback with the withdrawal of troops from the city of Kherson. This rumor that has been touted for a long time in the last two months is just a ploy to accentuate the Western hope that the Russian army felt the blow of holding the territory conquered during the first weeks of the invasion. Nothing more wrong!

There is a lot of talk about the excesses of President Vladimir Putin’s miscalculations. Its changeable and impulsive decision-making process which, as they write, makes the evolution of the Ukrainian situation dangerous depends only on the effective continuity of the events linked to the conflict. By now it is clear that the annexation of Crimea in 2014, subsequently confirmed after a regular referendum proclaimed in the peninsula, takes on a totemic meaning, as well as strategic, in order to guarantee an adequate ending to the dispute which still does not seem to lead to a peace between the two factions. In fact, the Russian leader is truly convinced that the conflict started has an existential stake for his country, his regime and his government, therefore he becomes aware that he cannot afford a defeat, since losing would mean sacrificing Russia and its people to the American regime currently in power of the United States of America.

Few would believe that under any conditions the jingle of the Kremlin’s nuclear sabers would thunder over the Ukrainian territories, but no one forbids that even Washington could be able to thunder, directly or indirectly, the first blasts of its deadly trumpets. In truth, we are facing the moment in which there is no reassuring force that arouses us from thinking otherwise. The only insurance is compressed in the hope of a return to normality, at least apparent.

And this is a highly alarming fact!

There is also a lot of talk about the possibility that Russia could use nuclear artillery on a non-nuclear power in the event that the safety of the Russian state could be at risk of attack, but Putin himself would not use it to defend the territories which, according to international law, are part of Ukraine. The use of nuclear weapons on Ukrainian territory could harm Russian forces and the civilian populations of Crimea and the recently annexed territories of Donbass.

What kind of impact could it have on the economic partners of the Russian state if President Vladimir Putin should give the order to detonate a nuclear device, even a low-frequency one? I believe that in a moment of pure madness any ally or economic partner would be overwhelmed by a negative reaction, therefore also China, India and Turkey in the case, but we are aware that what is happening is not a state of pure madness, rather the beginning of something that goes far beyond rationality. And when the same rationality is hit by the madness of events, everything that is conventionally impossible becomes possible… Which is why I believe that this remote possibility has already been widely discussed and that Putin has full rights for his actions, depending on those which will prove adverse to the safety of Russia’s sovereignty.

So far, Ukrainian leaders have hypothesized that the American presence to counter the Russian threat could somehow exclude the use of nuclear weapons, on the other hand they are sure that America’s deterrence could influence the Kremlin’s calculations, but in reality I believe that the Russian generals have a precise tactical strategy aimed at striking the hostile military resistance present on the invaded territories rather than directly inflicting violence on the civilian populations; the fact remains that the use of a conventional force by the United States of America, according to them, could be overwhelming against Russian military resources in Ukraine, in order to avoid the threat of a nuclear attack, furthermore be a stimulus to ensure the Russian defeat and thus make it desist from continuing.

The first mistake made by the various Western interlocutors has been that of declaring illegal the annexation of the territories of south-eastern Ukraine in which, in reality, a regular popular referendum was instituted, countersigned by the various local representatives, desired and voted for by the indigenous people who almost all expressed, by a vote, the definitive split from Ukraine following the cruel barbarism inflicted without reason by the Ukrainian Nazi militias and by the national armies threatening their own survival.

Although the negative propaganda and media disinformation are trying to paint the Russian advance as a continuous defeat without equal, the reality of the facts shows that Vladimir Putin does not see the annexation of these territories – which traditionally already belonged to his homeland then let them to progress individually – as a determining aspect of his legacy, but rather warns the possibility that Russia could remain preserved from transatlantic Western compliance, America first and foremost, making itself an existential shield through those neighboring territories, guaranteeing in turn their security, which would guarantee the safety in space and time.

On the territory of Crimea is a great discussion, many commentators and experts are convinced that he, President Putin, is unable to defend his borders on the level of a conventional type clash, such that the use of the weapon nuclear power could become the expedient that avoids portraying him as weak in the eyes of the Kremlin, threatening his internal political survival. But what escapes when discussing the capabilities of the Russian president is reliability. Most of the time a fundamental element is left out to understand his possible state of weakness, which could only be apparent, I therefore mean the full credibility that the Russian people attribute to their political leader and to the actions suited to him for the defense of cultural political and religious sovereignty of their huge country. President Vladimir Putin would not allow that the next Russian president is another additional Zelensky! The Russian people are aware that their president has defended the borders of the state for years, despite there having been moments of perplexity generated by false Western flattery, aware of his visibility in the eyes of the world, aware that his legacy in the future, the aftermath Putin, is acclaimed to someone who can follow in his footsteps. The Russian people are aware that the regime imposed by the Kremlin is an authoritarian political system but, ultimately, much more liberal than what it would suffer if it were overwhelmed by a Western type neoliberal regime. Our economic system based on financial neoliberalism, perceived as synonymous of false democracy, is much more feared by populations and governments not affiliated with NATO, as membership is perceived as the death of a state’s sovereignty, the death of that sovereignty felt for years by now in almost all member states of the same organization.

Which is why, although I am convinced that the use of nuclear power remains only a deterrent in extremis, nothing forbids that in case of danger the use of nuclear weapons, even of low frequency, becomes a way like any other to defend Russian territory from any conventional or non-conventional aggression.

From Moscow’s point of view, the territories annexed after the actual legal referendum, unlike Western opinion, actually belong to Russia. Losing them to a potentially aggressive invading army would represent a weak link that could result indispensable, according to Putin’s conviction, to the realization of the West’s goal of supporting Ukraine in the conflict, of destroying the country by opting for a regime change in the Kremlin.

Consequentially, China would not retract its relationship with Russia should the situation escalate, nor it would let its economic influence was the impetus for a discouragement. China is aware that the current problem has an American origin, which is why maintaining relations with the Russian regime would also be a shield for itself, after all, even its relations with the American government, currently frozen by apparent calm, it is well known that are not idyllic, indeed rather tense and close to terrible entanglements. China knows the intentions of American governance to want to destabilize the great antagonistic powers to be once again the architect of absolute power in the world.

As for the use of the atomic bomb on the Ukrainian territories by the Russian military command in the name of Vladimir Putin is a lot of talk in recent times. In the West, the high-sounding names of the military and political world are almost convinced that in the end, in order not to lose his war, he would be induced to make use of it. A fact, a fact taken for granted, which implies the use of all military means of war, by NATO in aid of Ukraine, in order to arouse the action of the Russian president forcing him into a forced surrender. Strategies are planned to be applied against the Russian advance, which I would rather define as defense of the territories until now martyred by the Ukrainian armies against the pro-Russian civilian population, taking for granted the final defeat of the Russian army, without also taking into consideration the effective war power of Moscow, which so far has stood up to the Ukrainian army despite being helped by NATO mercenaries present in the area, as well as assisted by all the Western armed means sent to the rescue. This situation establishes the real strategic and military conditions of the conflict since while the West envisages and propagandizes a fallacious behavior by the Russian armies present in the territories of Donbass, in reality the Russian advance has up to now liberated entire territories previously controlled by the Nazi Ukrainians armies, responsible for violence against the populations present in places where, on behalf of Western organizations, they exercised defensive control over strategic military bases and biological research centres.

In the face of the endless incomprehensible silence, in counterpart, I would like to highlight an aspect which, in the light of the facts, is absolutely not considered by those who have assumed the responsibility of disseminating concepts and assumptions about this conflict. We are aware that we are in the presence of two colossal highly belligerent world powers, both contending for a primacy of military supremacy, one no less important than the other, which boast the operational presence of an involvement of the nuclear type.

Therefore, I would like to assert that I hear nothing but seek proselytes about the possibility that Russia could drop the first atomic bomb of the new millennium against a country hostile to it, sealing the beginning of a new epic of wars that could rise to new levels of mass massacres never seen since the end of the Second World War. But we are equally aware that the United States of America also possesses a nuclear weapon worthy of wide consideration, a nation no less dangerous than its Russian antagonist, and I would add no less arranged to use it if forced or authorized to do so. We are aware that President Joe Biden’s belligerent actions are no less contradictory than what we Europeans would expect from an allied president. Even American governance has not ruled out the use of nuclear power in case of need or for defence, which is why I would not exclude the possibility that America may detonate the first atomic bomb, in whatever style it prefers, and then go back to being the creator again of a mass genocide of colossal scope, as in the past … and to open “les nouvelle dances macabres” in a scenario of global death, in fact already veteran of having carried out a double nuclear detonation in Japan marking the beginning of modern civilization behind the departure of a slightly previous antiquated civilization, which borders on the overture of a new epic, defined by the same governance as “the great reset”, which by far we could define as the third world war.

I wonder if this planned war in Ukraine can actually be stopped! Well yes, it would be possible, it would be a forward-looking strategy also for the new world order… of that order of things that obviously resides in my mind, and it would be possible, albeit unlikely, only if the governance of the United States of America decided to sit down at the table with Russia to decide the fate of the afflicted populations of Donbass and of the remaining Ukrainian nation, which has grown in recent years in a purely unstable state of confusion!

Logically, it would be useful to remember that America would do everything possible to prevent nuclear war from reaching its threshold. What its governance fears is a possible conflict expansion that could reach American shores, which is why it would avoid a direct conflict against Russia. Joe Biden knows his Russian antagonist and knows perfectly well that Vladimir Putin is a man of his word, a man who does not joke in the defense of his mother country. So I guess nuclear deterrence applies to both contesting countries as an effective last resort, though still we can’t be sure!

It is a great repetition that the Russian president could act on impulse if the events of the conflict were to slip rapidly into the hypothesis of seeing the military situation deteriorate, making any subsequent diplomatic action almost impossible. But in the wake of the perplexities of the fate of the conflict, no one highlights any adverse reactions if the Ukrainian military situation, assisted by the Western military presence, should take a negative turn and force the nation itself to surrender. It would make sense to ask at least the same question, if should US President Joe Biden encounter the same adverse situation and therefore be able to act on impulse too, or not!

Why should Vladimir Putin use nuclear energy in case of need and not Joe Biden instead, possibly cornered by the Ukrainian situation which could, improbably, also make some members of his NATO alliance rise up against him, for example? Both architects of nuclear power, why is any responsibility directed only towards Russia and not towards America?

Many hope that the White House and the Kremlin can eventually reach an agreement on the level of negotiations … Moscow seems willing to dialogue even if it will not give up a step what he has conquered, as its conquest compensates for the martyrdom of entire pro-Russian populations in the Donbass and the maintenance of the hitherto preserved buffer states; Washington on the other hand does not seem interested in an agreement at the moment since on that level in the negotiation it would lose out with a fistful of flies in its hands, without considering the meager international figure vis-à-vis the allied powers of NATO, in which case it would score a point unfavorable in its high-sounding presence within it.

In regards to the energy situation, the attack on Ukrainian infrastructure following the explosion of the Crimean bridge, thus making it impossible to use power plants and water supply in Ukraine, marks a point in favor for Russia which in such a strategy it effectively bends the advance of the Ukrainian armies, forcing the same population into a forced exodus due to lack of water and electricity; on the other hand, in western nations the same strategy aims to reduce the supply of natural gas which, on the threshold of a harsh winter climate, makes gas deposits less efficient, when they come to terms with frost and excessive increases for the eventual purchase of highly expensive liquefied gas, the situation would take a nefarious turn.

What would happen if Vladimir Putin’s intention, that is stopping Western progress by exploiting the energy crisis, were to refold on other forms of supply from the West and therefore put America at a strategic advantage over Russia? What would be the reaction of the Russian president? Controversially, what would happen if the energy crisis induced by the impossibility of using Russian sources of supply were to permanently collapse Western financial livelihoods? What would be the repercussion of Joe Biden at a strategic disadvantage behind Russia? How would America react in that case?

by Marius Creati

“I take my point of inspiration from the article in The Atlantic by Alexander Gabuev, from which I extrapolated the cover photo”

  1. No comments yet.
  1. No trackbacks yet.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: