Assessment of Nuclear Conflict Risks at the Present Geopolitical Climate

The following is a letter by an anonymous viewer of the neutrality studies youtube channel, published here for the purpose of an open discussion. To send your own letter, please contact the editor. Letters to the Editor do not reflect the opinions of neutralitystudies.com or its editors. All views are those expressed by the author.

Dear Pascal,

I thought I would write and to share some thoughts regarding the program you presented, with the two academics from Europe on the critical topic of “nuclear war risk assessment” at the present state of international geopolitical events. The link referencing your program is the following, that I am referring to:

As the discussion went on, the two academic invited speakers although appearing to have slight differences in their approaches from one another, I could see that they were gradually converging to the “accepted doctrine” allowed in the West now exclusively and enforced in autocratic and authoritarian tactics. That is to blame Russia and portray the country as some kind of irrational or desperate player on the international scene – when absolutely the opposite in my opinion is the actual reality. I will explain in some detail for you below.

The invited guests in the aforementioned and cited program, were two Professors in Political Science, specifically:

1. Tom Sauer: Professor in International Politics at the University of Antwerpen, in Belgium.
2. Heinz Gärtner: Professor in the Department of Political Science at the University of Vienna, Austria.

In the program you hosted with these two speakers, to the discerning eye, the first Professor (Sauer) appeared as the true hardliner as the program went on, although both of them presenting as per the usual as objective knowledgeable academics in their respective fields. You could see that Gärtner was more moderate, but during the discussion one could also see very clearly how this was evolving. One way or another, Sauer led the conclusion that the highest risk for nuclear war is Russia, while Gärtner had quickly to comply, fall in line literally and do so very quickly to show compliance, to the lead of the former and agree with this assessment. Again, hardly surprising as they are academics still operating and dependent on the established contemporary academic system of the West.

No matter what we may think about the imperfections or injustices or lack of freedoms internally in the Russian Federation at large, or our opinions about Vladimir Putin and his wider supporting political circle, it is a grave mistake to portray them as some kind of irrational or impulsive player by far. This is sheer and glaringly obvious projection in my opinion, of the truly incompetent leadership of the “Collective West”, where to get promoted you have to now be the “bottom of the classroom” in order to serve some elite group’s short-term and short-sighted agenda that only benefit themselves in a self-serving manner, rather than the countries and their citizens in the West at large.

The Ukraine affair, is something that clearly was being escalated, cultivated, fostered, financed and instigated over the best part of the last two decades by “select groups” particularly represented by exclusively non-elected (always) members and staff of the US State Department which has been dominated by this class of geopolitical engineers since Henry Kissinger onward to our time at ever increasing levels of control and atrocious outcomes. These political figures are literally genocidal without any care or regard for human life, ethics, morality or the so-cherished concept of “democracy” they so like to use as mantra to justify their ill-advised policies and actions – effectively, to justify modern-day crusades at ever-increasing level of viciousness with complete and utter cynicism. I mention as examples some of the most odious such persons: Kissinger, Albright, Rice, Nuland, Blinken, and I am sure many more like them all the way up and down the hierarchies there.

The Russians tried I think to the best of their abilities to show both stamina, patience and of course display not only warnings but an explicitly stated, in the end, outright threat of unilateral action if these people continued with their ill-advised move to encircle and threaten Russia at its borders by toppling governments and countries in Eastern Europe and place NATO facilities and of course nuclear weapons right at their border – instead of creating and cultivating safety buffers, neutral zones, as they should have been doing. Such a stance and positioning would have benefited the state of Ukraine immensely, serving as a bridge between the West and Russia and facilitated a long-term means to achieve peaceful coexistence and mutually beneficial transactions on multiple levels.

Instead, the West (led by the United States in the post-WWII era, with the ministrations of its primary servant being the United Kingdom, always eager to show loyalty in such dark affairs since the loss of their British Empire) opted to cultivate divisions in Ukrainian society and facilitate outright coup d’état’s that led to the obliteration of any such prospects for Ukraine. Cynically, I mention the photographs of Victoria Nuland offering “free” cookies to people in the streets of Ukraine in a public relations typical stunt to show solidarity and gain sympathy (pretending to be humble and caring and warm and kindhearted – does this not make you sick to your stomach really to see?): she might as well have laced them with poison, because that is what her “treats” meant literally coming from the United States for the outcome planned for their country that we witness unfolding today.

Not only that, but through the facilitating machinations of local oligarchs in Ukraine it brought to power a leadership that was elected based on proclaiming peace with Russia, to do exactly the opposite all the way to creating the conditions that would lead any superpower to act unilaterally – as Russia in a very predictable way did, to the obvious full knowledge of the US State Department, and one may here of course assume to their full intent to cause this in the first place to begin with. I strongly hold that to believe otherwise is very naive and only helps to further allow such policies to harm the world at large. This is evidenced beyond doubt by the historical trajectories and modus operandi of both the British and then its successor American Empire, as well as any other brutal European Empire of the past, starting as far back with the Athenian Empire in Ancient Greece.

The worst mistake when you are in some form of competition is to underestimate and try to smear, demean and badmouth your competitor, and to start treating them like an evil opponent next, until of course you declare them to be your outright enemy in the end. This only serves weak people, and bullies in particular, and it is a typical escalatory pattern they use invariably to rile up their supporters and maintain their seat of control and power internally – to begin with, before projecting this outside their borders (a form of internal population control aimed propaganda and rhetoric used to secure their seat of power internally). This is a clear mistake that the western weakling and grossly inadequate (bought for cash obviously, one way or another, always) leaders have been doing at our time over the past few decades, with now complete domination of the scene in the Western world at large.

The Russians are a solid long standing culture, with a continuous history of both hardships, mistakes and also great achievements, of many intellectuals, a very extensively rigorous educational system, but also with provisions for education and healthcare for the majority of its citizens historically, despite the dark times of the USSR and the Cold War. As the Chinese are, no matter what one may think of their internal systems politically or otherwise. Both of these countries also do have strong leaderships that without a doubt see their countries as a whole, and their actions consistently show beyond a doubt that they do act in what they believe is the best interest of their countries first. This is the opposite of what one can now observe both for the present, but also in retrospect, about Western countries and leadership particularly now because of the impossible to mask duplicity they exhibit, double-standards, double-speech, and outright lack of rational thinking as well as their grossly inadequate standard on every conceivable level: educational, moral, ethics, honesty, or the ability to stand their ground for the good of the countries they are meant to lead. Their words say one things and invariably their actions demonstrate the complete opposite, always!

Turning back to your two academic guests, after the first half of the program you could see that their consensus was the prescribed one: to portray Russia as the one to be the most unstable power to use nuclear weapons first, starting with tactical weapons of small yield in the battlefield and then to escalate. I wish to remind you that the first ones to come up with this lame idea were actually the Americans, conveniently forgotten (we could find references and dates if you like to this), as well as is the atrocity of using the very first ever nuclear weapons first on civilian populations in Japan intentionally. In the 1970’s they came up with the hype of “neutron bombs”, much advertised at the time by Western media and with very prominent articles in publications like the Time Magazine (it was the Cold War at the time).

A neutron bomb is a very low yield fission nuclear weapon that is intended to explode high above a target zone so that the damage from the explosion is minimal to infrastructure and materials. But it is designed to douse the place with a blast of high-energy neutrons that are aimed to actually kill life – all DNA-based life will die out, with humans at a maximum of 2 weeks when sufficiently irradiated. This is a true tactical weapon if you wanted to look at it as such, much hyped then but abandoned I believe altogether for simple reasons. One most obvious reason is that although you have the “desirable” effect of only killing your enemies, to put it blandly, it is still a fission-based nuclear weapon that because it is exploded also in higher altitude it will generate inevitably radioactive fallout that can go all over the place, as the wind blows, eventually contaminating wider areas and including one’s own troops. Much like why lethal gases as weapons were eventually a “failure” in WWI, such as chlorine gas, which at a turn of the wind instead of killing your enemy troops they killed also your own!

Back to the two professors of your program once again, it is clear that their focus is biased and had to point, yet again, the finger to the Russians. This is a necessity for a high position of full professors, or any position of academics in Europe and the so termed “Collective West” at large nowadays. There are issues of not ever getting any funding if you even dare write one word against the prescribed script by the ruling political class. If you even dare to write two words, then you lose your job on the spot. And any job thereafter will be inaccessible to you within the Western system, academic or otherwise. But you already know this I think all too well for yourself, right? Speaking from experience of having spent three decades myself in Western academia, I know it to be so because I saw its escalation in that free-thinkers were gradually not only expelled, but are now immediately excluded from ever entering the ever-weakening Western higher education system. Particularly in schools associated strongly with the “establishment” of a country over many decades or centuries, as in the case of the Oxbridge schools in the UK and the Ivy League schools in the US.

As an aside and extension to the above, the way the educational system is being manipulated to operate in the West is both in a self-congratulatory manner, as well as by rushing to promote very early on, both in higher as well as lower educational levels, immature and downright incapable individuals that “make their bosses look good”. They proclaim meritocracy but in no lesser terms what they promote is nepotism and favoritism beyond the obvious now as evidenced by the shrinkage in productivity, availability of skilled people, as well as the massive de-industrialization taking place in Europe and the United States.

Russia, as well as clearly China is, turning once more back to them, is by far the most stable player in the game of geopolitics and conflict. They have proven considerable restrain strategically over the last 2 years, where they could have behaved like “bulls in a china shop” as per the typical scorched-ground approach of the Americans and Anglosaxons, but did not so far in Ukraine. Juxtapose for example the carpet bombings deliberate atrocities, in more recent history, in Serbia, Iraq, Libya, Syria, and pretty much everywhere aiming to terrorize and attack directly and with explicit intent an entire civilian population into submission rather than aim for military targets – and of course always invariably leading to gross failures and losses around the globe historically. This establishes a modus operandi of Western “culture”, and it is undeniably so because of its historical (over centuries one might argue here) consistency. Yes, the war Russia started with Ukraine is as terrible as any war is, but with big players when one of them starts losing the game and in effect provokes overtly the other into submission what should one expect to happen? Would anyone sit and take it under those circumstances?

Continuing with this, not only the Russians in their strategy they did in this way not bomb entire neighborhoods at the cost of say killing one combatant per hundreds of civilian kills per day on average (“collateral loss”, such a gentle and politically correct term coined in the West, right?!) but they are using this bidding of time to their advantage to slowly establish credibility with other countries outside the “Collective West”, cultivate very strong diplomacy and trade relationships, and ensure their financial system’s autonomy and hence eventually complete immunity to the Western one. And this is now permanent and a total win on all those fronts by the forming and rapidly solidifying opposition to the entirety of the West and its exploitative systems.

At this juncture of this exposition by necessity one has to juxtapose the conduct of the state of Israel not just recently, but historically since the “creation” of their state by the facilitation and ministrations of the British Empire first in Palestine in 1947–48, and then the Americans taking over in full, but also the orchestration of this creation by the British jointly with the French cultivating and fostering the extremist ideology of Zionism primarily in Europe, and also establishing a permanent and powerful foothold in the United States from at least the 1920’s onward. Zionism is just another form of extreme ideology which is based on ethnicity in order to promote and project this ideology with specific goals that do not serve in any way the ethnic or national group they proclaim to represent, but quite the opposite use it as a source of “human material” to serve its discriminatory and self-righteous extremist and ad hoc self-defined exceptionalism narrative. In no lesser words, I am describing a cult here.

Turning back to Israel now, we can see the vast difference of how war is conducted: not on military targets directly, but directly on the civilian population to terrorize and cleanse an entire region from its endemic population in a most brutal, vicious and inhumane way. Zionism in the opinion of this author, just like any other extremist nationalist ideology, is an affront to the Jewish people around the world, their rich millennia-long culture and overall contribution to humanity at large by extraordinary individuals, historically, in all domains of excellence: the Arts, Mathematics, Science, Technology, Philosophy – pretty much in every domain in humanity at large, beyond racial and ethnic boundaries.

Zionism though, is just like its counterpart in Germany over the 1920’s until 1945 that resulted in the very same nature of atrocity against Jewish people, and many more of other “minorities”, with their own version of industrialized mass annihilation of human beings. Perhaps what makes Zionism even worse to the extremism of the German Nazi’s is its cynicism in its claim to be trying to protect Jewish people from another Holocaust, all the meanwhile it regards all other human beings as lesser to its “own” people and of course follows a completely parallel trajectory to that of its “cousin ideology” that wrecked havoc on the world during WWII based on German extremist nationalism and exceptionalism.

Back to the Ukraine crisis, Ukraine was prepared to be used as a sacrificial proxy by the United States, via another proxy this time being Europe, so as to serve their true ruling elites that are invariable and run the show (not so much behind the scenes really to one who wants to see things for what they always have been). This was obviously identified by Russia, China and other emerging big now players. Particularly for Russia though this shows an extraordinary understanding and collective organization of their governmental systems and their strategic planning way ahead of the inevitability they could see coming their way since the fall of the USSR in 1991, probably being put in place from around the early 2000’s by their new leadership to this present day.

The very rapid adaptation of the Russian economy after the insanely large-scale economic warfare declared and launched by the United States and their “allies” (literally vassal-state colonies now in Europe in particular) was countered very effectively and even advantageously to Russia by implementation of schemes that were obviously not produced on-the-fly, but were meticulously designed on all fronts for many-many years before. This shows the truth about Russia’s strength at least in this respect on the one hand, and the obvious weakness of the West also on the other hand. It also now renders them completely predictable, not only by “big-player” countries, but by lesser and smaller countries as well as other “groups” that oppose them.

The Russian strategically planned countermeasures include alternative financial and credit transfer systems and their infrastructure (the “MIR” payment system versus “SWIFT” etc.), but also the unveiling of technologically superior, and much cheaper to produce in bulk, highly-effective and accurate weapon systems far exceeding the outdated weapons of the West which are in contrast produced at exorbitant costs (due to of course the corrupt privately held and controlled Military Industrial Complex predominantly of the United States).

A drone for example costs around 10 to 30 thousand dollars to produce, which will become much cheaper with economies of scale, while the highly-specialized and very expensive Patriot air-defense missile system costs 3 million dollars per missile, of which typically one has to fire typically two Patriot missiles per incoming aerial threat. Also, with regards to the Patriot system, its base installation per battery system and its maintenance is to my knowledge worth close to a billion dollars a-piece, but one can check and correct my figures here. The inescapable conclusion is though a singular one, and by simply doing the math here you can reach it yourself. Numbers never lie.

Hence by listening to the EU “leaders” (elected, unelected, or … otherwise) speak in derogatory and demeaning ways about the Russians makes you laugh at one level, while revealing the absolutely stark and sad truth and reality on another level: like Ursula von der Leyen, and the other people comprising the entourage around her, saying the Russians need to take microchips out of dishwashers to make weapons is not only ridiculous, but shows the truly base and utterly low level and severe limitations, on every conceivable level, of this so-called EU leadership. And all the above make the overall outcome immediately predictable at any timescale without room for any doubt anymore.

Back to your guests once more. The most unstable player with nuclear weapons is not a vast and very powerful country like Russia, that due to its size and length of borders can buffer even nuclear attacks, but also because of its total self-sufficiency on many levels. It is not a country that if not challenged on a nuclear level that will resort itself to using first nuclear weapons. In fact the opposite is true: the first-strike doctrine is something that now has been emerging and considered normal in the United States and no other nuclear power is so blatantly open about it. A typical bully losing the game and trying to scare everyone else into submission by playing a dangerous bluff in my opinion. But moving on, the point I am trying to make is the opposite of your two “professor guests” from the Western establishment: the most dangerous player is someone who is very small in geographical size and population and heavily depends on the total support of others both financially as well as militarily to exist. One could say if Ukraine had nukes this would have made it now an absolute imminent and present danger.

But by now you know what is coming next from my logic: Israel. They are the most likely to use nukes first, “if we are going to go down we take everyone else with us” – they even have a name for this eventuality: the so-called “Samson Doctrine”, based on the Biblical story of Samson bringing down the entire temple on himself and the rest of the “sinners” in it! This is the most rational conclusion, because: (a) Israel is a tiny strip of land, with (b) 10 or so million people as population at best, and (c) has historically been founded on constant sheer brutal violence and shows absolutely no humanity or mercy or care for any meaningful relationships with their 300 or so million neighbors, all of whom in one way or another for the last 85 years have been treated like low-grade animals at best. This is a truth obvious to an entire planet of human beings for decades now, no matter how much Westerners wish to spin it to protect and shield Israel, their unwieldly child-protectorate and of course engineered proxy in the Middle East.

I also fear very much that I am correct in my assessment in that provably Israel has shown its desperation, and hence undeclared grave fear and weakness, in maintaining an upper hand by always resorting to sheer extreme violence and carnage in its entire history, as it is truly a minute group of people behaving in a beyond barbaric tribal and primitive way, absolutely convinced by indoctrination that they have to dominate at all costs the entire region – if not the planet one would think – by such completely irrational behavior and sustained cultural way of thinking.

But they are 10 million people only Pascal, the planet is 8 billion at least and soon to grow even more, the numbers don’t work, their logic is flawed, and as they are unrelenting, incorrigible and impossible to sway into a more rational way of existence among humanity, I do absolutely believe they are the most unstable geopolitical focal point where a nuclear war could begin from. Give a crazed child a box of matches what do you think he/she will do? Give a child a red button that says “fire” what do you think they will do without much thought if they feel existentially threatened? Turning back to Israel for one last time here: if they want to find an enemy to blame, then they themselves are their very own worst enemy to begin with.

This will go one and only one way in my humble opinion, if it is not checked hard by other bigger and powerful players and fast. A tiny country with too much reliance on brute force, who has been hiding the fact of the possession of nuclear weapons and using this mystery to terrorize the region, when they actually eventually lose the “numbers game” (which it is inevitable they will do so in this trajectory they have chosen) they are going to be driven to desperation way much faster than in any rational scenario the mature, advanced, and autonomous state and society of Russia will ever be. And with the interwoven Zionist movement integrated, to a point, within the United States, they will create situations to ignite the whole Middle Eastern region to force the United States to be dragged into a huge-scale war across the region. And of course, this will be then very hard to contain just in that region, as you understand very well and have stated perhaps in not so explicit terms in other programs you have posted in the Internet and YouTube.

Either that, or something even worse: someone will eventually (or even inevitably on this trajectory of unfolding events) decide to take preemptive strike on Israel on that level because of their small size but grave danger they pose to them existentially, realizing their weakness and fragility due to their very small geographical area which makes them particularly susceptible, with at the most 1-2 strategic strikes, and acting first. Either way the situation will then escalate from there on, as per the above analysis, and there will be no return.

And sadly, Israel despite the delusion of control their Zionist machinery may believe they have within the Western powers (particularly within the Anglosaxon sphere from where they draw most of their influential and most committed radicalized settlers), the “Empire” will consider them exactly what they are to it: just another ethnic minority, expendable and a useful proxy to their geopolitical chess game having served their purpose in the “grand scheme of things”.