Credible Possibility Now for Nuclear War, Russia-vs. U.S.
Photo circulated by The White Helmets, a disinformation outfit created by Western intelligence. It purports to show young victims of "latest" gas attack by the Syrian government. The object of this transparent false flag is obviously to inflame tensions and justify further aggression by the US-led bloc against Syria, Russia and their allies.
Although Russia has warned the U.S. that another U.S. missile-assault against sovereign Syrian territory will be answered not only by Syria’s military but also by Russia’s, Andrew Korybko, who is an expert on geostrategy and especially on Russia’s strategic intentions, says that Russia would not follow through on that threat unless Russian soldiers get killed by the U.S. invasion. But, either way, nuclear war between the super-powers would be likely; and here is why:
The Russian statement, as published on April 8th at the site of Russian Television, was that any such U.S. invasion “would be ‘absolutely unacceptable’ and could lead to ‘dire consequences.’” Of course, if Russia, after such a statement, were to respond, to such an invasion by the U.S., with something less than “dire consequences,” then the U.S. invasion would have defeated Russia, in the Syrian battlefield, without so much as even having had any war there against Russian forces. This would, to put it mildly, be a watershed moment of Russia’s military capitulation to U.S. aggression against the Government of Syria — an ally of Russia, left unprotected in the lurch, when Russia’s assistance would have been the most needed. Also, since the U.N. would never authorize any such invasion, the U.S. would have destroyed there the U.N. itself, as being anything more than a talking-forum that’s backed up by nothing more than the whims of what then would incontestably be the lone superpower and the imperial master of the entire planet: the U.S. regime, which would then have shown (conspicuously displayed) that it can do anything anywhere and be unconcerned about any retaliatory consequences. Would the Russian people accept that outcome, their capitulation? If they do not, then would they accept the American dictators? If they do not, then would they accept their own elected Government? Or: would there become a second Russian revolution?
The full phrase that was used in the Russian Government’s original announcement was that they “warn that military intervention under flimsy pretexts fabrications regarding Syria, where, at the request of the legitimate Government are Russian servicemen, is absolutely unacceptable and could lead to the most severe consequences.” In that form, the warning could sound meaningless; but, that’s not the form in which the assertion was being broadcast to the global public. If the intention of the Russian Government there was to have some basis for alleging that Russia’s attempt to “warn” the U.S. was no real warning at all, then it would be mocked.
The implication of the warning as it had been stated in that original, was that only if there “are Russian servicemen” who become hit by the U.S. aggression against the sovereign Syrian Government, will it be the case that it “could lead to the most severe consequences.” If, however, “Russian servicemen” do become injured or, worse yet, killed, by the American invasion, how could Russia’s Government face its own people if it then failed to respond with “the most serious consequences”?
Korybko said that “it’s unlikely that Russia will carry through on the conditional yet highly publicized and mostly misunderstood threat to shoot down any American missiles and/or target their launching pads (including ships), so Syria will probably have little choice but to finally follow Russia’s ‘suggestion’ of a ‘last-minute solution’ or face the wrathful American consequences for refusing.” But what would happen if Syria does choose to stand firm? And what would happen if there “are Russian servicemen” who become injured or killed in that invasion?
Perhaps the Russian Government wants to extricate itself from its role as Syria’s essential protector, but there seems to be little possibility that it could be done now, other than by jeopardizing its own standing not only internationally as an ally whose commitments can be trusted, but even among the Russian people who had elected it.
Consequently, “dire consequences,” or “the most severe consequences” to the U.S. invaders, would quite possibly result from that invasion; and, then, what step would the invader follow-up with?
Likely would be a massed invasion by the U.S. military in conjunction with that of Israel, the Sauds, and whatever NATO members would want to be at the head of the line of vassals supplicating for favors afterward to the imperial master-regime in Washington. This would then clearly be likewise a war against both Russia and Iran, and perhaps China and North Korea would join it on Russia’s-Syria’s side. But, in any case, the likelihood of limiting this war to only the Syrian battlefield would then be very slim indeed; and the only question that would seriously remain would be: will the all-out nuclear war between the U.S. and Russia be initiated by a sudden blitz all-out nuclear invasion of Russia by the U.S., or, instead, by a sudden blitz all-out nuclear invasion of the U.S. by Russia? Which side will strike the first? That’s important, because the nuclear exchange will be over within only 30 minutes, at most. The first to strike will have obliterated many of the opposite side’s weapons (blocked them from being used), and this will be decisive in determining the ‘winner’ and the loser’.
Whichever side strikes the first will likeliest suffer the lesser damage of the two, even if the entire globe gets effectively destroyed as a consequence. In military terms, ‘victory’ always goes to whichever side suffers the less damage than the other; ‘defeat’ goes to the side that suffers the more damage. That’s all. This is the military, after all. And, so, even if there really would not be any significant history afterward, there still would have been a ‘winner’ and a ‘loser’; and this seems now to be the chief question that is seriously open, at the present time: who will blitz-attack first?
Investigative historian Eric Zuesse is the author, most recently, of They’re Not Even Close: The Democratic vs. Republican Economic Records, 1910-2010, and of CHRIST’S VENTRILOQUISTS: The Event that Created Christianity.
SPECIAL
[bg_collapse view=”button-orange” color=”#4a4949″ icon=”arrow” expand_text=”Click here to examine NYTimes misleading Syria coverage” collapse_text=”Show Less” ]
PUBLISHED TODAY BY THE NEW YORK TIMES—
Dozens Suffocate in Syria as Government Is Accused of Chemical Attack
A video image provided by the Syrian Civil Defense [“White Helmets”], an aid group, of toddlers after a suspected chemical attack in the rebel-held Syrian suburb of Douma on Sunday. CreditSyrian Civil Defense White Helmets, via Associated Press
BEIRUT, Lebanon — Dozens of Syrians choked to death after a suspected chemical attack struck the rebel-held suburb of Douma, east of Damascus, with aid groups on Sunday blaming President Bashar al-Assad’s government for the assault and Western governments expressing outrage.
Rescue workers in Syria reported finding at least 42 people dead in their homes from apparent suffocation, and antigovernment activists circulated videos of lifeless men, women and children sprawled out on floors and in stairwells, many with white foam coming from their mouths and nostrils.
A stream of patients with burning eyes and breathing problems were rushed to clinics after the attack at dusk on Saturday, medical and rescue groups said.
The attack appeared to break the will of Douma’s rebels, who agreed on Sunday to a deal with the government to hand the area over and be bused to another area outside government control in the country’s north. Thousands of fighters and tens of thousands of their relatives are expected to leave soon.
The latest atrocity in Syria’s agonizing seven-year civil war drew immediate condemnation from the United States and the European Union, but Mr. Assad’s allies in Moscow and Tehran dismissed allegations of a chemical attack as “bogus.”
The British Foreign Office called for an urgent investigation and said that if the use of chemical weapons proved to be true, “it is further proof of Assad’s brutality.”
The United States government said it was working to verify whether chemical weapons had been used. A new, confirmed chemical attack in Syria would pose a dilemma for President Trump, who ordered military strikes on a Syrian air base after a chemical attack last year to punish Mr. Assad but has more recently said he wanted to get the United States out of Syria.
In posts on Twitter on Sunday, Mr. Trump condemned the attack, blaming Iran and President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia for supporting the Syrian government and warning of consequences. White House officials did not rule out a military response.
Many dead, including women and children, in mindless CHEMICAL attack in Syria. Area of atrocity is in lockdown and encircled by Syrian Army, making it completely inaccessible to outside world. President Putin, Russia and Iran are responsible for backing Animal Assad. Big price…
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) April 8, 2018
Mr. Trump also took a jab at former President Barack Obama, who declined to respond militarily to evidence that the Syrian government had gassed its own people in 2013.
“If President Obama had crossed his stated Red Line In The Sand, the Syrian disaster would have ended long ago! Animal Assad would have been history!” Mr. Trump tweeted.
State news media in Syria denied that government forces had used chemical weapons and accused the Islamist rebel group that controls Douma, the Army of Islam, of fabricating the videos to solicit international support as defeat loomed.
The Russian Foreign and Defense Ministries also denied that chemical weapons had been used.
It was not possible to independently verify the reports because Douma is surrounded by Syrian government forces, which prevent access by journalists, aid workers and investigators.
The attack occurred near the end of a monthslong push by the Syrian government to retake a group of towns east of Damascus known as Eastern Ghouta. The towns have been held by rebels seeking to topple Mr. Assad since the early years of the Syrian war, and the rebels have often shelled Damascus, killing civilians.
The Syrian government and its allies — the Russian military and militias backed by Iran — have surrounded and bombarded the area, killing more than 1,600 people and forcing tens of thousands to flee, according to the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, which monitors the conflict from Britain through contacts in Syria.
Douma is the last remaining town in the area still controlled by rebels, and the Syrian government has vowed to retake it.
A picture said to show victims of the attack in a building in Douma. CreditSyrian Civil Defense White Helmets, via Associated Press
A day earlier, after the government began a new offensive against the area, Hussein Mortada, a Lebanese reporter who supports the Syrian government, released a video of himself on a hill near Douma as columns of smoke from government attacks rose in the background.
“These are appetizers,” he said. “The story is bigger than a ground invasion. There is something they will see today if the story continues. They will feel something very strong.”
The intensity of the shelling and airstrikes caused many residents to seek safety in basements, which could have made them more vulnerable to poisonous gases.
On Saturday afternoon, 15 people, including women and children, reported breathing problems after an airstrike in their area, Mahmoud Aadam, a spokesman for the Syrian Civil Defense, the so-called White Helmets, who rescue people in the wake of airstrikes, said via Facebook Live on Sunday.
Then, after dark, a government helicopter dropped exploding barrels that dispersed an unknown chemical substance that affected many more people, Mr. Aadam said. The continued assaults made it hard for rescue workers to look for victims, he said, meaning that it was difficult to establish a comprehensive death toll.
As of Sunday morning, rescue workers were “going into homes and finding people dead,” he said.
In a joint statement, the Syrian Civil Defense and the Syrian American Medical Society, which supports clinics in opposition areas of Syria, said that more than 500 people had gone to medical centers after the assault “with symptoms indicative of exposure to a chemical agent.” Those symptoms included trouble breathing, foaming at the mouth, burning eyes and the “emission of a chlorine-like odor.”
One person was dead on arrival at a clinic, six others died after they got there, and rescue workers reported finding more than 42 dead in their homes, the statement said. The bodies could not be evacuated because of strong odors and a lack of protective equipment.
“The reported symptoms indicate that the victims suffocated from the exposure to toxic chemicals,” the statement said.
The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, which did not confirm the use of chemical agents, said that 56 people, including women and children, had been killed in the past 24 hours, including 21 who suffocated in the basements of buildings that had collapsed on them. About 500 others were wounded in the bombardment, and 70 had breathing troubles, the group said.
“The Assad regime and its backers must be held accountable, and any further attacks prevented immediately,” a State Department spokeswoman, Heather Nauert, said in a statement. Ms. Nauert noted a sarin gas attack in April 2017 in northwestern Syria that the United States and the United Nations blamed on the Syrian government.
“The United States calls on Russia to end this unmitigated support immediately and work with the international community to prevent further, barbaric chemical weapons attacks,” Ms. Nauert said.
Foreign Minister Jean-Yves Le Drian of France on Sunday said reports of the chemical attack were extremely worrying and called for the United Nations Security Council to meet quickly to examine the situation.
The Russian Foreign Ministry dismissed the reports as fake.
“The spread of bogus stories about the use of chlorine and other poisonous substances by government forces continues,” the ministry said in a statement. “The aim of such deceitful speculation, lacking any kind of grounding, is to shield terrorists,” it added, “and to attempt to justify possible external uses of force.”
Bahram Qasemi, the spokesman for Iran’s Foreign Ministry, said on Sunday that reports of the gas attack were not based on facts and were an “an excuse” by the United States and Western countries to take military action against Damascus, the official Iranian news agency IRNA reported.
Mr. Obama struggled with how to respond to such attacks in Syria. After declaring the use of chemical weapons a “red line,” he declined to respond militarily when a chemical attack by the Syrian government in 2013 killed more than 1,400 people near Damascus, according to a United States assessment.
Instead, the United States and Russia reached an agreement to have Syria surrender its chemical weapons stockpiles and dismantle its capabilities to make new ones.
The agreement was celebrated at the time, but multiple chemical attacks since then have been blamed on the Syrian government, raising questions about how effective the agreement was.
An earlier version of this article misstated the surname of a State Department spokeswoman in two instances. She is Heather Nauert, not Nauret.
[/bg_collapse]
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License
Things to ponder
While our media prostitutes, many Hollywood celebs, and politicians and opinion shapers make so much noise about the still to be demonstrated damage done by the Russkies to our nonexistent democracy, this is what the sanctimonious US government has done overseas just since the close of World War 2. And this is what we know about. Many other misdeeds are yet to be revealed or documented.
Parting shot—a word from the editors
The Best Definition of Donald Trump We Have Found
In his zeal to prove to his antagonists in the War Party that he is as bloodthirsty as their champion, Hillary Clinton, and more manly than Barack Obama, Trump seems to have gone “play-crazy” — acting like an unpredictable maniac in order to terrorize the Russians into forcing some kind of dramatic concessions from their Syrian allies, or risk Armageddon.However, the “play-crazy” gambit can only work when the leader is, in real life, a disciplined and intelligent actor, who knows precisely what actual boundaries must not be crossed. That ain’t Donald Trump — a pitifully shallow and ill-disciplined man, emotionally handicapped by obscene privilege and cognitively crippled by white American chauvinism. By pushing Trump into a corner and demanding that he display his most bellicose self, or be ceaselessly mocked as a “puppet” and minion of Russia, a lesser power, the War Party and its media and clandestine services have created a perfect storm of mayhem that may consume us all.— Glen Ford, Editor in Chief, Black Agenda Report
