Amid Russia’s ongoing special military operation in Ukraine and Western equipment supplies to the Kiev regime, politicians and pundits are time and again referring to the threat of a nuclear war. They started proactively fomenting it after Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov’s April 25 interview to Channel One, where he said the risks were serious.
History, as you know, repeats itself twice: first as a tragedy, and then as a farce. Today, the western-launched campaign to lower the "nuclear threshold" is nothing less than a farce fraught with a real tragedy. Ostensibly, this comes in response to Sergey Lavrov’s above-mentioned statement on a serious nuclear war risk he referred to over NATO's military preparations for some "peacekeeping" mission in Ukraine.
The nuclear issue is being utilized in much the same way that American and NATO strategists elaborated upon Russia's "invasion" of Ukraine last year, clearly seeking to make Moscow intervene as the only option left. It all started with the injected "chemical threat", but the United States and the entire collective West are actually more concerned with the nuclear issue proper. They play up and introduce the idea as a routine, orderly acceptable thing.
This is an obvious provocation, with the Russian nuclear threat message being implanted into public consciousness. Now Moscow will be blamed for any use of nuclear weapons in the conflict zone. Who else, then? There should be no doubters or neutrals in the Ukrainian issue.
Examples of this abound, suffice it to follow statements by a number of Western politicians. Thus, answering a question about alternatives to the current "sanctions bill from hell" against Russia, US President Joe Biden only referred to World War III. It can only be nuclear, which is clear to everyone. Small wonder that President Biden's national security adviser Jake Sullivan said that during his visit to Poland in late March, his boss and other NATO leaders discussed strengthening the alliance's posture, including emergency action in case of a nuclear attack.
Moreover, a team of officials was formed in the United States to develop a response plan if Russia uses nuclear weapons, The New York Times wrote on March 23. Jake Sullivan signed the relevant document on February 28. And a little earlier, a high-ranking Pentagon official said at a briefing that «the United States conducted a military exercise simulating a retaliatory strike using nuclear weapons after Russia used low-power nuclear weapons in Europe against NATO countries».
In turn, former Supreme Allied Commander Europe of NATO Gen. Wesley Clark suggested that Russian President Vladimir Putin may well order that his military strike Poland with tactical nukes. Having appeared on CNN, Clark said “if Putin believes that he can shatter NATO, then he would perhaps use a low yield nuclear weapon.”
On we go. In early March, French Foreign Minister Jean-Yves Le Drian said President Putin should remember that the Fifth Republic вшв have nuclear weapons as well. And British Foreign Minister Liz Truss had an interview with Sky News on February 27, saying that London is ready for a conflict between NATO and Russia. Defense Secretary Ben Wallace confirmed this in his address to the country's parliament, adding that Russia "should not forget" about Britain’s ability to use NATO’s nuclear weapons if necessary.
It is quite obvious that statements by Truss and Wallace reflect official London’s general belligerent course. And British Prime Minister Boris Johnson threatened Russia with a "retaliatory strike" in case it uses weapons of mass destruction in Ukraine. London itself may well stage something of the kind, we note. "In case the use of weapons of mass destruction takes place, the UK reserves the right to strike back independently, without consulting other NATO countries," Johnson said.
The hoax involving Russia's alleged intention to use nuclear weapons in Ukraine was invented by Western special services and distributed via their subordinate media. Russia has repeatedly pointed to inveracity of such statements, as Moscow does not explore any options to use nuclear weapons, including the special operation in Ukraine. The West is aware this is fake, too. So is Boris Johnson who also knows that any London-launched missile against Russia will make Moscow respond like a ton of bricks. His statement was meant to comfort his Kiev "ally" President Zelensky so that the latter poses no problem to laundering huge money through Ukraine, as well as in an effort to combat Russia by proxy "to the last Ukrainian."
Meanwhile, interminable western talk about expecting Russia’s nuclear strike has taken effect already. For instance, a recent poll by the Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research revealed that 90% of Americans fear the use of nuclear weapons by President Putin in Ukraine. Horror-stricken Italians are buying secure bunkers, and in Germany people gobble up iodine pills.
The nuclear war issue is running through the minds of Western politicians but not in the minds of Russians. The latter is explainable, as Russia is well aware of real nuclear war consequences. At the same time, as Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov recently said, "we will not allow any kind of provocation to unbalance us." "But if a real war is unleashed against Russia, those who hatch such plans should think about its consequences," the minister added.
