Euromaidan fascist commander Andriy Parubiy, now the deputy speaker of the Ukraine Supreme Rada, made the rounds in Washington this week, meeting with Victoria Nuland, John McCain, and John Boehner, and pressing for the US to provide weapons to the Kiev regime. The push for weapons by hardcore Ukrainian Banderists (Parubiy was a co-founder in 1991 of the Social Nationalist Party of Ukraine) to fight Russia, is the immediate flash-point for strategic confrontation in the heart of Eurasia. Parubiy was joined in Washington on Thursday by former Georgian President Saakashvili, who is a strategic advisor to the Poroshenko/Yatsenyuk government in Kiev. The full court press for war with Russia is on!
Lyndon LaRouche warned on Thursday that the actions of Obama, Nuland, Parubiy, and others represent the potential trigger for the outbreak of a war that can lead to the destruction of mankind.
While, as Lyndon LaRouche has emphasized in dialogue with colleagues over the past 72 hours, even the most fanatical of the British war party are not consciously out to trigger a war of extinction of mankind—a full-throttle global strategic thermonuclear confrontation between the United States and NATO on one side, and Russia and China on the other—they do believe that a “limited” war, even a “limited nuclear war” can be localized in the heartland of Eurasia, targeted at the Russia and China core of the BRICS nations. It is this population of the Eurasian heartland that the British and their Wall Street and Obama Administration allies have targeted for a mass kill.
The drive for such a “limited” nuclear war is moving ahead against both Russia and China. A survey of the past months reveals that there is an intense battle underway, behind the scenes, within the NATO trans-Atlantic system, over the deployment of a new generation of “limited nuclear weapons” in both Europe and in the Asia-Pacific region. Leading critics of the scheme in the US and Germany have raised the roof over the planned modernization of the US arsenal of 180 tactical nuclear weapons in Europe, the B-61. Under the Obama Administration’s nuclear modernization plans, the new generation of B-61 tactical nuclear weapons will be more accurate, with longer range, capable of hitting sites deep inside Russia.
In the Asia-Pacific region, Air Sea Battle, the Obama Administration’s war plan against China, similarly blurs the lines between nuclear and conventional warfare, by claiming the right to launch pre-emptive strikes against Chinese mainland critical security infrastructure. At the same time, Obama is pressing South Korea to accept the deployment of US missile defense systems, ostensibly against North Korea, that are actually more suited to the ASB targeting of China.
This desperate drive for war, including the utopian delusion about the possibility of “limited” nuclear confrontation in Eurasia, is ultimately driven by the fact that the British system of monetarist looting of nations has reached the end of the line. The Greek elections have accelerated the showdown over the bankruptcy of all of the trans-Atlantic too-big-to-fail banks, the ECB and the entire Eurozone system. There is only one solution, LaRouche emphasized today: Return to national sovereignty, end the Euro experiment, through an orderly Glass- Steagall reorganization and return to sovereign currencies. The gambling debt is both illegal and unpayable. Greece owes nothing to the Troika.
It is this reality, and the further reality of the BRICS alternative, that is driving the British to the edge, where they are pushing limited thermonuclear confrontation in Eurasia.
That is the danger of allowing the British puppets, Barack Obama, Victoria Nuland, and the rest, to remain in power. Fire Nuland and move to remove Obama from office and the nuclear danger is gone. Sit back and allow them to continue on their current path, and the war that will come will not be limited to Eurasia. It will be a global war of annihilation.
In line with Lyndon LaRouche’s past 48 hours’ discussion about the danger of limited nuclear war targeted against Russia and China, and contained within the Eurasian region, a fierce debate has been underway among nuclear weapon and disarmament specialists on both sides of the Atlantic.
In the aftermath of an Obama Administration decision in mid-2013 to allocate significant defense funds to the modernization of America’s nuclear triad, including the modernization of its arsenal of tactical nuclear weapons in Europe, increasing calls have been issued for the U.S. to withdraw all of its tactical nuclear weapons in Europe, because they represent a dangerous and counter-productive use of limited defense dollars.
The U.S. is upgrading the existing B-12 tactical nuclear weapons in a way that increases their range and their accuracy, blurring the lines between nuclear and conventional weapons, and violating the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Force (INF) Treaty, which bars the deployment of such weapons in Europe. By adding “tail kits” to the existing B-12 tactical nuclear weapons, the accuracy of the weapons is greatly enhanced, making it possible to reduce the mega-tonnage of the nuclear explosives. The plans to deploy the new B-61-12 tactical nukes on the F-35 stealth fighters, due to be deployed to Europe in the coming years, means that the smaller-scale nuclear warheads can be launched against targets deep inside Russia.
All of this, critics have been warning, increases the possibility of a limited nuclear war being launched, which, they argue, will lead inevitably to an escalation to full-scale nuclear confrontation at the level of annihilation.
In the July/August 2014 issue of the CFR’s Foreign Affairs journal, Barry Blechman and Russell Rumbaugh wrote “Bombs Away—The Case for Phasing Out U.S. Tactical Nukes in Europe.” A similar argument, detailing the modernization of the B-61s, was presented Nov. 6, 2013 in Spiegel Online by Markus Becker, who recently wrote of the increased dangers of nuclear war coming from the Ukraine crisis. Becker’s piece was headlined “Nuclear Arsenal: U.S. to Turn Old Bombs into All-Purpose Weapons.”
Hans Kristensen, of the Federation of American Scientists (FAS), has been writing warnings about the tendency to push for limited nuclear war in the European and Eurasian theater for the past several years, most recently in a Sept. 3, 2014 article in the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists under the title “Why NATO should eliminate its tactical nukes, despite Russian belligerence.” He was the author of a comprehensive review of the U.S. and NATO tactical and short-range nuclear weapons arsenals around the globe for the FAS in May 2012, titled “Non-Strategic Nuclear Weapons.” In the study, he warned that such new weapons systems create a greater danger of the outbreak of nuclear war.
Germany, among other European nations, has been calling for the U.S. to withdraw all tactical nukes from Europe. There are currently 180 U.S. tactical nuclear bombs in NATO countries—Germany, Italy, Netherlands, Belgium, and Turkey. All of these are older versions of the B-61, which will replaced in the next years with the new versions, which effectively convert them into intermediate-range nuclear weapons.
While there have been few unclassified papers explicitly arguing for the viability of limited nuclear war against Russia and/or China in the Eurasian theater, the decision to go ahead with the “modernization fix” of the B-61 and the Obama decision to allocate $335 billion over the next decade for modernization of the U.S. thermonuclear arsenal, sufficiently makes the point.
Former Reagan Administration official and current national syndicated columnist Paul Craig Roberts pens an unusual, third-consecutive-day column on the war danger, which again, as the day before, cites Executive Intelligence Review’s coverage of former Russian Ambassador Jack Matlock’s Feb. 11 remarks in Washington D.C. This time Roberts cites on Matlock’s speech in his first paragraph.
Roberts’s column, titled, “Washington Has Destroyed Trust Between Nuclear Powers, Thus Raising The Specter Of War,” Roberts says Reagan’s successors have done
“a thorough job of destroying this trust. In the last two years the destruction of trust has been total.”
On February 24, Roberts attacked Alexander J. Motyl and the Council on Foreign Relations’ February 5 publication of a
“large collection of blatant lies… I observed that the publication of ignorant nonsense in what is supposed to be a respectable foreign policy journal indicated the degradation of the Western political and media elite. I did not think things could get any worse, but one day later I came across Andrew S. Weiss’ article in the Wall Street Journal. Weiss’ article is the most amazing collection of misrepresentations imaginable. It is impossible to believe that the vice president for studies at the Carnegie Endowment could possible be so totally misinformed. The false reality that Weiss creates precludes any diplomatic resolution of the conflict that Washington has created with Russia.”
Roberts says it reminds him of the confession of Udo Ulfkotte, an editor at the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung in the 1960s, that he published under his name articles handed to him by the CIA and that the entire European press does the same. “Was Weiss handed the disinformation by the CIA, or by Victoria Nuland,” or, says Roberts, is he just another of the former NSC, State Department, or DOD “propaganda operatives currently operating out of a think-tank?”