President Joe Biden has recently granted Ukraine authorization to deploy long-range American missiles to target deeper into Russian territory. This decision comes after the US previously allowed Ukraine to strike targets on the Russian side of the border earlier this year.
With the Ukrainian government and its supporters in Washington advocating for extended strike capabilities, Sunday marked the fulfillment of their request. As a result, on Tuesday, the first missile was launched, targeting a location in Russia’s Bryansk region.
Many people in the West are expressing concern over this development. In September, Russian President Vladimir Putin made a decision to revise Russia’s nuclear doctrine.
The updated doctrine states that an attack on Russia conducted by a non-nuclear state with the backing of a nuclear-armed nation will be regarded as a joint attack.
Additionally, the new doctrine states that a conventional attack that poses a significant threat to Russian sovereignty will now be considered as a trigger for a nuclear response from Russia. These changes have now been formally implemented.
The Ukrainians are currently utilizing the Army Tactical Missile System (ATACMS), an American weapon system. This system has a considerable range of 190 miles and relies on the US or its allies to provide the targeting coordinates for each shot.
Therefore, it is not just a matter of the US permitting the Ukrainians to fire missiles further into Russia, but actively assisting them in doing so.
Just six days ago, China inaugurated a deep-water port in Chancay, Peru, located 3,472 miles away from Washington DC. The opening of this port has drawn criticism from US officials and hawkish commentators, who perceive it as a “security threat” to the US due to its proximity to what they consider “America’s backyard.”
However, it is interesting to note that these very individuals are now expressing support for the Biden administration’s decision to assist Ukraine in launching missiles at targets in Russia, which is just a little over 100 miles away from Moscow. Curiously, there seems to be no apparent concern about the potential reaction from Russia.
The US government holds the official standpoint that Putin is depicted as a psychotic maniac who perceives himself as a quasi-religious figure in opposition to the West.
Moreover, it is expected that he maintains a composed demeanor while witnessing the US breach the boundaries set forth in Russia’s nuclear doctrine by aiding in the deployment of missiles further into Russian territory.
It is particularly frustrating that this escalation is happening now, considering that Kamala Harris, who is seen as Joe Biden’s political successor, recently lost the election and the popular vote to Donald Trump.
During his campaign, Trump emphasized the need to shift the ongoing conflict with Russia from the battlefield to the negotiation table. The Biden administration’s appointees and other high-ranking officials have been vocal about their desire to “Trump-proof” their Ukraine policy. This policy change might be an effort to achieve that goal.
Biden officials and unelected bureaucrats are actively working to undermine the future administration’s capacity to fulfill the desires of the voters. This is all being done under the guise of “protecting democracy.”
Fortunately, with the upcoming transfer of power in Washington, the Russians have fewer incentives to escalate tensions in response to these strikes.
It is worth noting that President Biden’s careful deliberation over this decision allowed the Russians ample time to relocate crucial military assets beyond the reach of Ukrainian ATACMS. Although this move may be seen as provocative, the chances of it single-handedly triggering World War III are extremely slim.
Any increase in the risk of a world war between two governments, armed with thousands of city-killing thermonuclear weapons, breaking out—no matter how small—must be deemed unacceptable.
Annie Jacobsen’s book, Nuclear War: A Scenario, provides the most comprehensive and up-to-date account of how nuclear war could unfold.
In the prologue, which is available for free in the Amazon preview, Jacobsen vividly describes the devastating aftermath of a single thermonuclear bomb detonated above an American city.
It becomes evident that the impact of such an event would surpass any other perceived threats, making our worries about anything else almost comical.
According to nuclear deterrence experts, the use of nuclear weapons, even in a limited capacity, is likely to escalate rapidly into a full-scale nuclear conflict. This means that in the event of a full-scale nuclear exchange, American cities would not be targeted by just one bomb, but rather by multiple bombs.
Even smaller towns would not be spared, as they would also become targets. The aftermath of such an exchange would be devastating, with radioactive winds causing agonizing deaths for those who initially escaped the initial strikes.
It’s absolutely mind-boggling that Joe Biden has chosen to start his final period in office by openly defying a red line that the Russians have warned would warrant a nuclear response.
For years, American officials dismissed Putin’s warnings about Ukraine, ridiculing him for his empty threats. However, in February of 2022, he followed through and launched an invasion. Yet, here we are again, playing the same dangerous game, but this time with much more at stake.
The Biden administration’s recent decision reaffirms that our supposed leaders have different priorities, despite the government’s supposed primary role of safeguarding the lives and property of the American people. If this were truly the case, preventing a nuclear conflict would undoubtedly be their utmost concern.