Petraeus: U.S Response to a Russian Nuke Used? Lead a Tactical Nuclear War


Now that the drums are  beating for a possible “tactical”nuclear war over Ukraine, just why are we willing to continue this dance with Putin? The Appearance from General Petraeus from this past Sunday’s  ABC’s “This Week” has gone largely unnoticed. It seems a little nuclear war won’t be so bad.

“We would respond by leading a NATO, a collective effort, that would take out every Russian conventional force that we can see and identify on the battlefield in Ukraine and also in Crimea and every ship in the Black Sea,” Petraeus replied.

Karl noted radiation from a nuclear attack in Ukraine would also likely reach nearby NATO countries, effectively making it an attack on the alliance. “Yes. And perhaps you can make that case. The other case is that this is so horrific that there has to be a response”

First  the foundation. Then our intrepid Mustang will put his shoulder to the plow and add his thoughts.

President Joe Biden’s Vice President Kamala Harris explained the Russia-Ukraine conflict and said, “Ukraine is a country in Europe,” during a segment on 93.9 WKYS’s “The Morning Hustle” on 3/1/2022.

Then Russia has no path to victory in its war against Ukraine even with the threat of nuclear escalation says Gen. David Petraeus on ABC’s “This Week”

Mustang picks up the story here.

But if we are being honest, we must admit that since Biden took his oath of office, Washington politics has been pretty damn entertaining to most of the rest of the world.  Uproariously entertaining, even.  I wonder if people laughed as Rome burned to the ground.
 
Well, this has been going on for a while.  What were “we the people” thinking while our Washington insiders (people who are “in the know”) decided to intervene in such places as Serbia, Somalia, Syria, or Libya?  Were we thinking, “Yeah — let’s kick some ass!”? 
 
Did we ever ask, “Is this (fill in the blank) crisis worth even one drop of blood of a young American soldier?”  I suspect not — which means that there was no flood of mail clogging up the postal system inside the House of Representatives … and OUR silence gave the green light to the Beltway Nabobs to do their worst … and they did.
 
I have to be honest here and say that I’ve never given much thought to Ukraine until it was revealed to me that Joe Biden and his son were somehow involved in a corruption scheme that made both of them richer — while Biden was serving as vice president of the United States. 
 
Should I have been paying better attention?  Maybe.  But the fact is that Ukraine has never been a nation-state at any time before 1991.  If Ukraine didn’t belong to the Russians, it belonged to the Poles or Lithuanians.  Before that, it belonged to neanderthal tribalists. 
 
Why are we NOW risking global war for Ukrainians who are no different from the Russians in any category you choose to identify?
 
If war isn’t scary enough for you, try to imagine an entire world entering the cold winter of economic collapse.  Are you living in New England?  Do you think that the cost of Russian oil matters to your household budget?  Your cost, by the way, doesn’t come as a result of some heroic enterprise to free enslaved people — it is the result of choosing the wrong people to lead the nation. 
 
Well, that is, if you were even paying attention.  If you haven’t been paying attention, you aren’t alone.  But you’d better start paying attention.  Your life, and that of your loved ones, depends on it.
James H. Kunstler (1948-) is an author and social critic.  Here’s what he has to say about our madness:
 
“Let us agree that the place called Ukraine was never any of America’s business.  For centuries we ignored it, through all the colorful cavalry charges to-and-fro of Turks and Tatars, the reign of the dashing Zaporizhian Cossacks, the cruel abuses of Stalin, then Hitler, and the dull, gray Khrushchev-to-Yeltsin years.  But then, having destroyed Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Somalia, and sundry other places all on a great hegemonic lark, the professional warmongers of our land and their catamites in Washington made Ukraine their next special project.  
 
They engineered the 2014 coup in Kyiv that ousted the elected president, Mr. Yanukovych, to set up a giant grifting parlor and international money-laundromat.  The other strategic aim was to prepare Ukraine for NATO membership, which would have made it, in effect, a forward missile base right up against Russia’s border. Because, well, Russia, Russia, Russia!
 
We are wondering whether Washington’s Ukraine policy is worth its cost to America’s present and future generations.  We don’t have to be historians to figure out the answer to this question.  Even a brief look back to 1991 reveals that every Ukrainian presidential election illustrates a nation split between pro-Russian and anti-Russian sentiments. 
 
It is a fact that begs the question: Isn’t this an issue Ukrainians should figure out for themselves?  In any case, here’s what the election map looked like in 2010 — sentiments that are remarkably unchanged today.  Still, there’s a problem …
 
(Readers, there was a visual here but we couldn’t get it in there for some reason. I apologize. In any case, the election map looked EXACTLY like the Russia/Ukraine battle map.)
 
 
Alexander G. Markovsky is a member of the London Center for Policy Research (founded by conservative Herbert I. London in 2012).  He offers this insight into the issue of America’s involvement in the affairs of Ukraine:
 
“Today’s Ukrainian civil war is thus greatly exacerbated by the fact that unlike pluralistic societies such as the USA, Canada, Switzerland, and Russia, which are tolerant of different cultures, religions, and languages, Ukraine is not.  Unsurprisingly, devotion to pluralism proved not to be her forte. Even though the Kyiv regime had no historical roots in the real estate it inhabited, it imposed Ukrainian rules and the Ukrainian language on non-Ukrainian people after declaring independence.
 
“As a result, pro-Russian sentiments – ranging from the recognition of the official status of the Russian language to outright secession – have always been prevalent in Crimea and Eastern Ukraine. Western Ukraine has always gravitated toward its Polish, Romanian, and Hungarian roots. Emphatically anti-Russian, Poland may not miss this strategic opportunity to re-acquire its land and avenge the humiliation inflicted by the Yalta Conference.
 
“The West’s insistence on maintaining the status quo of the Ukrainian borders established by Lenin, Stalin, and Hitler exposes the disconnect between strategic doctrine and moral principles.
“Indeed, Poles make no secret of their ambitions. Polish President Andrzej Duda, recently declared, “For decades, and maybe, God forbid, for centuries, there will be no more borders between our countries – Poland and Ukraine. There will be no such border!”
 
“Romania is not far behind, especially in light of many inhabitants of former Northern Bukovina already carrying Romanian passports.
 
“The territory of Ukraine is a mosaic of other people’s lands. If we want to stop this insane war and ensure peace in Europe, instead of calling Russia’s sponsored referendum in Eastern Ukraine a sham, we should conduct an honest referendum in all the disputed territories under the auspices of the UN and let the people decide what government they want.”
 
I keep wondering: do we American ever get tired of fake news, fake countries, forever wars, and ruinous Washington politicians?

Mustang also blogs at Fix Bayonets and Thoughts From Afar

Bonus:  This leak become more significant today than 8 years ago when it occurred.

Alleged audio of US diplomat Victoria Nuland

An embarrassing phone conversation about Ukraine politics between two high profile US diplomats has surfaced online. The audio clip of a woman and man is purportedly between US Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland and US Ambassador to Ukraine Geoffrey Pyatt. The two people are heard discussing strategies to work with the three main opposition figures. She is heard telling him that she doesn’t think boxer-turned-politician Vitaly Klitschko should be in a new government and also saying “f**k the EU.”

This episode will be embarrassing for the US as President Barack Obama has denied the administration is manipulating the Ukrainian opposition.

Advertisement

23 Responses to “Petraeus: U.S Response to a Russian Nuke Used? Lead a Tactical Nuclear War”

  1. SMART ASSES! Snarky, sarcastic smart asses! - The DaleyGator Says:

    […] Bunkerville wonders how Kamala would explain Russia-Ukraine […]

    Like

  2. Baysider Says:

    “… Take out every Russian conventional force that we can see and identify on the battlefield in Ukraine and also in Crimea and every ship in the Black Sea.” Well sh***t!! If all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.

    Understandably, Ukraine holds a soft spot in freedom loving American memory because of Stalin’s holodomar which murdered 4-6 million helpless Ukrainians through the brutal, systematic withdrawal of food and with the complicity of the western media like the NYT (which has never apologized) covering for him.

    Since the fall of the Soviet bloc all former Soviet dominated areas have had measurable improvements in standards of living and household incomes. Ukraine not so much. Never had good governance. And it’s not our position to DECIDE. Haven’t we had ENOUGH of that in the last 60 years??

    The ancient Polish empire once stretched as far as Kiev. Centuries later, in the post Bolshevik revolution consolidation era, there was a war between Poland and the fledgling Soviet, 1919-1920. White Eagle, Red Star details the very near miss of the Red army’s attempt to overrun a war torn Europe. A devastating Polish attack, a small miracle on the Vistula, stopped them. At that point people in western Ukraine were getting on the Polish bandwagon saying “we were ALWAYS Poles” in an attempt to stretch the boundaries of freedom as far as possible into areas crushed by the commies.

    How set in cement are current sensibilities, boundaries and allegiances? Dunno. But this is a region that is not our concern. Didn’t we “do” enough through the private actions of the Rockefellers to take out their “rivals”, the Nobels’ and Rothschilds’ Azerbaijani oil empires by aiding and abetting Lenin’s takeover? How’d that work out. (Well, the Rockefellers, for one, got a cut from the Soviets. What about the rest of us?)

    Oooh, this kind of talk makes me so angry. It is so wrong. Nuland, Biden, Blinken and now Petraeus.

    Liked by 3 people

    • kidme37 Says:

      I’m also a George Washington farewell speech fan. America has enough to worry about and more and more by the day since George left us.

      Liked by 3 people

    • bunkerville Says:

      I was surprised Baysider that it appears Petraeus is apparently back in the good gracies.. Thanks for your comment.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Baysider Says:

        I passed this Petraeus comment on to a friend and got this back:
        “We destroy Ukrainian ‘democracy’ then ignore Putin’s legal complaints for over 8 years while Ukraine makes war on the Russian populations of the Donbas. Putin finally initiates a limited police action against those who are attacking Donbas, and we call it an invasion. Then we blow up a major piece of Russian state property, which is clearly an act of war—not a Clint Eastwood movie So what are the Russians supposed to do?

        Petraeus is a certified, gold foil-wrapped ass.”

        Liked by 1 person

      • bunkerville Says:

        The Nuland clip said it all… surprised it is still up.

        Like

  3. kidme37 Says:

    Hey, at least they won’t be using those climate crisis, CO2 releasing coal fueled alternative bombs.

    Liked by 3 people

    • Mustang Says:

      I was reading about “Nice Bombs” in Popular Mechanics the other day. I’m sure Woke Pentagon has ordered several million dollars worth. Although, because Nice Bomb doesn’t sound very brusque, I’m going to propose they call them Green Bombs. If I make any money from this suggestion, I’ll share it with you.

      Liked by 3 people

  4. Bill Heffner Says:

    Something that tends to be missed is that the clowns running US policy are people who, as children, were raised under the principles of Dr. Benjamin Spock. Among those is that their feelings are real, do not merely exist in their head, but extend into the real world and must be dealt with by altering the real world to accommodate those feelings.

    This has more sweeping importance than you might think. It leads to the delusion that, “If I think something is true, it is true.” Facts become irrelevant. If facts contradict feelings, facts must be denied. It even becomes, “If I want something to be true, it is true.”

    We tend to say these people are stupid, or that they are megalomaniacs, but in actuality they are simply raised from childhood to be out of touch with reality, to think that reality is whatever they want it to be.

    Liked by 2 people

    • Mustang Says:

      We tend to say these people are stupid, or that they are megalomaniacs, but in actuality they are simply raised from childhood to be out of touch with reality, to think that reality is whatever they want it to be.

      Right … or all of the above.

      Liked by 1 person

  5. Ed Bonderenka Says:

    “The other strategic aim was to prepare Ukraine for NATO membership, which would have made it, in effect, a forward missile base”
    This has never been adequately explained to me. Why poke the bear that threatens your money laundromat?

    Liked by 3 people

    • Mustang Says:

      It never made sense to me, either Ed. When we had the opportunity to have a new start with post-Soviet Russia, we went out of our way to demonstrate that we don’t like Russians and had the capacity for rubbing their noses into the mess they created through communism. We had, in essence, small-minded men making gargantuan decisions … and former Soviet Republics joining NATO was one of them. Thus, NATO went from being a peacekeeper to a warmonger. And um … we’re paying for it. Our cost, in the long run, is going to be massive …

      Liked by 4 people

  6. Mustang Says:

    Readers, there was a visual for you about midway down in the article but we couldn’t get it in there for some reason. I apologize. In any case, the election map looked EXACTLY like the Russia/Ukraine battle map.

    Liked by 1 person

  7. markone1blog Says:

    Maybe this is why we have developed (in Kamala’s words) a “very important relationship, which is an alliance with the Republic of North Korea, and it is an alliance that is strong and enduring.”

    Like

    • markone1blog Says:

      That is, maybe the Dems are trying to work this from all sides.

      Like

    • Mustang Says:

      IMO, this is not a Dem vs. Rep problem. We Americans must not condemn Obama for remaining in Afghanistan if we are not willing to condemn George Bush for sending us there in the first place. Our problem is that there is no more than a handful of people inside the Washington beltway who belong in charge of any aspect of the people’s government. Handful means five, but I think it’s probably less than that. And if I’m right … you tell me where our nation is headed.

      Liked by 3 people

      • bunkerville Says:

        I found it interesting that Nuland was wandering around the Ukraine years ago. Who ever thought that the Ukraine was and has been such an important spot in the world. Apparently for a decade or more. To me this is as telling as Biden getting rid of the prosecutor. What am I missing about why the Ukraine has absorbed so many of “the five” as you commented above.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Mustang Says:

        Ukraine came into focus because it was convenient to use the former Soviet Republics as pawns in the larger game. These are the nitwits running our country. Gamers who do not give a damn how many Americans have to die in senseless wars because we are beset with dunderism. So, let’s review: Russia, Iran, possibly Turkey, Syria, Iraq, Yemen, and Pakistan … plenty of opportunity for gamesmanship, and plenty of greater opportunity for nuclear war. Question: why hasn’t Pakistan unleashed its nuclear arsenal on our heads? Answer: Because it isn’t convenient for the Saudis just now to approve of such a move. Not to worry, though; it’s only a temporary restraint — and to your question, Ukraine is only part of the danger confronting us. What a good idea it was to elect Dopey Joe Biden as president!

        Liked by 2 people


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: