Will the NATO war games on Russia’s borders trigger a nuclear response?  Discussion on Iran’s Press TV

Yesterday evening’s brief interview on Iran’s Press TV alongside panelist Don Debar from the USA focused on one question: what risks to the peace are presented by the ongoing massive NATO military exercises at Russia’s borders in which more than 90,000 soldiers are participating and which Moscow considers a provocation.

I say here directly that if the exercises were to be turned into an actual attack on Russia to distract Moscow from the battleground in Donbas then I envision the Russian response to be a strike with tactical nuclear weapons that would decimate the NATO forces instantaneously.  Unlike my fellow panelist, I do not see such a Russian response, which is clearly laid out in Russian warnings over the past six months or more, as triggering a full scale nuclear war, because Washington knows full well that whatever damage it may do to Russia in such an exchange, there will be nothing but ashes left of the USA, with no one left to vote for Joe Biden in November.

It is regrettable that our interview was cut short for the sake of live coverage of an Iranian diplomatic mission in Africa, because I intended to move the discussion on to the question of why NATO is staging such a provocation now, just as why there were 4 ATACMS long range missiles launched a day ago by the Ukrainians for the Russians to shoot down over Crimea and why there is talk in Kiev of blowing up the Kerch (Crimea) bridge as an urgent mission.  The reason for all of these intended acts of aggression and terror is to distract world attention from the ongoing daily Russian advance and Ukrainian retreat along the line of contact in the Donetsk region.

Some in the West are characterizing the Russian moves on the battlefield as the prelude to a massive Russian offensive in the coming month or two. Others use these facts to shame U.S. legislators for holding back their approval of the 61 billion dollar aid package to Kiev for so long, leaving the Ukrainians short of artillery shells and air defense equipment.  However, a better explanation is that Kiev made a strategic blunder over the past year by placing so many resources in Avdeevka, which they and their NATO advisers believed was impregnable, and did not do what they should have done, namely build solid second and tertiary lines of defense to the west of Avdeevka. The Russians now are simply pressing their advantage and putting the Ukrainian forces on the run.  In my next installment of Travel Notes, I will explain who was the author of this interpretation.

©Gilbert Doctorow, 2024

See

Ukraine war | Urmedium

https://www.urmedium.net/c/presstv/129382

Translation below into German (Andreas Mylaeus) followed by transcript

Werden die NATO-Kriegsspiele an Russlands Grenzen eine nukleare Reaktion auslösen? Diskussion auf Irans Press TV

In dem kurzen Interview, das ich gestern Abend im iranischen Press TV gemeinsam mit dem Gesprächsteilnehmer Don Debar aus den USA geführt habe, ging es vor allem um eine Frage: Welche Gefahren für den Frieden gehen von den laufenden massiven NATO-Militärübungen an den Grenzen Russlands aus, an denen mehr als 90.000 Soldaten teilnehmen und die Moskau als Provokation betrachtet.

Ich sage an dieser Stelle direkt, dass ich mir für den Fall, dass die Übungen in einen tatsächlichen Angriff auf Russland umgewandelt würden, um Moskau vom Schlachtfeld im Donbass abzulenken, als russische Antwort einen Schlag mit taktischen Atomwaffen vorstelle, der die NATO-Truppen sofort dezimieren würde. Im Gegensatz zu meinem Diskussionspartner sehe ich eine solche russische Reaktion, die in den russischen Warnungen der letzten sechs Monate oder mehr klar dargelegt wurde, nicht als Auslöser eines umfassenden Atomkriegs, denn Washington weiß genau, dass die USA, egal welchen Schaden es Russland in einem solchen Schlagabtausch zufügen mag, selbst nur noch in Schutt und Asche liegen würden und niemand mehr übrig wäre, der im November Joe Biden wählen könnte.

Es ist bedauerlich, dass unser Interview wegen einer Live-Berichterstattung über eine iranische diplomatische Mission in Afrika abgebrochen wurde, denn ich wollte das Gespräch noch auf die Frage lenken, warum die NATO jetzt eine solche Provokation inszeniert, und auch auf die Frage, warum die Ukrainer vor einem Tag vier ATACMS-Langstreckenraketen zum Abschuss für die Russen losgeschickt haben und warum in Kiew davon die Rede ist, die Brücke von Kertsch (Krim) als dringende Mission in die Luft zu sprengen. Der Grund für all diese beabsichtigten Aggressions- und Terrorakte ist, die Aufmerksamkeit der Weltöffentlichkeit von dem täglichen russischen Vormarsch und ukrainischen Rückzug entlang der Kontaktlinie in der Region Donezk abzulenken.

Einige im Westen bezeichnen die russischen Schritte auf dem Schlachtfeld als Auftakt zu einer massiven russischen Offensive in den kommenden ein oder zwei Monaten. Andere nutzen diese Fakten, um die US-Parlamentarier zu beschuldigen, die Genehmigung des 61-Milliarden-Dollar-Hilfspakets für Kiew so lange hinausgezögert zu haben, so dass es den Ukrainern an Artilleriegeschossen und Luftabwehrausrüstung fehlt. Eine bessere Erklärung ist jedoch, dass Kiew im vergangenen Jahr einen strategischen Fehler begangen hat, indem es so viele Ressourcen in Avdeevka investiert hat, das es und seine NATO-Berater für uneinnehmbar hielten, und nicht tat, was es hätte tun sollen, nämlich solide zweite und dritte Verteidigungslinien westlich von Avdeevka aufzubauen. Die Russen versuchen nun, ihren Vorteil zu nutzen und die ukrainischen Streitkräfte in die Flucht zu schlagen. In meiner nächsten Ausgabe der Reisenotizen werde ich erklären, wer der Autor dieser Interpretation war.

• Transcript below by a reader
  
  Anchor: 0:00
  Don DeBar is an activist and political commentator joining us from Ossining over in New York. Gilbert Doctorow is an independent international affairs analyst who joins us from Moscow. Welcome to you both. I’ll start with you, Don DeBar. So you’re having this large NATO military exercise take place, one of the largest. Are you seeing indications that there’s going to be some kind of military engagement between NATO and Russia?
  
  DeBar: 0:25
  What I see doesn’t matter so much. It’s a matter of what the Russian military planners see, because they’re in charge of meeting it if it ends up being an attack, and responding. We know what the placement of NATO resources is in … what’s left of Ukraine, in the Baltics, and Polish border, Romania, you know, all of that. And besides as well in South Korea a little. It’s a very, very, very short response time if from the perspective of the upper brass in the Russian military, this “exercise” quote unquote crosses the border [and becomes an invasion].
  
  So– and that’s the thing. People don’t understand, generally, that when you’re looking at a military exercise, so-called, near your borders, you really– it’s indistinguishable from an actual invasion, you know. You get to the border and they stop, it was an exercise. If they come in, you need to be ready to meet them. So we’re already looking at, I’m certain, the machinery of a war between Russia and NATO, you know, the fire on and powered up.
  
  Anchor: 1:42
  So do you think that there’s going to be a military engagement there, Don DeBar? If there is, who do you think is going to come out the winner?
  
  DeBar:
  No one. NATO–
  
  Anchor:
  I’m sorry. This was for Gilbert Doctorow. I’ll get to you. Hold on to your thoughts, Don DeBar. Gilbert Doctorow, go ahead.
  
  Doctorow: 1:59
  Well, I think there would be a winner. The winner would be Russia. The Russians have prepared for this kind of eventuality, and let’s be quite open about it. If NATO were to use any of these 90,000 troops that it has presently preparing at the Russian borders in these exercises, if it were to make that type of a move, the Russian response is written on the wall in big letters. That would be a nuclear strike. The Russians are not going to play pussyfoot with NATO if there are massive concentrations of troops crossing or threatening to cross the border. It will be a total destruction of that army, an instantaneous destruction with a nuclear strike. The warnings have been issued.
  
  Anchor: 2:51
  Why do you disagree with the fact that there would be a winner, Don DeBar?
  
  DeBar:
  Well, in a thermonuclear war, I mean, it depends on how you characterize it. If the goal, strategic objectives of NATO were thwarted by Russia, Russia went in that fear. [sound glitches] However, Russia suffers whatever damage it suffers. Poland and what’s left of, you know, all of the country’s troops were gathered, suffer what they suffer. The rest of us suffer whatever we breathe in from that for the next 240,000 years or whatever. You know, it’s hard– Russia–
  
  DeBar: 3:39
  Dr. Doctorow is right, the strategic, you know, their doctrine for use of nuclear weapons, the Russian Federation I’m talking about, they use them only in two cases. One, in retaliation for a nuclear strike on Russia; or two, when the, you know, existence, the integrity of the Russian state is threatened. Certainly, 90,000 troops and whatever blowing up of things is done in advance to soften the ground for that, while an attack is made on Crimea by Ukrainians or whatever, would constitute for them a replay of Barbarossa on steroids and will get whatever kind of maximum response they have [planted that off]. So, I agree that we will probably be looking at a nuclear response, certainly a massive response. And then everyone steps back for a second. What does Joe Biden do? He’s running for re-election. What does Xxxxx do?
  
  Anchor: 4:37
  Okay, I’m going to, unfortunately, have to jump in. We have to cut this short. Thank you to both of you. We’re going to have to go on over live now.
  
  
  .