Drunk on the same sense of self-righteousness that encouraged war in the first place, [Globalist American Empire] public figures are advocating “tough” policies that will invite further escalation and potentially turn a regional war into the worst disaster in human history.
America’s ruling elite is so used to kicking its own impotent population around with no fear of any kind of repercussion that they think they can do the same with a nuclear power. The ruling class is wrong, and its arrogance is courting existential calamity. Russia has amassed more than 6,000 nuclear warheads, which is more than even the United States possesses. Nearly 1,500 of these weapons are deployed, ready for use. Russia possesses a full nuclear triad of nuclear-armed bombers, submarines, and land-based ICBMs (Inter-continental Ballistic Missiles). Russia cannot be immobilized with a single first strike; if it feels cornered it has the firing power to bring down all of civilization. …
The path to nuclear annihilation:
Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky is aggressively urging Western powers to begin an air war against Russia by declaring a “no-fly zone” over the skies of Ukraine. Zelensky personally has little to lose, so this is understandable. What is not understandable is that many unhinged voices in the West are taking up his call, including Adam Kinzinger …
The world cannot sit back and watch this atrocity unfold. Congressman Kinzinger & General Wesley Clark @GeneralClark agree that we need a US-enforced #NoFlyZone over Ukraine. Now. There are risks, yes. But risks of doing nothing are far greater. #SaveUkraine @POTUS https://t.co/IiXF8ra8t5
— Christina Sommers 🇺🇦 (@CHSommers) February 26, 2022
The reality is that a no-fly zone, which sounds cute and “safe” in a way that would especially appeal to females seeking to bubble-wrap the world, would actually mean declaring an air war against Russia.
Some commenters who know this are shockingly still advocating a maximally aggressive position. In an interview with Foreign Policy, retired four-star US Air Force general Philip Breedlove directly advocated a no-fly zone over Russia, despite being fully aware of the consequences of such a policy: …
If you put a no-fly zone in the eastern part of Ukraine, for instance, and we’re going to fly coalition or NATO aircraft into that no-fly zone, then we have to take out all the weapons that can fire into our no-fly zone and cause harm to our aircraft. So that means bombing enemy radars and missile systems on the other side of the border. And you know what that means, right? That is tantamount to war. So if we’re going to declare a no-fly zone, we have to take down the enemy’s capability to fire into and affect our no-fly zone. …
Breedlove’s explanation for why he supports war with Russia is telling …:
FP: Yet, in spite of all of that, you said you would actually support the idea of a no-fly zone?
PB: Are we going to sit and watch while a world power invades and destroys and subjugates a sovereign nation? Are we just going to watch? I mean, a friend recently said, “This is like biblical times, and the whole Colosseum is watching the lions and the Christians, and they’re pulling for the Christians, but they just watch.” So the question is, is the West going to tolerate Russia doing this to Ukraine? What if the Russians do what they did in eastern Syria and they drop barrel bombs and make rubble of cities and terrorize citizens and force them on the road and make them refugees across Europe? Where is the line that Russia crosses in its inhumanity such that the rest of the world reacts?
Breedlove complains about “a world power invading and destroying a sovereign nation,” despite the fact that is exactly what the US did to Iraq in response to no provocation whatsoever. Surprisingly, that isn’t the most baffling part of his response. In his rambling, emotive response, Breedlove directly confronts and embraces the ramifications of an intervention — escalation, followed by global war — with clumsy lines like “are we just going to sit and watch????”
The rational answer, of course, is yes. American leaders are supposed to look out for the long-term security and well-being of the nation, and that means judiciously evaluating which interests are vital and which are not, and which risks are acceptable and which are not. Yet Breedlove, who for three years was one of those leaders, is not capable of such judicious evaluation. …
Senator Rubio gleefully frolicked in the frothy sea of emotions.
Cut a city of millions off from food, fuel, power, communications & supplies & then bomb & starve the govt into submission
We need to start thinking about what we can & are willing to do to prevent such a barbaric crime
— Marco Rubio (@marcorubio) February 28, 2022
We could go on and on, all day long, with these tweets… Norway was eager to risk World War III to signal its virtue.
NEW: Norway says it plans to send 2,000 M72 anti-tank weapons to Ukraine, joining Finland and Sweden in sending lethal weapons
— Paul McLeary (@paulmcleary) February 28, 2022
Rationality has been dropping over the last few decades, along with IQ. Emotion is more important, and Twitter gives it a leg up. Will competitive moral vanity be the death of our civilization?
hat-tip Scott of the Pacific