Why NATO Warnings of a Coming Nuclear World War with Russia Might End Up Being a Self-Fulfilling Prophecy

A new book confirms my revelation from last year that US intelligence assessed the risk of Russian nuclear escalation at 50 percent in September 2022 but Biden attempted to cover up the danger

Russian citizens panic over what some residents believed might be a nuclear mushroom cloud over the city of Tyumen in August 2016. Russia would likely use a low-yield nuclear airburst over Kyiv, that might look very similar to this one, to force Ukraine to capitulate in the event of direct NATO military intervention in the war to prevent the outbreak of World War Three

This is the final article in a three-part series commemorating the 2-year anniversary of the war in Ukraine.

A new war hysteria is gripping Europe that is eerily reminiscent of the one that gripped Britain in January 1939 after German resistance leader Admiral Wilhelm Canaris leaked disinformation that Hitler was preparing to invade Holland in February so he could engage in a strategic bombing offensive against Britain in the apparent hope of getting Britain and France to threaten war with Germany to increase the chance Hitler would be overthrown in a military coup. What came to be known as the “Dutch War Scare”, along with Nazi dictator Adolf Hitler’s unbelievably foolish decision to occupy the Czech Republic in March of that year convinced Prime Minister Chamberlain to abandon Britain’s longtime policy of accommodation, throw caution to the wind and take actions against Germany he hoped would deter Hitler. Instead it ended up backfiring and making the otherwise easily avertable outbreak of World War Two, a conflict with the West which Hitler desperately hoped to avoid, all but inevitable. Without Chamberlain’s rash military guarantee, the war would likely have been limited to a regional conflict between Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union with FDR having no need to provoke Japan to attack Pearl Harbor with a full-fledged US oil embargo as “a back door to war with Germany” meaning the lives of tens of millions of innocents might have been saved.

It has been said that “those who fail to learn from the mistakes of history are doomed to repeat them.”  The question is will NATO’s new war scare, combined with Russia’s limited invasion of Ukraine, cause NATO leaders to overreact as Chamberlain did and provoke a full-scale world war between NATO and Russia that could quickly escalate to the nuclear level and lead to the deaths not of tens of millions of people, but rather hundreds of millions of innocents? In an article entitled “Is NATO Heading for Nuclear War? Thomas Fazi writes in Unherd:

In recent months, we have witnessed a sustained propaganda campaign aimed at convincing European citizens that Russia is bent on invading Europe at some point in the more-or-less-near future — and that, therefore, we have to prepare for war by heavily boosting Europe’s “defence” capabilities…But is there any evidence that Russia intends to march across Europe? For John Mearsheimer, this is a “ludicrous” proposition. “Putin has made it clear that he does not intend to conquer all of Ukraine,” he said, “and he has never indicated that he was interested in conquering any other country in Eastern Europe, much less Western Europe.  If this is true, how can we explain the relentless peddling of this narrative?...European leaders have started to believe their own propaganda and are truly convinced Russia is bent on attacking Europe. If this is the case, it risks becoming a self-fulfilling prophecy: Putin would view an increase in defence spending as a sign of a growing threat.

This is something I have been warning about for the past two years that the US attempt to expand NATO into Ukraine could end up creating the very Russian existential threat that NATO was supposedly designed to prevent and deter. Dr. Mearsheimer is correct in stating that there is no evidence that Putin has any plans to attack a NATO member state except in response to NATO attacking Russian forces in Ukraine.

According to leaked German Ministry of Defense documents, Germany is now claiming Russia is planning to invade NATO within eighteen months if it succeeds in defeating Ukraine, providing a detailed timeline of how Russia’s invasion would unfold including largescale Russian cyberattacks to disrupt and degrade NATO’s critical infrastructure and ability to fight. Sweden’s Civil Defense Minister is warning citizens to prepare for potential military strikes by Russia after Sweden joins NATO seeming to suggest he knows Sweden is painting a Russian target on its back by abandoning 210 years of peaceful relations with Russia and acceding to the Atlantic Alliance. Meanwhile, NATO military leaders are warning that Russia may be on the verge of engaging in a pre-emptive first strike against NATO countries which would trigger World War Three. Will the increased tensions between Russia and NATO accompanying this war scare and NATO’s continuing proxy war against Russia in Ukraine lead NATO to miscalculate by sending an expeditionary force to central Ukraine ostensibly to pre-empt a Russian invasion instead provoking Russia, which has yet to demonstrate any intention to fight a direct war against NATO, to invade the Baltic states making the outbreak of World War Three a self-fulfilling prophecy? The answer is yes, it very well could. 

Disturbingly, this nuclear scenario of NATO military intervention may be much more plausible than most people believe given the fact that Russian media is reporting that the UK reportedly proposed back in December that NATO send an expeditionary force to Ukraine and establish a no-fly zone over western and central Ukraine to defend the Dnipro River line to prevent Ukraine from collapsing following a potential massive Russian offensive. Either measure would be tantamount to a declaration of war on Russia that would likely cause Russia to destroy the US and NATO with massive cyber and counterspace attacks. The war is going so badly for Ukraine that there are contingency plans to relocate Ukraine’s capital from Kyiv to Lviv, something I predicted would happen over a year ago if Russian commenced a massive military offensive in eastern Ukraine beginning in the Kharkiv region and driving all the way to the Dnipro River. Putin himself stated the only way he could conceive of Russia invading NATO countries would be if NATO attacked Russia or sent combat troops into Ukraine first, leading to the exact war of nuclear devastation, warmongering leaders in the US and the UK claim to seek to avoid by “showing greater resolve” and escalating Biden’s proxy war against Russia in Ukraine.

As Ukraine comes closer to military defeat and collapse, talk of the need for potential direct NATO military intervention has only increased while Russia has made clear that would lead to Russian nuclear escalation against NATO.  As recently reported by The American Conservative magazine, French President Emmanuel Macron has stated that the option of sending combat troops to fight Russia in Ukraine must not be ruled out causing Putin to respond by stating that would cause Russia to escalate to the nuclear level. Instead of taking Russia’s nuclear threats with the seriousness they deserve and dialing down the nuclear brinkmanship, Western leaders have continued to ratchet up their rhetoric refusing to accept any of Putin’s requests for a negotiated peace settlement to end the war in Ukraine.

“Slovakia’s Prime Minister Robert Fico said on February 26 that “a number of NATO and EU member states are considering that they will send their troops to Ukraine on a bilateral basis.” That same day, the French President Emmanuel Macron said that, though “there is no consensus today to send troops on the ground in an official, accepted, and endorsed manner...no option should be discarded. Other NATO countries appear open to such direct involvement. Estonia’s Prime Minister Kaja Kallas said that “everything” is on the table when it comes to helping Ukraine, that “I think it is also the signals that we are sending to Russia, that we are not ruling out different things.” Referring to Macron’s comments that sending troops to Ukraine should be an option that is not discarded, the Lithuanian Foreign Minister Gabrielius Landsbergis agreed that “nothing can be taken off the table, no option can be rejected out of hand,” adding that “I very much welcome and encourage the discussion that has started.”

French President Emmanuel Macron meeting with NATO Secretary Jans Stoltenberg. Both have transformed into Ukraine war hawks with Macron threatening a direct war between NATO and Russia and Stoltenberg approving Ukraine’s use of long-range Western missiles to strike targets deep inside Russia, presumably including Russian nuclear bomber and submarines bases.

Of course, all of this talk by NATO leaders to send tens of thousands of troops to fight Russia in Ukraine is causing Russia to respond with explicit threats that it would respond by using nuclear weapons against NATO forces rasing the risk of nuclear war with Russia higher than ever before. Fazi adds in his Unherd article:

(French President) Macron is right about one thing: NATO countries have crossed virtually all the red lines they had given themselves at the start of the conflict. “Many people who say ‘Never, never’ today were the same people who said ‘Never tanks, never planes, never long-range missiles’ two years ago,” he said. In this sense, the whole troops-on-the-ground debate is little more than a distraction from the fact that we are, of course, already engaged in a de facto war against Russia — troops on the ground or not. Besides, it’s an open secret that Western special forces are already present in Ukraine — including British troops.

Germany’s Defense Minister stated as much in a meeting of the European Parliament in late 2022 when she declared “we are at war with Russia.” As Fazi writes, the US and NATO have crossed nearly all of the redlines which Biden himself stated we would not cross providing tanks and longer-range nuclear capable ballistic missiles which Ukraine has used to strike Russian military-strategic targets deep inside pre-war Russian territory. The US has also approved its NATO allies sending US F-16 nuclear-capable fighter-bombers to Ukraine which it could use to attack Moscow itself with the explicit support of NATO’s Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg.

How the War in Ukraine Could Go Nuclear

Both the Directors of Central Intelligence, William Burns, and the Director of National Intelligence, Avril Haines testified to Congress in summer 2022 that if Russian President Vladimir Putin perceived, correctly or incorrectly that Russia was losing the war in Ukraine, he would be much more likely to employ battlefield nuclear weapons to ensure the war ended on Russian terms.  While the Biden administration claims to be attempting to avoid crossing Russia’s nuclear escalation redlines, they continue to do everything they can to help Ukraine defeat Russia by arming it with massive quantities of advanced US weapons thus bring the US and NATO closer to the brink of nuclear war risking the total destruction of the US and its allies.

Biden's war in Ukraine is making nuclear war with Russia much more likely. An article published in RealClearWorld a couple of months ago underscores growing Western support for my proposal for a Korean-style armistice ending the Russo-Ukraine War which I published in The National Interest nearly eighteen months ago.

"Despite the Biden administration’s existentialist rhetoric portraying the war as a battle for global democracy, Ukraine’s statehood is not a “critical national security” interest. A Russian invasion of NATO is little more than a fantasy and extending the war through aid increases the chance that Russia secures more territory. What we should be concerned about is escalation leading to nuclear war.

As the war continues, the chances that Russia’s numerical advantage in troops (as shown during the Battle of Bakhmut) and missiles overwhelms Ukraine become increasingly likely. At this point, the most prudent policy to pursue is a “Korean-style” ceasefire that freezes the conflict along present lines. As Lyle Goldstein of the China Maritime Studies Institute at the U.S. Naval War College writes for Responsible Statecraft, “The strong virtue of this arrangement is that it puts a premium on an immediate halt to the fighting, while solidifying the line of contact as the new border for the foreseeable future.” Reporting by the New York Times suggests that Putin could be amenable to a ceasefire that “freezes the conflict along current lines.”

Convincing Zelensky of a ceasefire’s benefits while working to understand Russian demands through back-door diplomacy should be the policy of the Biden administration. This approach helps Ukraine protect its people in the short term and rebuild its military to deter future Russian aggression while keeping the door open to a broader diplomatic solution to the conflict. For the U.S., a ceasefire would diminish the potential for escalation between itself and Russia.

Supporting a prolonged conflict is contrary to U.S. interests. The cost of aid is unpopular. Almost half of Americans agree that “the U.S. government is spending too much on aid.” And the war’s continuation increases the chances, albeit small, of nuclear war."

The late Dr. Peter Pry’s most important interview in which he articulated the rationale behind our joint proposal for a grand strategic partnership for peace with Russia to aver the war in Ukraine and neutralize the Sino-Russian military alliance.

Dr. Peter Pry, the late Director of the Task Force on National and Homeland Security I help lead warned Biden and the neocons are “playing with nuclear fire” by fighting a proxy war against Russia in Ukraine and the US and NATO may be destroyed in a nuclear apocalypse if we continue fighting them. He further stated:

"Mr. Biden’s strategy to deter Russian invasion by massively arming Ukraine is playing with nuclear fire. Moscow may use Washington’s arming of Kyiv as a pretext to invade Ukraine and bordering nearby NATO states that are also supplying arms to isolate Ukraine and expand Russia’s “defensive” frontiers. Mr. Biden has sent a few thousand troops to supplement the 8,500 U.S. troops spread out along NATO’s eastern border in penny packets. These are intended to deter invasion of NATO by the 120,000 Russian troops massed on Ukraine’s border, backed by the Russian Army numbering over one million. The U.S. military presence is no practical defense of NATO. The U.S. and its NATO allies would be overwhelmed in a conventional war. U.S. forces deployed in Eastern Europe and on Ukraine’s border are a “tripwire” to deter Russia from invading NATO by the threat of nuclear escalation. Yet nuclear escalation is Russia’s strategic forte. Russia could win World War III in Europe with a single Super-EMP nuclear warhead."

At a fundraiser held on October 6th, 2022, President Joe Biden told Democrat donors, "We have not faced the prospect of Armageddon since Kennedy and the Cuban Missile Crisis…we have a direct threat of the use of the nuclear weapon if, in fact, things continue down the path they’ve been going.” Then he added, "[Putin] wasn’t joking when he talks about using nuclear weapons" in response to recent Ukrainian battlefield successes in a tacit admission that the risk of nuclear war has never been higher in the past sixty years. “I don’t think there’s any such thing as the ability to easily use a tactical nuclear weapon and not end up with Armageddon.” 

Biden then conceded that the administration’s policy did not give Putin a diplomatic option to end the war musing that, “We’re trying to figure out: What is Putin’s off-ramp? Where does he get off? Where does he find a way out? Where does he find himself in a position that he does not — not only lose face, but lose significant power within Russia?” Biden was later asked if he plans to meet with Putin to dial down the US proxy war against Russia in Ukraine and replied, “I don’t see any rationale to meet with him now” seeming to dismiss the threat of nuclear Armageddon he had privately warned about.

The same day, Zelensky called on NATO to engage in pre-emptive strikes against Russian nuclear forces in yet another attempt to start a full-blown war between NATO and Russia in the belief that is Ukraine’s only hope to recover all of its lost territories including Crimea. He has since engaged in missile attacks against Russian nuclear bomber and submarine bases. Not seeming to care about the growing possibility of nuclear Armageddon for over 300 million Americans, Biden has continued to engage in a diplomatic temper tantrum refusing to discuss the war in Ukraine with Russia through normal diplomatic channels since the war began.

The question is why are Biden, the Democrats and their neoconservative Republican allies willing to risk the very existence of the country they purport to represent over the defense of a nation with which the US has no security commitment in a border dispute with Russia on the furthest eastern fringe of Europe with which the US has no more than peripheral interests. While neoconservatives are fond of invoking former President Ronald Reagan for risking all out nuclear war with Russia over a former Soviet republic, the truth is that Reagan would never have pursued such a reckless policy and would have never supported the expansion of NATO into Ukraine or the other former Soviet republics. Former President Richard Nixon, one of the most brilliant strategic thinkers to ever occupy the White House also staunchly opposed NATO expansion into the former Soviet Union. Biden’s policy of national suicide in fighting a proxy war against Russia in Ukraine represents an unparalleled dereliction of duty which merits his removal from office even had he not committed treasonous offenses in selling out his country to Communist China.

Biden speaking at the G-7 Summit in June 2021 where the media was already beginning to question the state of his cognitive abilities. Revelations of Biden’s increasing mental disabilities come at a critical time for the US which now faces an unparalleled risk of simultaneous war with nuclear adversaries on three to four fronts.

On October 9^th, former President Donald Trump was asked about Biden’s remarks and replied, "We have to be very smart and very nimble. We have to know what to say, what to do. And we are saying exactly the wrong thing. We’ll end up in a World War III.” The former President added, "We must demand immediate negotiation of a peaceful end to the war in Ukraine, or we will end up in World War III. We will never have had a war like this…and it’s…because of the kind of weaponry that’s available today.” Trump previously volunteered to mediate a negotiated compromise peace deal between Russia and Ukraine ending the war. Trump has since promised to end the war in Ukraine within twenty-four hours if elected President. One can only hope he will be if you want to see the US survive the next few years.

During a webinar hosted by Stanford University last year, Biden’s former Undersecretary of Defense, Colin Kahl, revealed that in September 2022, US intelligence assessed the chances of Russian nuclear escalation had increased from 5% at the beginning of the war to 50% in September-October 2022 during Ukraine’s successful Kharkiv and Kherson offensives. At the time, news reports had indicated that the risk of nuclear escalation was only 20—25% during that period so the threat of nuclear war was far higher than we were told by the Biden administration.

The only question is whether Biden and his neoconservative Republican allies will provoke Russia or China to destroy us with their unbelievably reckless and dangerous policy of national suicide before the November 2024 presidential election or will Biden narrowly avert catastrophe by refraining from making good on his promise to defend Taiwan from a Chinese blockade and/or invasion likely to materialize early this fall? Will the US survive long enough for a President Trump to end Biden’s insane national security policy, which is making the US far less safe and secure, and make a needed course correction and save the US and the world from an unnecessary nuclear war by making peace with Russia in Ukraine and negotiating some kind of reunification deal with the PRC over Taiwan? Ultimately, only diplomacy and/or a change in our national security strategy along the lines I have been advocating offers us a realistic chance to save America from stumbling into a Third World War which the US will likely not survive and disturbingly the chances of Biden implementing such a prudent strategy seem dim at best.

Russian Leaders Believe Nuclear Wars Can Be Won

While US leaders assume that Russian leaders think the way we do and assume that they believe that nuclear wars can not be won and must never be fought, Russian leaders believe the exact opposite that nuclear wars can be fought and won by the side that best prepares for them. China’s massive nuclear buildup and construction of a massive nuclear command center located 2,500 feet underground near Beijing and a 3,000 mile long ‘Underground Great Wall’ where they are believed to be hiding hundreds of road-mobile ICBMs provides clear evidence that Chinese political and military leaders believe nuclear wars can be won as well.

Russia has spent the past six decades expending trillions of dollars preparing not only to survive a nuclear exchange but to ensure Russia could actually win a nuclear war with the U.S. building the world’s most massive national missile defense system consisting of 10,000 advanced S-400 and S-500 Anti-Ballistic Missiles (ABMs) and a huge network of blast shelters, underground rail lines and two massive underground nuclear command centers underneath the Yamantau and Kosvinsky Mountains in the Urals, located 3,000 feet underground stockpiled with vast amounts of national resources which could be used not only to feed much of Russia’s population but also to rebuild Russia’s critical infrastructure and industrial base in the event much of it was destroyed. Of course, the world’s first nuclear war was fought and won by the Us against Imperial Japan during World War Two, albeit against a non-nuclear opponent. Furthermore, Russia has built a nuclear arsenal with at least twice as many operational strategic nuclear weapons and four and a half times more operational nuclear warheads overall than the US has. In the event of the outbreak of war with the US, they would enjoy escalation dominance at every level of the escalation spectrum while they believe their vast underground cities and nuclear command centers, underground civilian blast shelters and their possession of the largest missile defense system in the world would allow them to survive a nuclear conflict.

Russia is training soldiers how to fight in nuclear environments the clearest evidence, yet that Putin expects nuclear war with NATO might break out soon. Russian military doctrine is to escalate with tactical nuclear weapons to de-escalate conflicts and ensure victory with the expectation that the US will not respond with nuclear in response due to Russia's escalation dominance across the escalation spectrum. Back in January, Newsweek reported that Russia recently purchased a new nuclear warfare simulator to help its troops train to fight and win nuclear wars:

“Russian scientists have produced a simulator that mimics a ground-based nuclear explosion to better train Moscow's Ground Forces for combat operations involving atomic weapons. According to a report by the Kremlin-backed news outlet TASS, the simulator was developed by researchers at the Russian Military Academy of Logistics. The device provides "a clear simulation of the visual features—the impact effect, light flash and mushroom-shaped dust cloud of a ground-based nuclear explosion," read the report. "The invention will be used in exercises and practical training with military units to improve the quality of training of the Ground Forces for combat operations in the context of the use of nuclear weapons, as well as radiation, chemical, biological ground reconnaissance units to determine the parameters and detect the epicenter of a nuclear explosion," according to TASS's report.”

The US Army stopped training its troops to fight in nuclear environments shortly after the collapse of the Soviet Union after President George HW Bush unilaterally slashed the size of the US nuclear arsenal by forty percent in an executive order he signed in August 1991 in which he ordered all nuclear weapons to be withdrawn from US warships with the exception of our Ohio nuclear ballistic missile submarines while also acting to begin dismantling non-strategic nuclear weapons previously fielded by the US Army many of which had already been withdrawn from service under the Intermediate Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty signed in 1987.

Russia (and China) Enjoys Theater Nuclear Supremacy over the US

While the US rushed to unilaterally dismantle 99% of its non-strategic nuclear weapons in the decades following the end of the Cold War, Russia has retained 5,000 of theirs while the US, which once boasted 7,200 nuclear weapons in western Europe but today fields only 150 obsolete B-61 gravity bombs stored in five sites across Western Europe that remain extremely vulnerable to a Russian nuclear hypersonic missile first strike. Accordingly, Russia currently has thirty-five times more non-strategic nuclear weapons than the US does. Of these, 2,500 are advanced, sub-kiloton, battlefield nuclear weapons that produce zero radioactive fallout. The fact that Russia has such a vast arsenal of low-yield nuclear weapons illustrates the main difference between US and Russian nuclear doctrines. Russia builds a nuclear arsenal which they could use to actually win a nuclear war while the US only maintains a nuclear arsenal to deter aggression by nuclear adversaries with no intention to actually use it unless the US is directly attacked in a nuclear first strike. The US was so concerned that Russia might use these battlefield nuclear weapons against Ukraine, that it deployed nuclear ‘sniffer’ aircraft to Ukraine in March 2022 to detect low-yield nuclear detonations.

Low yield nukes have immense battlefield utility. Russia and China know this but our stupid leaders do not and so they haven't trained our surface navy or army to fight a nuclear conflict. The US had lots of nuclear training for our military during the Cold War when we had fourteen and a half times more nuclear weapons than we do today. Our present-day nuclear arsenal of 1,515 operational nuclear weapons is woefully insufficient to deter Russia and China that, together, likely have four and a half times more strategic nuclear weapons than we do and may soon have up to six times more and up to ten times more ready to fire nuclear warheads than the US. A recent article in The National Interest correctly pointed out that Russian tactical nuclear weapons would have significant military utility against Ukraine helping to debunk the prevalent Western misconception that the use of even one nuclear weapon would start a chain reaction that would destroy humanity. However, the author’s claims that Ukraine might react with greater resolve to after being attacked with Russian nuclear weapons and that China and India would sanction their Russian ally over it are ridiculous. Due to Russia’s nuclear supremacy over the US, Russian leaders are likely far less concerned about the potential for a US nuclear response to a Russian nuclear first use against Ukraine, or even NATO in Eastern Europe, than they were during the Cold War when the US had forty-eight times more nuclear weapons deployed in western Europe.

According to one of America’s pre-eminent experts on Russian nuclear weapons, Dr. Mark Schneider:

“Since 1999, Russia has invested tremendous amounts of money in maintaining legacy systems as well as developing and fielding new types, totaling more than 30 types of nonstrategic nuclear weapon delivery systems, ranging from cruise and ballistic missiles, torpedoes, air-dropped bombs, and anti-aircraft and anti-ballistic missiles. Clearly, Russia values nonstrategic nuclear weapons, or NSNW, particularly those that serve a dual duty — delivering conventional or nuclear warheads. NSNWs provide Russia with a comparative and asymmetric advantage over its immediate neighbors as well as the U.S. and its allies, especially considering that the NATO alliance relies entirely on U.S. air-dropped B61-12 bombs for theater nuclear strikes. Russia, on the other hand, employs and continues to develop NSNWs of varying types and ranges to provide a nuclear option at every rung in the escalation ladder. The more that can be understood of Russian doctrine and military thought related to NSNWs, the more likely it is that deterrence with Russia can be maintained. Understanding Russia and maintaining deterrence vis-à-vis Russia are matters of survival for the West. If Russia believes that it can control escalation in a potential conflict with the West and can use nuclear weapons to force the U.S. to back down and concede defeat, it may one day seek to initiate conflict and defeat NATO.”

Russian President Vladimir Putin delivers his annual presidential address at the Kremlin where he again threatened to use Russia’s massive nuclear arsenal to destroy the US and NATO if they sent troops to fight Russia directly in Ukraine.

During his annual presidential address on February 29^th, Russian President Vladimir Putin again warned in no uncertain terms that Russia would escalate to the nuclear level in the event the US dared to cross its nuclear redline by sending combat troops or aircraft to fight Russia directly in Ukraine. Previously Russian State TV hosts have identified Russia’s top fourteen US targets Russian would destroy with its nuclear arsenal, which are likely genuine targets taken from Russia's equivalent to the US Single Integrated Operations Plan (SIOP). For the past decade, I have been predicting that Russia or China might only use 13 nuclear warheads to destroy 80% of our nuclear arsenal in a nuclear first strike plus Washington DC, the Pentagon and US Strategic Command at Offutt Air Force Base. This list includes our two Very Low Frequency relay stations critical to communicate nuclear launch orders to our four nuclear ballistic missile submarines deployed at any given time in the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans. Of course, if US leaders realized the fact that we couldn’t win a war with Russia or China or even North Korea or Iran, we would make peace with them and refocus on defending our own country and safeguarding the lives of 275 million Americans who would likely die in a nuclear/super-EMP war instead of defending countries half a world away like Ukraine or even Taiwan with which we have no security commitment.

Russian Nuclear Use Threshold May Have Already Been Crossed

According to recently released top secret documents articulating Russia’s nuclear escalation criteria, Russian leaders are authorized to employ nuclear weapons if they lose three Russian navy missile cruisers or have three Russian airfields destroyed or even if there is "an enemy incursion into Russian territory." In addition, it says that Russia's nuclear use would be authorized in the event of a simultaneous attack against more than one Russian naval command centers like its Black Sea Fleet HQ at Sevastopol. Since the war began, there have been multiple CIA backed and directed Ukrainian drone strike incursions into Russian territory including against Russian nuclear bomber airbases and Russia's Black Sea nuclear naval base at Sevastopol any one of which could potentially trigger Russian nuclear escalation with little to no warning. Russia has also said the use or nuclear weapons would be authorized in response to an attack on Russia’s critical infrastructure that disrupts or negatively effects its nuclear command and control system or if it is on the verge of losing a war to escalate to de-escalate and force the enemy to capitulate with little fear of a US or NATO nuclear response.

According to the UK Daily Express:

Vladimir Putin’s forces have reportedly rehearsed the use of tactical nuclear weapons at an early stage of conflict with another major world power, according to leaked Russian military files, but a former US Navy admiral suggests Moscow may have had a motive to share the information. According to experts who reviewed and verified the documents, they describe a threshold for the use of tactical nuclear weapons that is lower than has ever been publicly admitted by the Kremlin, the outlet reports. The cache is made up of 29 secret Russian military files drawn up between 2008 and 2014, and includes scenarios for war-gaming (a simulation of a military operation) and presentations for naval officers, that discuss operating principles for the use of nukes.The criteria laid out for a potential nuclear response range from an enemy incursion on Russian territory to more specific requirements, such as 20 percent of Moscow’s strategic ballistic missile submarines being destroyed, or 30 percent of its nuclear-powered attack submarines being wiped out.

Recent revelations strongly suggest that Russia’s nuclear usage threshold may have already been crossed by Ukraine. According to US intelligence in September-October 2022, Putin was strongly considering using tactical nuclear weapons against Ukraine in response to Ukraine’s Kherson and Kharkiv counteroffensives which were overrunning Russian annexed territory. US intelligence was concerned that it would have no advance warning of Russian use of tactical nuclear weapons against Ukraine because of the presence of so many nuclear capable Russian weapon systems in the Russian annexed territories.

The new book, "The Return of Great Powers--Russia, China and the Next World War" that relates how close the world came to nuclear war in September to October 2022 on the 60th anniversary of the Cuban Missile Crisis. It makes one wonder how close we may have come to nuclear war on other occasions we may not be aware of. In an article entitled, “Biden’s Armageddon Moment: When Nuclear Detonation Seemed Possible in Ukraine”, the New York Times further reported: For a few weeks in October 2022, the White House was consumed in a crisis whose depths were not publicly acknowledged at the time. It was a glimpse of what seemed like a terrifying new era. The intercepts revealed that for the first time since the war in Ukraine had broken out, there were frequent conversations within the Russian military about reaching into the nuclear arsenal.

Politico further reported that: “U.S. intercepts of Russian military communications in fall 2022 revealed conversations among commanders about reaching into the country’s arsenal of battlefield nukes, according to David Sanger of NYT. Some of these communications involved the units that would be responsible for moving or deploying the weapons, Sanger writes. “The most alarming of the intercepts revealed that one of the most senior Russian military commanders was explicitly discussing the logistics of detonating a weapon on the battlefield,” according to Sanger. Writing on the same day as Sanger, Jim Sciutto of CNN offered a similar account of the 2022 nuclear scare. The scare was so real that the U.S. began “preparing rigorously” for Russia potentially striking Ukraine with a nuclear weapon after a “devastating period for Russian forces in Ukraine,” Sciutto writes. Joe Biden also had senior members of his cabinet contact their Russian counterparts on the issue. In the end, it was director of Russia’s Intelligence Service Sergei Naryshkin who offered assurances to his visiting U.S. counterpart in November 2022 that “Putin did not intend to use a nuclear weapon,” according to William Burns’ account of the meeting as reported by NYT. “

Throughout this modern-day Cuban Missile Crisis, the Biden administration made no effort to inform or warn the American people of this massive increased threat of nuclear war but rather attempted to conceal it and prevent US citizens from ever finding out about it as it would expose the moral and strategic bankruptcy of their Ukraine war policy. One can only assume if US intelligence assessed that the risks of Chinese nuclear escalation were greatly heightened by a US war with China over Taiwan that Biden would similarly leave Americans in the dark and equally unprepared to prepare their families for a potential nuclear conflict.

How would Biden react to a Russian Nuclear Escalation in Ukraine?

A survey of former senior US Defense Department and State Department officials conducted in late 2022 determined that only one of them thought the US would respond with direct military strikes in response to a Russian nuclear attack on Ukraine and none of them believed President Biden would respond with a nuclear retaliatory strike.  According to Dr. John Mearsheimer, both former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger and former Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara both stated after they left office that the US nuclear guarantee for our NATO allies was a bluff and the US would not have employed tactical nuclear weapons to stop the Soviets from overrunning Western Europe even if the Soviets had used nuclear weapons first. Thus, its unthinkable that we would do so in response to Russian nuclear escalation in Ukraine. However, recent revelations from the New York Times, also reported by CNN, indicate that President Biden ordered contingency planning for potential direct US conventional military responses to a small-scale Russian nuclear attack against Ukraine up to and including bombing Russian forces that launched the nuclear weapon(s) in Russian annexed territories of Ukraine, an action which, had it been taken, almost certainly would have sparked a nuclear war between the US and Russia.

As I wrote months after the Russian invasion of Ukraine, the prospect of Russian nuclear escalation in the war in Ukraine is very real due to Russia’s military doctrine of “escalate to de-escalate” in which they would employ non-strategic nuclear weapons against enemy forces to swiftly end the war on terms most favorable to Russia. A recent report from a British military think tank concluded that Russian officials do not believe that President Biden would respond militarily to Russian nuclear strikes against NATO front-line states in Eastern Europe if Russia believed NATO was about to intervene militarily in Ukraine, providing they limited civilian deaths to what they believe to be an acceptable level. Despite the above-reported Biden administration contingency planning for potential US conventional military strikes on Russian forces in the annexed territories of Ukraine, Russian political and military leaders are likely correct in assuming that President Joe Biden would respond to the first use of Russian nuclear weapons in Eastern Europe with an attempt to de-escalate the conflict as swiftly as possible in order to avert a full nuclear exchange which could destroy the US and its NATO allies. Despite the massively increased threat of Russian nuclear escalation, President Biden and other NATO leaders continue to dismiss ongoing Russian nuclear threats out of hand. The US and its NATO allies ignores increasing Russian nuclear threats at their peril.

US More Vulnerable than Ever to a Russian or Chinese Nuclear Decapitation First Strike

Russian leaders are telling us they are on the verge of nuclear escalation over Biden's proxy war in Eastern Europe yet US leaders blow off their threats as mere bluff. Meanwhile, it has been reported that Russia, the PRC, North Korea and Iran all have super-Electromagnetic Pulse (EMP) or Fractional Orbital Bombardment System (FOBS) nuclear weapons in orbit either in space right now or ready to launch while the Biden administration dismisses them as posing no threat to US citizens. The administration is inviting simultaneous nuclear/EMP war with three to four nuclear adversaries and few US leaders apart from former President Donald Trump and a handful of congressional Republicans seem alarmed by Biden’s policy of national suicide.

I recently reported on the existence of “game changing” Russian super-EMP satellites which US intelligence has assessed are either in orbit or ready to launch causing a major panic in the White House and the US Congress.  An article in the Washington Times reported "Orbiting Chinese warhead is a space-based nuclear weapon, Air Force report says." I have been warning that with North Korea and Iran having super-EMP satellites in low-earth orbit over the US, Russia and China undoubtedly had nuclear weapons in space orbiting over the US as well and now my assessment has proven correct. These weapons are designed to detonate in low-Earth orbit that would not only destroy un-hardened satellites within its direct line of sight but could be used to take out the entire US electrical grid.

America’s enemies could employ super EMP weapons to severely degrade our Nuclear Command, Control and Communications network to the point where the National Command Authority might be unable to launch a nuclear retaliatory strike. That was one of Dr. Peter Pry's greatest fears. Indeed, US intelligence has long been aware that any and all Russian nuclear first strike scenarios call for them to first use a “bolt out of the blue” super-EMP attack to disable US early warning, GPS and electronic systems before Russia engages in a nuclear decapitation or counterforce attack.  We don't know how many super EMP warheads America’s nuclear adversaries possess. It could be dozens, or it could be many more. The US has no super EMP warheads, so Russia, China, North Korea and Iran enjoy a super EMP weapon monopoly over us.

Dr. Mark Schneider reported on the massive threat posed by a Russian space based super-EMP satellites to America’s NC2 system which potentially serves as the weakest link of America’s nuclear triad:

The first deaths from a nuclear ASAT attack if detonated over inhabited areas would be due to things like airplane crashes, failure of electronic equipment and the demolition of emergency services. The longer-term effects could be up to 90% population deaths within a year resulting from starvation. This inconvenient fact is not included in the White House assessment. Nor does the White House note the possible effects of a no warning EMP attack on the U.S. National Command Authority which Russia has been threatening to attack for a number of years. These threats have included President Putin himself. These threats involved hypersonic missiles, but a no warning orbital EMP strike makes this threat even more serious. As I wrote in 2019, “The threat to our national command authority undercuts our nuclear deterrent potential. It may allow a large ICBM and/or SLBM attack to arrive before any U.S. decision to retaliate….This could easily become the Russian theory of victory in a nuclear war.”

Dr. Peter Pry, the late Executive Director of the Task Force on National and Homeland Security, was extremely concerned that a super EMP first strike, could so degrade our NC2 capabilities that we might be unable to launch a nuclear response particularly with regards to US early warning and GPS satellites in the direct line of sight of the super EMP detonation that are not sufficiently hardened to withstand super EMP effects but also VLF communications with our nuclear missile submarines at sea due to the vulnerability of TACAMO aircraft to super EMP as well as our seven ground-based VLF transmitters without which our boomer skippers would be unable to launch their nuclear missiles.

The US has not updated its nuclear arsenal since 1992—the year I was commissioned as US Army combat arms officer. US nuclear missiles and bombers, nuclear missile submarines, TACAMO aircraft and Air Force One are all hardened to pre-super EMP levels. While America’s Nuclear Command and Control (NC2)  system, which is a potential Achilles heel of our nuclear triad, are also hardened against conventional nuclear EMP effects, it does not appear they have been sufficiently hardened against super-EMP effects, which emit between two to four times the voltage of standard nuclear weapons.  Accordingly, I believe a super EMP attack would likely take down Air Force One or Air Force Two if they were airborne. If they were not, it would likely disable our entire nuclear bomber leg and our ten nuclear missile submarines in port which total 52% of the US nuclear arsenal while also preventing the President from being able to escape DC and a potential follow-on nuclear decapitation strike. Thus, it would not be an exaggeration to describe a super EMP attack as a counterforce first strike as well even though such an attack would have no visible kinetic effects.  

One of our half-century old Minuteman III ICBMs in its silo. Admiral Charles Richard, who previously served as the commander of US Strategic Command warned that the reliability of our ICBMs was becoming questionable due the fact that they had exceeded their intended service life by several decades.

America's land-based leg of the triad might be more resilient to super EMP attack with underground communications lines and ICBMs in hardened underground silos.  Our Minuteman III ICBMs, which were originally set to have their useful service-life expire in the early 1980s, have been upgraded with multiple times in life extension programs but have become increasingly unreliable now that they are up to 54 years old. They are also hardened to pre-super EMP levels, not to the super EMP standard so if we had a comprehensive super EMP attack over the US while they were being launched, it would likely cause them to miss their targets and/or prevent their nuclear weapons from detonating. Accordingly, a super EMP attack could potentially knock Air Force One out of the sky and render our ICBMs in the air harmless. But our ICBMs in silos would be protected from EMP so long as their silo doors remained closed. That said, follow-on super EMP attacks could knock out our ICBMs in their boost phase, causing them to either miss their intended targets and/or their nuclear warheads not to detonate So, in that sense, super-EMP weapons in space might prove to be the most effective missile defense weapon in the world as they could be utilized by our enemies to defeat a US nuclear retaliatory response in progress. In addition, Presidential Decision Directive (PDD)-60 makes it official US doctrine to only launch a nuclear response after the first ground or near ground nuclear impact has been detected by two national technical means including ground-based radars. Of course, in every nuclear attack scenario, DC is the first target to go which means if the President and Vice President are there it might end up being a bloodless victory for a nuclear aggressor and America might be forced to capitulate in the wake of such a catastrophic strike.

If the US remained at a low-nuclear alert level of either DEFCON 4 or DEFCON 5, it is possible that a nuclear adversary could stage a nuclear decapitation strike either from submarine launched hypersonic missiles near DC or from space to kill the President and Vice President along with all three nuclear footballs preventing us from being able to engage in a nuclear retaliatory strike. It would take days for a new President to restore launch control over what remained of America’s nuclear triad following such a strike. That is why I have long advocated moving to DEFCON 3 and abolishing the last two runs of our DEFCON system to ensure our enemies know we will always be ready for such an attack. Furthermore, one of our top generals recently conceded that it would only take nine warheads to destroy 80% of our active and reserve nuclear warheads including our three nuclear bomber bases, our two nuclear submarine bases and our four bases where our 2,050 reserve warheads our stored. The US has no defense against super EMP attack or Russian or Chinese nuclear missile attack because it is official US policy not to defend the US homeland against Russian and Chinese nuclear missile strikes.

Sam Faddis, a former CIA officer who serves as a Senior Fellow with the Center for Security Policy, recently published an article in AND magazine about how Iran could potentially giving the bomb to Hezbollah terror cells to detonate here in the US, perhaps even in Washington, DC. We know Russia has had suitcase nukes in the US since the 1990’s. China may have them as well which could be employed by PLA Special Forces and Airborne brigades here in the US. If they don't, they could pre-position nuclear supersonic Club-K cruise missiles in containers in major US ports and even move them on diesel trucks to fire them from the interior against strategic US targets. It's unlikely we could detect them given only 1% of container shipments are inspected.

If Hezbollah or any of our adversaries were to detonate a nuclear weapon of sufficient size in Washington DC that destroyed the Emergency Operation Center located underneath the White House when President Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris were both there, they could potentially destroy all three nuclear footballs simultaneously. This would leave a new President unable to authenticate nuclear launch orders for days during which the PRC, Iran and NK could launch a nuclear first strike against the US NC2 and nuclear triad with impunity without worrying about the US engaging in nuclear retaliation.

Biden and other NATO allies continue to unwittingly provoke nuclear war with Russia. They just might be successful. As I stated previously. Russia has far more strategic and non-strategic nuclear weapons than the US does overall. Unlike the US which has no nuclear hypersonic missiles and no plans to ever build any, all Russian hypersonic missiles are nuclear capable. Of course, hypersonic missiles can be armed with strategic nuclear warheads as well. One Sarmat ICBM can carry up to 24 Avanguard hypersonic glide vehicles which could go into orbit and nuke or super EMP us from space. US intelligence is aware of this fact so when the Biden regime claims that Russia hasn't developed super EMPs to use in space, they are essentially engaging in disinformation warfare against the American people. The truth is that Russia could deploy multiple, and perhaps dozens of, super EMP weapons in space within a matter of hours if not minutes.

Conclusion

Most of the news segments we see on liberal mainstream news channels regarding the war in Ukraine is essentially Ukrainian propaganda. It is important to discern the truth from the liberal disinformation that the Biden regime and our essentially state-controlled media continues to use to wage information warfare on the American people to get them to support forever wars in Eastern Europe and the Middle East in opposition to US national security interests. Despite this non-stop liberal media propaganda onslaught, Americans are increasingly fed up with Biden’s failed proxy war against Russia in Ukraine. US public support for the war in Ukraine has continued to diminish the longer the war continues.

According to a CNN poll taken last year, 55% of Americans and 71% of Republicans support ending all aid to Ukraine. Among conservatives, opposition to further aid to Ukraine and support for a negotiated peace with Russia is even more pronounced. A similar straw poll taken of America Fest attendees in December 2023 (including myself) indicated that only 2.7% of attendees believe the US should provide even humanitarian aid while over 99% of conservative attendees supported further military aid suggesting support for House Speaker Mike Johnson's position of no additional aid for Ukraine among the conservative Republican grassroots may be near universal. However, I think we should withhold all financial aid to Ukraine until they sign and implement a peace agreement with Russia as it is in polar opposition to US national security interests to prolong the war in Ukraine by even one single day due to the heightened risk of Russian nuclear/EMP/cyber attack that could destroy the US in a single day.

The Biden administration, Democrat members of Congress and neoconservative Senate Republicans remain hell bent on sending another $61 billion in US aid to Ukraine which will only serve to prolong the war unnecessarily and get up to 360,000 more brave Ukrainians killed for no discernable purpose. Of course, such losses would lead to a full Ukrainian military collapse later this year enabling Russia to overrun the rest of eastern and perhaps southern Ukraine later this year with little resistance greatly strengthening Russia, which is presumably the exact outcome which the war’s supporters in the administration and Congress seek to avoid. Dr. John Mearsheimer has speculated that if Ukraine were to collapse, the US and UK might be tempted to engage in a direct military intervention against Russia which could potentially escalate to the nuclear level. Thankfully, our new America First conservative House Speaker Mike Johnson has declared that the Schumer-McConnell de facto amnesty and Ukraine aid bill is dead on arrival in the US House of Representatives.

House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) has been refusing to put the Senate Ukraine funding bill up for a vote in the House and has been very consistent in opposing military aid to Ukraine because he understands the detrimental consequences it has to US national security. His courageous stand in support of ending the death and destruction in Ukraine provides hope that it will pressure Zelensky to negotiate peace with Russia to prevent a Ukrainian military collapse. However, it was recently reported that following massive pressure from leftwing members of Congress in both parties, he might now be open to passing a stand-alone Ukraine aid bill that would condition aid as a loan that must be paid back rather than a gift like the $113 billion in aid that Congress has appropriated thus far.  That is a horrible idea for which Russia has threatened major consequences and it would serve to prolong the death and destruction in Ukraine for another year causing another 250,000 Ukrainian troops to be killed or wounded for no good reason.

Biden has claimed the fight is “existential” for Ukraine even though Russia agreed to withdraw its troops from all of Ukraine except for the Donbass region in March 2022. In fact, it may end up being an existential war for Ukraine and its NATO proxies if we succeed in provoking Russia to destroy us using its unparalleled arsenal of unconventional weapons. Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY) recently claimed that if Ukraine loses the war, then Russia will invade NATO and then we will be forced to send tens of thousands of Americans to die fighting Russia in Eastern Europe. Neoconservatives have claimed that if we let Russia win in Ukraine, then Putin will be emboldened and start invading other countries and China will somehow be emboldened to invade Taiwan—none of which is true. In fact, China is already emboldened by the fact that we didn’t fight Russia directly in Ukraine and benefits greatly by Biden’s decision to prolong the war as long as possible believing that the US would be much less likely to defend Taiwan militarily while having to fight two simultaneous wars in Europe and Asia.

Tucker Carlson interviewing Russian President Putin at the Kremlin last month. The interview included some blockbuster revelations including why the Soviet Union collapsed and nearly a quarter of a century of Russian attempts to achieve a lasting peace with the West and avert an unnecessary war over the Ukraine in NATO crisis.

Former Fox News host Tucker Carlson interviewed Russian President Putin on February 6th to try to promote an end to this deadly and destructive war and bring the world back from the verge of nuclear Armageddon. The interview was very comprehensive and revealing with Putin detailing all his attempts during the past quarter century since he came to power to obtain a lasting peace with the US and its NATO allies, all of which were rebuffed out of hand. The mainstream media attempted to black out coverage of the interview, unsuccessfully, as they don't want Americans to know that Putin has been pushing for peace since the day after he invaded and for a couple decades before. However, the Biden administration was forced to formally respond to Putin’s renewed offer to negotiate a peaceful diplomatic end to the war with another rejection saying that the war must continue to the bitter end until Russia agrees to return all its annexed territories to Ukraine.

In an article entitled, “Continuing Aid to Ukraine increases the Risk of Nuclear War”, William Rampe writes:

As the war continues, the chances that Russia’s numerical advantage in troops (as shown during the Battle of Bakhmut) and missiles overwhelms Ukraine become increasingly likely. At this point, the most prudent policy to pursue is a “Korean-style” ceasefire that freezes the conflict along present lines. As Lyle Goldstein of the China Maritime Studies Institute at the U.S. Naval War College writes for Responsible Statecraft, “The strong virtue of this arrangement is that it puts a premium on an immediate halt to the fighting, while solidifying the line of contact as the new border for the foreseeable future.” Reporting by the New York Times suggests that Putin could be amenable to a ceasefire that “freezes the conflict along current lines.” Convincing Zelensky of a ceasefire’s benefits while working to understand Russian demands through back-door diplomacy should be the policy of the Biden administration. This approach helps Ukraine protect its people in the short term and rebuild its military to deter future Russian aggression while keeping the door open to a broader diplomatic solution to the conflict. For the U.S., a ceasefire would diminish the potential for escalation between itself and Russia. Supporting a prolonged conflict is contrary to U.S. interests. The cost of aid is unpopular. Almost half of Americans agree that “the U.S. government is spending too much on aid.” And the war’s continuation increases the chances, albeit small, of nuclear war. 

As he states, the overriding US national security interest is to end the war as quickly as possible with the best terms realistically possible for Ukraine to prevent nuclear escalation that could lead to the destruction of the US and NATO. The best terms possible are those I proposed in September 2022 namely a permanent cease fire and armistice along the current lines of control with the cutting of all ties between Ukraine and NATO, a permanent ban on NATO troops in Ukraine and a US security guarantee for Ukraine similar to the one we have for Israel namely that if Ukraine is attacked we will provide them with the weapons they need to defend itself. The Biden administration should reverse its rejection of Putin’s offer to negotiate an immediate end to the war with a permanent cease-fire and armistice agreement and issue a written guarantee that the US will never support Ukraine’s entry into NATO while suspending further aid to Ukraine to pressure Zelensky to agree to pursue a diplomatic solution to end the war without further delay.

© David T. Pyne 2024

David T. Pyne, Esq. is a former U.S. Army combat arms and Headquarters staff officer, who was in charge of armaments cooperation with the former Soviet Union, Eastern Europe, the Middle East, Africa and the Americas from 2000-2003, with an M.A. in National Security Studies from Georgetown University. He currently serves as Executive Vice President of the Task Force on National and Homeland Security and as a member of the Committee on the Present Danger-China. He recently served as Defense and Foreign Policy Advisor to a top-tier presidential candidate. He has also co-authored the best-selling new book, “Catastrophe Now--America’s Last Chance to Avoid an EMP Disaster” and his new book “A Nuclear Posture Review for Advanced Technology Weapons” will be published in early fall 2024. He serves as the Editor of “The Real War” newsletter at dpyne.substack.com and as a contributor to “The National Interest”. Here is a link to his interview archive. He may be reached at emptaskforce.ut@gmail.com.

Recent Media Interviews

February 20th—Interview on RT’s Crosstalk TV program hosted by Peter Lavelle to discuss the true origins of the war in Ukraine, who is winning the war, how it is likely to end and what security arrangement can be made between Russia and NATO to prevent it from re-occurring. Here is the recording.

February 20th—Interview with Jon Twitchell on his Talk with Jon show to discuss Tucker Carlson’s interview with Russian President Vladimir Putin, the state of the war in Ukraine, Russia’s new super EMP satellites which can destroy the US and my peace plan to end the Gaza War. Here is a link to the interview.

February 21st—Interview with Brannon Howse on his Worldview Weekend Hour show on Patriot TV to discuss the news that Biden is trying to stop the Russian super-EMP satellite from being tested as well as the story that 75% of components in a North Korean KM-23 SRBM were found to be made in America. Here is the link to the interview.

February 22nd—Interview with Brannon Howse on his Worldview Radio network broadcast on 67 affiliates to discuss the effects of EMP on cellphone networks and US communication systems. Here is the link.

February 27th—Interview with Jon Twitchell on his Talk with Jon show to discuss the latest developments with regards to Russia, the war in Ukraine, the war in Gaza and the increasing threat of war with China. Here is a link to the interview.

February 27th—Interview with Nima Alkhorshid on his Dialogue Works podcast to discuss the 2nd anniversary of the war in Ukraine as well as my newly published peace plan to end the war on Gaza on fair and reasonable terms while also ending America’s proxy war with Iran. Here is the link to the interview.

February 27th—Interview with Brannon Howse on his Worldview Weekend Hour show on Patriot TV to discuss the NATO threat that the UK and France are considering sending an Expeditionary Force into central Ukraine to fight Russia directly and start World War Three and Russia’s threat to nuke the US and NATO if they do. Here is a link to the interview.

March 5th—Interview on the COL Rob Maness (USA Ret) on the Rob Maness Show to discuss the Russian super-EMP satellite threat, the potential vulnerabilities of America’s Nuclear Command, Control and Communications (NC3) system and what we can do to reduce America’s vulnerability to a nuclear/EMP first strike. Here is the link to the interview.

March 6th—Interview with Brannon Howse on his Worldview Weekend Hour show on Patriot TV to discuss Russian President Vladimir Putin’s Decision to Highlight the 14 top US nuclear targets Russia would attack if US troops are sent to fight Russia in Ukraine during his annual presidential address. Here is a link to the interview.

March 8th—Interview with Brannon Howse on his Worldview Weekend Hour show on Patriot TV to discuss General Cotton’s leaked classified briefing to the Senate Armed Services Committee that China will finish deploying its new DF-45 mobile ICBM based in its 3,000 mile underground tunnel network by next year greatly expanding the size of China’s strategic nuclear arsenal. Here is the link to the interview.

March 15th—Interview on The American Journal hosted by Harrison Smith to discuss Russian and Chinese super-EMP satellites and orbital nuclear weapons as well as the coming Chinese blockade of Taiwan and ramifications for the US. Here is a link to the interview.

Upcoming Media Interviews

March 19th—Interview with Jon Twitchell on his Talk with Jon show to discuss China’s planned blockade of Taiwan which I am predicting will materialize later this year, Biden’s rejection of a peace agreement ending the war in Ukraine two years ago and how escalating Western threats against Russia in Ukraine could provoke a nuclear war could destroy the US and NATO,

March 21st—Serving as a panel speaker on the Nation State Threats Panel with some DHS, FBI and NSA officials at the Critical Infrastructure Security Summit at the Utah Valley University Center for National Security Studies in Orem from 8:30am-4:30pm.

March 22nd—Interview with Canadian Prepper to discuss the chances that the US may soon be embroiled in a two-front world war with both Russia and China.

March 23rd—Interview with Jonathan Hollerman who serves as Deputy Executive Director of the Task Force on National and Homeland Security on the EMP Task Force YouTube Channel to discuss the increasing threats of World War Three with Russia and China.

March 26th—Interview with Cyrus Janssen on his podcast to discuss the costs and consequences of the war in Ukraine and Biden’s decision to veto the Russo-Ukrainian peace agreement in April 2022 which would have delivered a victory for Ukraine.

April 18th-19th—I will be presenting an extensive briefing at the Firm Foundation Expo at 10am on April 18th and 6pm on April 19th at the Mountain America Expo Center at 9575 South State Street in Sandy, Utah to discuss the increasing threat of World War Three with Russia, China, North Korea and Iran and what we need to do to avert it.

Upcoming Interview with Nima Alkhorshid on his Dialogue Works podcast to debate former USAF Major Scott Ritter to debate the merits of my proposed Gaza Peace Plan