This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
Top Russia Expert: Ukraine Joining Nato Would Provoke Nuclear War
Stephen Cohen is one of America’s top experts on Russia. Cohen is professor emeritus of Russian studies and politics at New York University and Princeton University, and the author of a number of books on Russia and the Soviet Union.
Cohen says that the West is mainly to blame for the crisis in Ukraine:
This is a horrific, tragic, completely unnecessary war in eastern Ukraine. In my own judgment, we have contributed mightily to this tragedy. I would say that historians one day will look back and say that America has blood on its hands. Three thousand people have died, most of them civilians who couldn’t move quickly. That’s women with small children, older women. A million refugees.
Cohen joins other American experts on Russia – such as former U.S. ambassador to the Soviet Union, Jack Matlock – in this assessment.
Cohen also says that if Ukraine joins NATO, it will lead to nuclear war:
[Interviewer:] The possibility of Ukraine in NATO and what that means and what—
STEPHEN COHEN: Nuclear war.
[Interviewer:] Explain.
STEPHEN COHEN: Next question. I mean, it’s clear. It’s clear. First of all, by NATO’s own rules, Ukraine cannot join NATO, a country that does not control its own territory. In this case, Kiev controls less and less by the day. It’s lost Crimea. It’s losing the Donbas—I just described why—to the war. A country that does not control its own territory cannot join Ukraine [sic]. Those are the rules.
[Interviewer:] Cannot join—
STEPHEN COHEN: I mean, NATO. Secondly, you have to meet certain economic, political and military criteria to join NATO.
Ukraine meets none of them. Thirdly, and most importantly, Ukraine is linked to Russia not only in terms of being Russia’s essential security zone, but it’s linked conjugally, so to speak, intermarriage. There are millions, if not tens of millions, of Russian and Ukrainians married together. Put it in NATO, and you’re going to put a barricade through millions of families. Russia will react militarily.
In fact, Russia is already reacting militarily, because look what they’re doing in Wales today. They’re going to create a so-called rapid deployment force of 4,000 fighters. What is 4,000 fighters? Fifteen thousand or less rebels in Ukraine are crushing a 50,000-member Ukrainian army. Four thousand against a million-man Russian army, it’s nonsense. The real reason for creating the so-called rapid deployment force is they say it needs infrastructure. And the infrastructure—that is, in plain language is military bases—need to be on Russia’s borders. And they’ve said where they’re going to put them: in the Baltic republic, Poland and Romania.
Now, why is this important? Because NATO has expanded for 20 years, but it’s been primarily a political expansion, bringing these countries of eastern Europe into our sphere of political influence; now it’s becoming a military expansion. So, within a short period of time, we will have a new—well, we have a new Cold War, but here’s the difference. The last Cold War, the military confrontation was in Berlin, far from Russia. Now it will be, if they go ahead with this NATO decision, right plunk on Russia’s borders. Russia will then leave the historic nuclear agreement that Reagan and Gorbachev signed in 1987 to abolish short-range nuclear missiles. It was the first time nuclear—a category of nuclear weapons had ever been abolished. Where are, by the way, the nuclear abolitionists today? Where is the grassroots movement, you know, FREEZE, SANE? Where have these people gone to? Because we’re looking at a new nuclear arms race. Russia moves these intermediate missiles now to protect its own borders, as the West comes toward Russia. And the tripwire for using these weapons is enormous.
One other thing. Russia has about, I think, 10,000 tactical nuclear weapons, sometimes called battlefield nuclear weapons. You use these for short distances. They can be fired; you don’t need an airplane or a missile to fly them. They can be fired from artillery. But they’re nuclear. They’re radioactive. They’ve never been used. Russia has about 10,000. We have about 500. Russia’s military doctrine clearly says that if Russia is threatened by overwhelming conventional forces, we will use tactical nuclear weapons. So when Obama boasts, as he has on two occasions, that our conventional weapons are vastly superior to Russia, he’s feeding into this argument by the Russian hawks that we have to get our tactical nuclear weapons ready.
Former Polish president – and famed anti-communist activist – Lech Walesa agrees that the U.S. and Nato’s arming of Ukraine could lead to a nuclear war
Cohen also notes that the West has entered into an agreement to cover-up what happened to Malaysian airlines flight 17, because Russia was not responsible:
»
- advertisements -
Who's making out Hitler as a good guy? Hitler was doing his job protecting German interests in 1939.
Europe was full of bad guys then. Poland's PM was one of them who was vastly overplaying his hand, thanks to the Brits. One of the worst bad guys, if not the worst, was Churchill. Millions of widows and orphans owe their pensions to that terrorist sonofabitch.
seems like the Poles have spent long periods of time off the maps of europe. maybe its time to disappear again. lol
AT, quite so. Unlike Obumbler, Russia is not in the habit of bluffing, then waffling later on. If they say they're going to do something they follow through.
I'm looking forward to picking up a Black Sea dacha for kopecks to the ruble, on the unlikely assumption that I'm not a smoking cinder at the time.
Turd has links to podcasts where John Bachelor interviews Prof Cohen.
Good stuff. Cohen is not biased against Nato like reported in various articles. He believes Putin is supplying arms and advice to the rebels.
Jef Lee Johnson live au Tallani's garden part 6
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p8g_Fe7i6ZE
Thanks for this post George.
It's amazing that the official US/NATO narrative on Ukraine has been greeted with so little skepticism. One has to admit that the Israeli/Gaza narrative was greeted with tons of skepticism in comparison, especially in light of the good treatment Israel gets in the US press. Why is this? Who benefits?
The skeptics' narrative has been that the US fomented a revolt in Ukraine which led to a civil war. OK. But why would the EU go along with this after the whole Victoria Nuland episode (F*** the EU!) ??
There is a deeper story here about EU complicity with the US policy toward Russia that we need to learn.
well, the World MSM swallowed the Iraq has WMD stories fed to them by the Jews, hook line and sinker
"There is a deeper story here about EU complicity with the US policy toward Russia that we need to learn."
The EU is OWNED by the US MIC ...
Brussels = NATO HQ
Brussels = EU HQ
Brussels = SWIFT HQ
Brussels = US Nuke Bases ( Prof. C.Lutz - Bases of Empire )
IIRC ...
Obama in Ramstein, Germany 2007 : "This country is occupied, and will remain so"
German Fin. Minister Scheuble indirectly confirmed that later in 2011.
For the full picture , read Full Spectrum Dominance by William F. Engdahl
... and check out Videos from Willy Wimmers - ex Germany Defense Minister , on the Pentagons Vision 2020 & NATO expansion plans
Please also listen to this interview with swiss historian prof. dr. Daniela Ganser (english language)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xxjzfkw3coI
And this excellent presentation (german language).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2YuE6U15wr8
it's about NATO, operation Gladio, propaganda, and the purpose of this organisation.
Our (President's) almost immediate accusation that Russia was responsible for Malaysian Flight 17 was the reason for the almost immediate sanctions affecting innocent Russian citizens.
Our golfer-in-chief has created a real mess. And Americans have a right to know the truth behind Flight 17 to make informed decisions about our government and its foreign policy.
It looks more and more like a setup. Feigned surprise. Operation Gladio. The iron fist in the velvet glove.
The dutch government is lying, and keeping things secret (under a treaty with Australia, Belgium and... Ukraine governments)
The lies have been exposed, but the parliament (incl. the so called "opposition") is keeping quiet.
I think they are very afraid.
The bigger the mess, the moar bullish it is!!! War- bullish!! Nuclear war- moar bullish!!!
This is what Putin has rebuilt while Obama's been golfing! (Watch 8:15)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y4mHuUZnJjw&index=59&list=FLhxqwnacwtI22...
Great Idea! Let's attack Russia in the middle of the Winter!
Notice every time someone tries, it's like the coldest winter in a hundred years?
Hahaha, good luck Barry. You and Reg have some long johns in those foxholes.
In reality America has few military options in Russia's backyard unless it has the backing of a full and enthusiastic NATO and that is very unlikely. Europe has reason to be unexcited about a possible long and expensive conflict. While still trying to recover from a recession Europe would face fuel shortages and a massive spike in the price of natural gas.
Putin a great deal of leverage. Don't hold your breath for Putin to back-off or back-down, he has put down his marker and is now playing both Obama and Kerry for fools. If an actual ground attack does occur the Russians will not rollover as other armies have when America approaches. More on this subject in the article below.
http://brucewilds.blogspot.com/2014/07/putin-holds-all-cards.html
The west has no army anywhere large enough to attack in the first place.
And, Russia has Full Spectrum Nuclear Dominance.
Good luck, fuckers.
'Russia has full scale nuclear dominance'
How do you figure? We have ballistic missile subs all over the world. Each one can carry 24 trident missiles with up to 10 warheads apiece. Just one of the subs, which are the quietest in the world, can flatten every large city and every major military base in Russia. I realize the Russians have those too, but they are not on the same level as ours, are very loud, and easily tracked. I get it, you don't like the Obama admin. I don't either. But this falling all over yourselves to worship Putin and the Russians just because you don't like the us gov is getting borderline delusional.
"... the us gov is getting borderline delusional"
What do you mean, borderline? they're full retard trying to provoce an EXCHANGE OF NUCLEAR WEAPONS
My God man! When the fuck do you wake up?
When you see bright flashes and feel a hot wind peltering your skin?
No one can win a nuclear war.
You're not on another planet or something. And certainly not the only one that does NOT comprehend the situation. pff
Did you even LISTEN to the Cohen guy or what????????
I think what you're all talking about here, while modern, are still conventional shooting type weapons. While Russia was being raped in the 90's I wonder what kind of black budget classified futuristic type weapons the US has developed and will only be brought out when things go thermonuclear. Nuclear is after all 70 years old. Lasers, anti-gravity, who fkn knows what's hiding in those bunkers?
A real shooting war would have to go nuclear fairly quickly but not because of Russia.
I think people have no concept of the Russian defensive capabilities, and then think about this.
i'm supposed to be a normal rational person, in the event that Russia is being actively attacked be these Banker driven cocksuckers i'll happily go strap myself with a nuke and become "useful" on the battlefield.
there is no way to win, have you ever seen "humanity" going suicide bomber ?
may as well just go nuclear.
I really think Russia just wants to be left alone.
But i don't think any of this will transpire, but who knows?
we all can influence the future. NOTHING is set in stone. that is an important concept, in a time when plans are presented as "fact".
More to the point, why is it that when a new conflict arises (or is provoked by the U.S.) that the U.S. cannot seem to find 150 to 200 thousand combat troups to fight? They have to call up the national guard of the various states (state militia). And this at a time when we have 1.7 million in uniform. Is our military mostly a jobs program with perhaps 200,000 to 300,000 airborne, ranger, special forces and marines capable of actually fighting?
Conflict with Russia would involve a very quick and massive die off of our military. Somehow our elites who run the show behind the scenes have no concept of what they are talking about, or could care less how many single citizen americans die.
Dependence on the National Guard was a concious decision made after Vietnam. The idea was that having call up reserves to fight even a relatively modestly sized war would keep the all volunteer professional army from being used too adventurously. I'm not saying that this idea worked, I'm just saying that's why things are as they are. The Obama administration has decided to do away with this doctrine, and plans to remove combat power from the National Guard (which is under state control until federalized) and give it to the reserves (which are always a federal force). Previously (now really, but Obama want to make the change) reserve forces have combat support (like logistics) and combat service support (like medical units) while the National Guard has combat arms units (tanks, artillery, etc.)
I agree there is a lot of waste in active and civillian infrastructure, but it exists to brin aboard quickly the guard and reserve elements with which the US cannot fight either a large or prolonged conflict without.
A conventional war with Russia would see a massive die off of Russian soldiers. With the exception of a small number of units, they are highly incompentent. I don't think they have more than 25,000 competent soldiers. The Russians get this, and is why their doctrine relies upon the threat of use of nuclear weapons.
Oh please, what U.S. President would be dumb enough to send U.S. troops to Russia? And, how do you think he could approval from congress & senate and the american people to do such a stupid thing? Just like Napolean and Hitler, they would be destroyed, period, by Russians defending their motherland. They probably would get nuked before they even got near eastern Poland.
FYI: It is too expensive and not needed for the U.S. to maintain a large standing army and marine corps. Cheaper to keep reserves and national guard as backup force.
well they are sending them back into IRAQ, AFGHANISTAN and into the UKRAINE-99% of CONgress is corrupt-Republican and Democrat alike-we cant trust them to represent us
Actually, I think that is the Plan.
"Agent Backdoor, your orders are to reduce the US to Zimbabwe."
"Aye, sir."
The 2008 NATO Bucharest summit’s announcement that Ukraine and Georgia would eventually join the organisation infuriated Putin, who warned NATO leaders that further expansion would be a threat to Russia.88 Two days later, in a closed-door speech leaked to the accompanying media, he reportedly addressed U.S. President George W. Bush directly: “You understand, George, Ukraine is not a state. What is Ukraine? One part is eastern Europe. The other part, and a significant one, was donated by us”. According to the Russian newspaper Kommersant, Putin then “very transparently hinted that if Ukraine was accepted into NATO, it would cease to exist. That is, to all intents and purposes he threatened to start the process of seizing Crimea from Ukraine”.89
89 Kommersant, 7 April 2008.
http://www.crisisgroup.org/~/media/Files/europe/ukraine/231-ukraine-runn...
http://www.kommersant.ru/doc/877224
h/t Mearsheimer
from your "crisisgroup" link:
"Moscow’s depiction of a country in the thrall of a fascist coup, dominated by ultra-right militias, has persuaded the Russian public and for lack of alternatives has taken root in parts of Ukraine."
Well it was a fascist coup, dominated by ultra-right militias.
One of the first things they did was to revoce a law that guaranteed the use of russian as second official language.
This set off the whole escalation.
http://rt.com/news/minority-language-law-ukraine-035/
background info: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legislation_on_languages_in_Ukraine
overlay that with a map of who voted for Yanukovich in the 2010 elections:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/26/%D0%94%D1%80%D1%83%D...
It's obvious that the ones in control of Brussels, London, DC intended this. They could've easily picked a more suitable candidate after the coup, than the overzealous gang of thugs.
And would've even been able to strike a compromise with the russians.
They want war, and they'll do everything to get it. Ukraine joining NATO might've been Brzezinski's plan all along, but it's beyond that.
They're making a desperate move to retain dominance, the BRICS are going ahead: http://thebricspost.com/ruble-yuan-to-pave-way-for-us-dollar-substitutio...
I'm not saying these people are good, these are bad (I read that a lot), just that it's obvious who is the agressor, and for what purpose.
After that anyone can stick labels on. (incl. myself)
bonus article for any NATO yolos that read this and thought that the NATO armies are vastly superior: They might be on paper, but eurasia isn't paper.
http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/what-america-can-learn-from-russias-che...
LOGISTICS is everything. The russian militairy learned from their mistake, of assuming the end of the cold war was because of "technical" superiority (in specifications), and returned to what works for them. Something that KEEPS on working.
On the other hand the americans are chaotic, and therefore regarded by the russians as a "difficult" foe.
Short of a battlefleet of interstellar spacecraft no one can win this. It's madness.
But there is no Russian army in Crimea and no Russian army in what's left from Ukraine. This quote is just Western fascist propaganda, a CIA-sponsored story.
Also, you must understand that Russia must have its sphere of influence kept intact, otherwise will wipe the insolent countries off the map - nuclear preemptive attack being an option.
The Americans and the Europeans are sole to blame for what's happening in Ukraine, where the Kiev Junta is attacking its own civilian population. Russia only sends humanitarian aid. Hundreds of white trucks, with 4-5 people manning each truck. There is no proof that the 1000+ strong batalion were special troops sent to prepare the arrival of other thousands of green men.
And you know, in Crimea they had free elections and 95%, maybe 105% of the people voted for, how to say, Eurasian Union?
All Ukrainians are either fascists, or Russians really. Everybody knows that there is no such thing as Ukraine or Ukrainians. Only Russia and Russians. And in Russia there is no such thing as minorities. Only Russian people, having the right to be ruled by Vladimir Putin. And that should be enough for them, because everybody knows that Vladimir Putin is a judo expert, a fearless leader, an exceptional hunter, warrior, chess player, fighter pilot, a true believer, the opposite of the faggots from the West etc. Remember Conchita Wurst.
conventional weapons are vastly superior to Russia
Ha-haha-ha... Name one!)))
God forbid! of course...
Thing is all of us will see "shock and owe" in every City... are this people mad?
Is it tanks? Artillery? Tactical missles? Inellegence service? Anti-aircraft? Air Force? Mech infantry??? Airborne forces? Marines? Special forces? and yeh, tactical nuc's ???
Which is it?
I just pray the 1st Nuke is dropped on my home so I can be 1st to leave this God foresaken world.
I do have my FAITH. When Earth becomes Hell it is time.
The first nukes will arrive almost immediately, they will be mini-nukes, this article will probably surprise you
http://www.veteranstoday.com/2014/09/03/vt-nuclear-education-history-of-...
and they will drop onto selected AF bases/comms sites/army bases in Western Europe. As the missiles will be armed with low yield 'neutron' and blast warheads and as virtually all the sites are away from population centres there will be little fallout in civilian areas.
That will stop any NATO action in its tracks. If NATO does the same that will stop Russia too. Impass.
No-one can fight now, hopefully diplomacy takes over, whilst China looks on, slightly amused. That is of course if Russia and China haven't already signed a 'hit me hit my friend' pact and stopped everything before it started as the US would not be mad enough to fight them both at the same time.
Or would it?
yes but you are overlooking one possibility, russia and europe and the u.s. both simultaneously nuke the every living shit out of china -------using japan as the launching base.
china relatiates. eliminates japan, 200 million chinese are dead 100 million japanese dead. ---japans nuclear reactors spew enough radiation to irradiate the entire eastern asian quarter---sphere with some long distance winds fucking with west coast of u.s. south america.
and then this CRISIS brings forward the next opportunity for negotiation.
yea. how about them scenario apples.
Slightly less plausible than California nuking New Jersey.
Unlikely, but I do not think either Russian or the US would not mind fighting a nuclear war in the Ukraine, or Poland, or China, or anywhere other than Russia (for the Russians) and the US (for the Americans). This is why Germany felt so unconfortable being the front during the Cold War. Given what both the US and Russian did to them in the Second World War, they had no doubt both sides would have no problem fighting a nuclear war as long as it was fought in Germany.
Agree with you. US hubris and arrogance. Russia has adopted an asymmetric strategy and focused on high impact weapon like missiles and agile aircraft. There are rumours that the latest generation of Russian radars can see stealth aircraft.
Aside from the above a large chunk of US defence spending is pork BARRELING-JSF and maintaining costly bases that are targets. The US relies on information. Makes you wonder how much is 'hardened'.
This is going to end badly, trust me.
Battle of Britain radars can pick up so called stealth - see Pierre Spey:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z_vXqtCkVy8
Go to 6:00 minutes and Pierre Sprey talks about how stealth is a scam. Old long wave radar can see stealth going back to WW2 and the Russians are very far advanced from there.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mxDSiwqM2nw
The JSF or F-35 is junk. The other thing about Russian versus US planes is the Russian stuff can take up from junk airfields. There airfields have weeds and junk. US airbases have to be almost pristine. Air force grunts and pilots walk the flightline looking for any debris because the planes are fairly fragile.
"The JSF or F-35 is junk. The other thing about Russian versus US planes is the Russian stuff can take up from junk airfields. There airfields have weeds and junk. US airbases have to be almost pristine. Air force grunts and pilots walk the flightline looking for any debris because the planes are fairly fragile."
True, but Russia MIGs and Sukoi's do not last as long in terms of flights hours versus U.S. and Western fighters. Maintenance costs are far higher as well. Just ask the Indians who had recently retired some of their early model Su-27s they obtained in the 1990s after they reached their airframes reached their max. Though, later model Su-27s have made strides in this regard.
The problem is that US aircraft cannot take off from less than perfect airfeilds. Ingestion of FOD is not allowed. Soviet aircraft are better in this aspect. Think Kalashnicoff, You fighting brothers from another mother.
Combat performance speaks for itself. For example ZERO F-15's have been shot down in combat, but at least 2 SU-27's have been shot down, this despite for more combat sorties and time for the F-15's.
The famed "cobra" maneuver would be the last desparate act of a desperate piilot. The aircraft loses so much energy and airspeed during such a move that it becomes a sitting duck. Air combat in the real world requires pilots to maintain "energy" and air speed. If you force the other guy to bleed speed, you will force him to bleed blood. It's neet in airshows, but useless in combat.
Also, Russian jet engines are as suceptible as western engines to FOD. The difference is Western air forces tend to look after their equipment - Russians did not. This is not actually a conbat detriment - it's just that the Russians regard their acraft as much more expendable. They made a decision to spend money to replace engines rather than spend the money to make high quality airfields. Some one probably did a math calculation, and given the relative costs of each option, chose taking the FOD hits as the cheapest route. Cost factors between Russian and western aircraft and airfields may not be the same, and each approach may be perfectly rational and cost effective for both countires.
Western aircraft have numerous design advantages over Russian designs, all of which have been proven in actual combat. Ignore data if you like. In combat, it's your ass.
how many aircraft were lost over bosinia? and what type, again? oh, that's right, the us lost an an f-117 to enemy fire. serbs were the junior varsity. russian aa is some of the most advanced on the planet.
Ya but the bomb bay door got stuck open after the drop. They aren't stealthy if there is a giant flat surface dangling from the belly of the plane. And bravesirrobin is right. Every time American aircraft have gone up against Russian or soviet ones, the American aircraft or pilots have proven superior. This is a pointless conversation though, just more of y'all wanting to gargle putins balls on a daily basis for some reason.
Hell, no! Drop the first one on the faggot!
>>>Drop the first one on the faggot!
You do realize your words consitutute an explicit threat against the President of The Unites States?
Are you calling the President of the United States a faggot?
Pretty sure Larry Sinclair did. Donald Young & Larry Bland (of course) could not be reached for any comments, they were both murdered about a month and a half apart.
But hey, stuff happens ;-)
http://www.rense.com/general82/cdet.htm
Lake city: Nice language.
Did you learn ithe prose in school or you just picked it up on the Left bank in Paris?
Neither.
Have a fabulous day!