A video of a Russian politician calling for a new Cuban missile crisis over the Ukraine conflict has gone viral on social media.
Russian Duma member Andrei Gurulyov was speaking on Russian state TV and discussing the need for a resolution to the ongoing conflict between Russia and Ukraine.
Gurulyov said moving Russia’s hypersonic weapons within striking distance of U.S. territory would force President Joe Biden to come to the negotiating table with Russia and stop supplying Ukraine with weapons for the conflict.
In the clip, Gurulyov speaks in Russian but an English translation runs along the bottom of the screen. It is unclear when the footage was recorded.
“Right now, they’re delivering MLRS [Multiple Launch Rocket System], howitzers, they’ll deliver anything there[in Ukraine], up to a nuclear bomb just not to let us win,” he said, referencing Western countries’ commitment to supplying Ukraine with weapons.
“Next, they’ll send planes, anti-aircraft systems, then anti-missile systems and so on and so forth, they will not calm down.”
Gurulyov went on to describe how Russia could succeed in the “denazification and demilitarization of Ukraine.”
“Any détente happens after a good crisis, like détente that followed the Cuban Missile Crisis,” he continued.
“Why? Because during the Cuban Missile Crisis, there was a direct threat to the territory of the U.S. to which they had no immediate response.
“We should create similar circumstances since the U.S. is behind all this and others are on their leash.
“We’re ahead of everyone with hypersonic weapons, our hypersonic weapons should be, not only aboard traditional carriers, but brought near to the vicinity of the United States.
“With a flight time of five minutes, maximum, Biden will keep sitting there and stuttering but the rest will think about how to negotiate.
“That is the only scenario for us to be able to denazify and demilitarize Ukraine.”
Gurulyov then hinted that Russia had a desire to come to the negotiating table in order to resolve the conflict.
He emphasized that in “any war, you can’t always keep winning,” and admitted that there must be defeats eventually.
However, journalist Nadana Fridriksson, who spoke after Gurulyov, hinted that Russia could invade other nations after the Ukraine conflict is concluded.
“Those countries in the post-Soviet space, that decided to play with Westernness, neutrality, they should understand that they’re next,” she said. “Sooner or later, the Ukrainian campaign will conclude, after Ukraine, another country’s turn will come.”
Newsweek has contacted the White House and Russia’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs for comment.
During the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis, the central issue was how short America’s available reaction-time to a Soviet blitz nuclear attack would be and whether it would be too short for America to respond before America’s leader, JFK, would be able to press the nuclear button and retaliate against such a Soviet nuclear first-strike (from so near a location as Cuba). That time-interval would have been about 30 minutes, and Kennedy told Khrushchev that that would be unacceptably short and so if Khrushchev would go through with his plan to place his missiles in Cuba, then America would preemptively launch our nuclear warheads against the Soviet Union. Khrushchev decided not to do it. WW III was thus averted. But now we’re potentially down to around 5 minutes, in the reverse direction, and almost nobody is even talking about it.
In other words: what Obama did was generally successful, it grabbed Ukraine, or most of it, and it changed Ukrainians’ minds regarding America and Russia. But only after the subsequent passage of time did the American neoconservative heart become successfully grafted into the Ukrainian nation so as to make Ukraine a viable place to position U.S. nuclear missiles against Moscow. Furthermore: America’s rulers also needed to do some work upon U.S. public opinion. Not until February of 2014 — the time of Obama’s coup — did more than 15% of the American public have a “very unfavorable” view of Russia. (Right before Russia invaded Ukraine, that figure had already risen to 42%. America’s press — and academia or public-policy ‘experts’ — have been very effective at managing public opinion.)
Back in 2012, when Obama was running for re-election, against Mitt Romney, that figure was still remaining at 11%, where it had been approximately ever since Gallup had started polling on this question in 1989. So, Obama, and the U.S. Congress, and the newsmedia owners who had sold all of those poliiticians to the American public, had a lot of work yet to do after Obama’s re-election in 2012. During that political contest, Obama was aware of this fact, and used it to his own advantage against the overtly hyper-anti-Russian candidate, Romney.
Russia, this is, without question, our number one geopolitical foe. They — they fight every cause for the world’s worst actors. … Russia is the — the geopolitical foe.
Not just “a” geopolitical foe, but “the” geopolitical foe.” (Wow! In a world with growing jihadist movements, such as Al Qaeda and ISIS?) The prior month, Gallup had polled, and reported that 11% figure; so, Romney was jumping the gun a lot on this, maybe because he was more concerned about fundraising than about appealing to voters. He knew he would need lots of money in order to have even a chance against Obama.
Obama responded to that comment mainly at the re-election campaign’s end, by springing this upon Romney during a debate, on 22 October 2012:
Governor Romney, I’m glad that you recognize that Al Qaida is a threat, because a few months ago when you were asked what’s the biggest geopolitical threat facing America, you said Russia, not Al Qaida; you said Russia. In the 1980s, they’re now calling to ask for their foreign policy back because, you know, the Cold War’s been over for 20 years.
Obama’s campaign had very successfully presented himself as NOT being like Romney (even though he secretly WAS). Lies like this had, in fact, won Obama his 2009 Nobel Peace Prize. But now he won his re-election. He was an astoundingly gifted liar.
In March 2012, at a summit in South Korea, Obama was caught in a “hot mic” incident. Without realizing he could be overheard, Obama told Russian President Dmitry Medvedev that he would have more ability to negotiate with the Russians about missile defense after the November election.
“On all these issues, but particularly missile defense, this, this can be solved, but it’s important for him [the incoming President Putin] to give me space,” Obama was heard telling Medvedev, apparently referring to incoming Russian president Vladimir Putin.
“Yeah, I understand,” Medvedev replied.
Obama interjected, saying, “This is my last election. After my election, I have more flexibility.”
So: Obama was telling Putin there, through Medvedev, that his next Administration would soften its stand on America’s installing in eastern Europe, near and even on Russia’s borders, missiles that are designed to disable Russia’s ability to retaliate against a U.S. nuclear first-strike — the U.S. ABM or anti-ballistic-missile system and the nuclear weapoons that America was designing.
Obama wasn’t lying only to America’s voters; he was shown there privately lying to Putin, by indicating to Medvedev that instead of becoming more aggressive (by his planned ABMs, and super-advanced nuclear fuses) against Russia in a second term, he’d become less aggressive (by negotiating with Putin about these matters — as you can see there, the nub of the issue was George Herbert Walker Bush’s lie to Mikhail Gorbachev in 1990).
Completely invalid analogy. Having Russian missiles in Cuba in the early days of ICBM technology was to the USA what having USA missiles in Turkey was to Russia. The crisis was resolved when both countries agreed to withdraw their missiles. Made sense in those days. Today, the technology is such that proximity of launch sites to targets is irrelevant.
The US nuclear forces modernization program has been portrayed to the public as an effort to ensure the reliability and safety of warheads in the US nuclear arsenal, rather than to enhance their military capabilities. In reality, however, that program has implemented revolutionary new technologies that will vastly increase the targeting capability of the US ballistic missile arsenal. This increase in capability is astonishing — boosting the overall killing power of existing US ballistic missile forces by a factor of roughly three — and it creates exactly what one would expect to see, if a nuclear-armed state were planning to have the capacity to fight and win a nuclear war by disarming enemies with a surprise first strike.
Starting in 2006, the predominant American meta-strategy has been called “Nuclear Primacy” — meaning to attain the ability to win a nuclear war — not merely what it had previously been (M.A.D. or “Mutually Assured Destruction”): to prevent one.
Apparently, the latest fashion in U.S. Government and academic thinking, about this ‘competition’, is, first, to dismemberRussia. They even sell this goal as embodying America’s “commitment to anti-imperialism.”
Investigative historian Eric Zuesse’s next book (soon to be published) will be AMERICA’S EMPIRE OF EVIL: Hitler’s Posthumous Victory, and Why the Social Sciences Need to Change. It’s about how America took over the world after World War II in order to enslave it to U.S.-and-allied billionaires. Their cartels extract the world’s wealth by control of not only their ‘news’ media but the social ‘sciences’ — duping the public.
Lukashenko says Russia ‘must be ready’ to use nuclear arsenal
The news comes as tension mounts over the ongoing Russian invasion of Ukraine as several key cities fall into Russian control in the east of the country. As global condemnation pours in over the invasion, Russian state media has hit back with continual warnings of nuclear strikes against targets in the West, including London and New York.
Releasing the news, Interfax said: “From July 1, 2022, in order to strengthen the defence capability of our state, shifts of the Main Centre for Geophysical Monitoring began to carry out round-the-clock duty.”
The centre, which opened on June 1, is tasked with identifying the sources of man-made “geophysical disturbances” as well as nuclear explosions, Interfax reported.
President Vladimir Putin said in February that he was putting the country’s nuclear forces on high alert, citing what he called aggressive statements by NATO leaders and economic sanctions against Moscow.
Russia’s official military deployment principles allow for the use of nuclear weapons if they – or other types of weapons of mass destruction – are used against it, or if the state faces an existential threat.
Speaking of whether NATO allies should be prepared for a Russian strike, former British Ambassador to Washington Sir Kim Darroch said: “There’s an analysis that I think has been done by somebody recently, a think tank, that they’re looking at about 35 mentions or perhaps it’s a little bit more now.”
It is assumed that if Russia were to use nuclear weapons, it would do so in an attack on Ukraine, and not on a NATO state which would trigger Article 5 of the Washington Treaty, hence launching a full-scale response.
In such an attack, short-range, lower yield ‘battlefield’ nuclear weapons – of which there are thought to be more than 1,000 in reserve – would be the most likely used.
It is thought that any such weapons should they be launched, will be taken from storage and attached to missiles, bombers or as shell artillery.
Furthermore, Putin has announced the so-called “Satan II”, a missile capable of carrying over 10 warheads would be ready to launch by the end of the year.
The hypersonic missile is capable of reaching key cities in Europe in just over three minutes, and just under fifteen if fired at New York from Russia.
Aside from Russia, North Korea has also been stepping up its nuclear programme in recent times.
The pariah state has essentially completed restoration work at its Punggye-ri Nuclear Test Facility and appears to be expanding construction activity into a second tunnel, according to a new analysis from the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS).
After conducting a record number of missile tests this year, including an intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM), the United States, South Korea and Japan believe Pyongyang is gearing up for its first nuclear test in five years.
The CSIS analysis said the images showed new construction materials near the entrance to the portal at Tunnel No 4, which was destroyed in 2018.
A report by Loughborough University has suggested Ukraine could begin building a nuclear arsenal or start buying nuclear weapons to increase its country’s defences against Putin.
Dr Paul Maddrell, a lecturer in international history and international relations, at Loughborough, said that these brutal assaults, being carried out to help Putin achieve his three main aims – to dismember Ukraine, weaken its military and reverse the expansion of NATO – could force President Zelenskyy to consider building a nuclear deterrent.
He said: “If I were the President of Ukraine, I’d strongly be considering developing nuclear weapons.
“Ukraine had nuclear weapons in the 1990s when the Soviet Union collapsed.
Media sources reported on Saturday that several explosions occured at the US Victoria base near Baghdad International Airport which is considered one of the centers of deployment of American occupying forces in Iraq.
According to Iraqi sources, alarm systems sounded in Victoria base following these explosions.
No further details about the explosion have been released.
He noted that if such a deal is reached, the situation of the region might become “much more explosive” because “particularly Israel – Iran’s chief enemy – but also Egypt and Saudi Arabia – whom they see as principal competitors – were going to be driven into reactions.”
Saying that there is really “no alternative to the elimination of an Iranian nuclear force,” Kissinger emphasized that there is “no way you can have peace in the Middle East with nuclear weapons in Iran, because before that happens, there is a high danger of pre-emption by Israel, because Israel cannot wait for deterrents. It can afford only one blow on itself. That is the inherent problem of the crisis.”
“I was extremely doubtful about the original nuclear agreement. I thought Iran’s promises would be very difficult to verify, and that the talks really created a pattern in which the nuclear build-up might have been slowed down a little but made more inevitable,” he said.
The People’s Republic of China, also known as China to the rest of the world, is a communist nation in East Asia. According to the Center for Strategic & International Studies in 2020, it had a population of more than 1.4 billion people and has become one of the world’s largest economies and tenth largest exporter. China was able to develop many weapons useful for warfare, and some of them are the hypersonic glide vehicle, the anti-satellite missiles and nuclear weapons.
Anti-Satellite missiles are space weapons that involve missiles capable of destroying satellites for strategic motives. Based on the Secure World Foundation, China launched a missile on January 11, 2007, at Xichang Space Launch Center. This missile collided with a Chinese weather satellite, destroying the satellite.
The aftermath of this incident left an abundance of debris, which, as reported by BBC, led to the U.S. being the first country to ban such missile tests. Explosive devices that need nuclear energy are known as nuclear weapons. China has an estimate of 350 nuclear warheads, according to the Arms Control Association.
In addition, China wants to increase the number of missiles that are capable of delivering conventional and nuclear warheads, expanding their ability to engage in nuclear warfare.
China’s military inventory is gradually increasing in size as time passes. The newly developed hypersonic glide vehicle, the anti-satellite missiles, and other explosive devices for nuclear warheads can obviously be used for a wider range of warfare strategies.
With more knowledge of their military weapons, other countries can understand and develop weapons that can counter Chinese weapons if they become more militarily aggressive.
Russian President Vladimir Putin’s threats of possible use of nuclear weapons against any state that might interfere with Russia’s large-scale invasion of Ukraine have reawakened the world to the dangers of nuclear war. The possibility of military conflict between Russian and NATO forces has significantly increased the risk of nuclear weapons use. Because Russian and U.S.-NATO military strategies reserve the option to use nuclear weapons first against non-nuclear threats, fighting could quickly go nuclear.
Putin’s threats violate foundational understandings designed to reduce the dangers of nuclear deterrence, including the 1973 Agreement on the Prevention of Nuclear War, in which the United States and Russia pledged to “refrain from the threat or use of force against the other party, against the allies of the other party and against other countries, in circumstances which may endanger international peace and security.”
As egregious, worrisome, and risky as Putin’s nuclear antics are, the reaction of the international community until recently has been far too mild. The U.S. response to Putin’s nuclear threats, as well as those of Western governments that also embrace nuclear deterrence ideologies and rely on the credible threat of nuclear use, has been particularly underwhelming.
At the outset of the Russian invasion, U.S. President Joe Biden, answering a question about whether U.S. citizens should be concerned with a nuclear war breaking out, said, “No.” Then, in a May 31 essay in The New York Times, Biden referred to Russia’s “occasional nuclear rhetoric” as “dangerous and extremely irresponsible,” implying that some nuclear threats are more responsible.
Fortunately, a much needed, more forceful rejection of nuclear weapons and threats of use emerged from the first meeting of states-parties to the 2017 Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW) held in Vienna June 21–23. Citing “increasingly strident nuclear rhetoric,” the TPNW states-parties issued the Vienna Declaration, which condemns all threats to use nuclear weapons as violations of international law, including the UN Charter. The declaration demands “that all nuclear-armed states never use or threaten to use nuclear weapons under any circumstances.”
The TPNW states-parties condemned “unequivocally any and all nuclear threats, whether they be explicit or implicit and irrespective of the circumstances.” Far from preserving peace and security, “nuclear weapons are used to coerce and intimidate; to facilitate aggression and inflame tensions. This highlights the fallacy of nuclear deterrence doctrines, which are based and rely on the threat of the actual use of nuclear weapons and, hence, the risks of the destruction of countless lives, of societies, of nations, and of inflicting global catastrophic consequences,” they added.
The declaration underscores that, for the majority of states, outdated nuclear deterrence policies create unacceptable risks. The only way to eliminate the danger is to reinforce the norms against nuclear use and the threat of use and to accelerate stalled progress toward verifiably eliminating these weapons.
Nevertheless, NATO leaders insist that the alliance must double down on its dangerous nuclear deterrence posture to prevent a Russian attack on NATO member states. In reality, U.S. and NATO nuclear weapons have proven useless in preventing Russia’s brutal war against Ukraine. At the same time, Russia’s brazen nuclear threats have failed to deter NATO efforts to supply Ukraine with weapons needed to repel the Russian onslaught.
Instead, Ukraine’s partners have responded with political, economic, and diplomatic means to help Ukraine defend its territory. The conflict has demonstrated that even for a state or alliance possessing a robust nuclear arsenal, such as NATO, conventional military capabilities are the key to deterring military attacks and to ensuring battlefield success.
The more NATO rhetoric emphasizes the value of nuclear deterrence and of possessing nuclear weapons, the more legitimacy it lends to Putin’s nuclear threats and to the mistaken, dangerous belief that nuclear weapons are necessary for self-defense.
The next global gathering concerning nuclear weapons will take place in August at the 10th review conference of the nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT). All states must seek to rise above their differences and work together to reverse today’s dangerous nuclear trends.
Non-nuclear-weapon states can build on the TPNW meeting by encouraging wider support for the norms against nuclear weapons. Rather than simply criticize Russian nuclear threats as “irresponsible,” NPT states-parties should condemn unambiguously all threats of nuclear weapons use. They must unite in demanding that the nuclear-weapon states undertake specific actions to fulfill the NPT’s Article VI disarmament provisions. This should include an explicit call for the United States and Russia to begin negotiations on new disarmament arrangements and for all NPT nuclear-armed states to freeze their nuclear stockpiles and engage in disarmament negotiations before the next NPT review conference, in 2025.
Given the growing risk of nuclear war, the first meeting of TPNW states-parties and the NPT review conference must become a turning point away from dangerous nuclear policies and arms racing that threaten global nuclear catastrophe.
We have not done it yet. But we have to be ready,”Lukashenko said, lambasting the West for conducting similar nuclear drills to subvert Russia.
Authoritative Belarusian President Alexander Lukashenko in a meeting with Russian Foreign Affairs Minister Sergey Lavrov in Minsk, Belarus, said that Russia should be ready to deploy nuclear weapons to counter the Western nations’ acts of global hegemony. “We have not done it yet. But we have to be ready,” Lukashenko said, lambasting the West for conducting similar nuclear drills to subvert Russia and Belarus. Speaking alongside Lavrov, Lukashenko accused the West of a bias, stressing that “we have to defend ourselves.” Russia’s foreign minister agreed that these types of nuclear drills are in violation of the international Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty of 1968.
“We live in a challenging time,” Lukashenko said as he hosted Russian counterpart Lavrov. “They [West] fail at diplomacy, we are for diplomatic means in the first place. But what can we do during challenegs of global hegemony?” asked Belarusian leader, according to the press release from his meeting with Russian counterpart.
“First they started with mass media. Then they silenced diplomats. None of international organizations are effective any longer. What can we do? We have to defend ourselves, to fight back,” Lukashenko said.
He further stressed that the West has declared an “economic war” against Russia. “What does transit closure mean?” asked Russia’s ally, referring to the Kaliningrad block by Lithuania. “Putin and I very seriously discussed these matters, they shift the blame onto the European Union. They claim they didn’t do it, the European Union made this decision. But decisions are made by a consensus,” asserted Lukashenko. “They seized our assets, our money, and imposed sanctions. This is nothing but an economic war,” said the Belarusian President.
Lukashenko had earlier warned Russia that the Western countries could allegedly be preparing an invasion to conquer Western Ukraine. In an interview with Ukrayinska Pravda, Lukashenko, longtime ally of Russia’s President Vladimir Putin, said, ”They [Western nations] will come from Western Ukraine or somewhere else.” According to the Belarusian leader, the West hasn’t abandoned the goal of aligning the front “so that it passes from Smolensk-Pskov, Smolensk-Bryansk-Kursk and from there to Rostov.” Meanwhile, during the annual Forum of Russian and Belarusian Regions, Putin stressed that the barrage of Western sanctions against the two neighbouring nations have only strengthened the unity and cooperation.
The official would not go into the details of the Doha talks, during which European Union officials shuttled between the two sides trying to revive the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) agreement under which Iran had limited its nuclear programme in return for relief from economic sanctions.
Then US president Donald Trump reneged on the agreement in 2018 and restored harsh US sanctions on Iran, prompting Tehran to start violating its nuclear restrictions about a year later.
“Their vague demands, reopening of settled issues, and requests clearly unrelated to the JCPOA all suggests to us … that the real discussion that has to take place is (not) between Iran and the US to resolve remaining differences. It is between Iran and Iran to resolve the fundamental question about whether they are interested in a mutual return to the JCPOA,” the senior US official said.
“At this point, we are not sure if they (the Iranians) know what more they want. They didn’t come to Doha with many specifics,” he added.
Speaking at the UN Security Council, US, British and French diplomats all placed the onus on Iran for the failure to revive the agreement after more than a year of negotiations.
Iran, however, characterised the Doha talks as positive and blamed the US for failing to provide guarantees that a new US administration would not again abandon the deal as Trump had done.
“Iran has demanded verifiable and objective guarantees from the US that JCPOA will not be torpedoed again, that the US will not violate its obligations again, and that sanctions will not be re-imposed under other pretexts or designations,” Iran’s UN Ambassador Majid Takht Ravanchi told the council.