This piece was reprinted by OpEd News with permission or license. It may not be reproduced in any form without permission or license from the source.
?
If a nuclear war between Russia and NATO erupts, the answer to the question "Was it worth it?" will be a decisive "No." Not just for people like me, but for everyone, no matter how sympathetic they are to the western power structure and no matter how much they hate Russia. If their answer isn't "no" immediately, it will be their answer in a matter of hours. If people don't immediately understand the horror that's been unleashed upon our world and how nothing could possibly have been worth it, they will understand it in short order.
?
The term Mutually Assured Destruction was first coined by Hudson Institute's Donald Brennan in 1962, but he used it ironically, spelling out the acronym "MAD" in order to argue that it's insane to hold weapons that can cause armageddon. These games of nuclear chicken are insane.
The argument for nukes is that the threat of their use wards off the large-scale conventional wars we saw in WWI and WWII, but that only works if the fear of their use deters conventional attacks. The US empire is getting more and more brazen with its proxy warfare against Russia.
It used to be undisputed conventional wisdom that hot warfare against Russia must be avoided at all costs because they're a nuclear superpower. Now the idea of backing full-scale offensives to carve off pieces of the Russian Federation is gaining widespread mainstream traction. This disintegrates the uneasy stability that MAD is theoretically supposed to create, because MAD assumes the other side won't be crazy enough to launch conventional offensives against a nuclear superpower due to fear of rapidly spiraling escalation into full-scale nuclear war.
If you've got two people pointing pistols at each other, an exchange of gunfire might be avoided for fear of retaliation. But if one of the gunmen breaks the standoff by walking toward the other holding a knife in his other hand, odds are the other guy pulls the trigger.
?
I hate it when I get people saying "I hope we do nuke ourselves off the map, we're horrible." It's not okay for a few idiots to be playing games with every life on this planet. Just because you're unhappy with life here doesn't mean all the innocents around the world are, doesn't mean the animals are, the bugs, the trees. Your disaffected feelings are not a valid reason not to fight this thing tooth and claw. Keep your omnicidal ideations to yourself.
?
Westerners frame the idea of nations like Russia and China "attacking their neighbors" as though that's somehow less moral than the US attacking nations on the other side of the planet who cannot possibly pose any threat to US national security. At least Russia can make an argument that its invasion of Ukraine was in its national security interests due to US/NATO militarization there, and China could make similar arguments if it ever attacks Taiwan. US wars are done solely to defend US planetary domination, not the US.
?
Liberals are all about examining privilege except when it comes to western privilege. Then they're more than happy to blow up everything and everyone for their belief in their inherent ideological superiority and their right to rule over every single country on earth.
?
Facebook, Instagram and Whatsapp are no longer designating the neo-Nazi Azov Regiment as a "dangerous organization." To be clear, nothing has actually changed about the Azov Regiment. It's still the same people with the same ideology. All that changed is the Official Narrative.
For years and years, up until just last year, the mass media had no problem acknowledging that Ukraine has a Nazi problem and calling Azov neo-Nazis what they are. All that changed is we moved into an information ecosystem of aggressive war propaganda.
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
