U.S. and Its Colonies (‘Allies’) Receive Final Warning from Russia

28 September 2024, by Eric Zuesse

On September 25th, The U.S. and its colonies (‘allies’) received the following final warning against further assisting the Ukrainian government’s invasion into Russian territory:

——

http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/news/75182

https://web.archive.org/web/20240927015846/http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/news/75182

Meeting of the Security Council standing conference on nuclear deterrence

Vladimir Putin held a meeting of the Russian Federation Security Council standing conference on nuclear deterrence.

(W) September 25, 2024 19:50

The meeting was attended by Deputy Chairman of the Security Council Dmitry Medvedev, First Deputy Prime Minister Denis Manturov, Defence Minister Andrei Belousov, Finance Minister Anton Siluanov, Director of the Federal Security Service Alexander Bortnikov, Director of the Foreign Intelligence Service Sergei Naryshkin, First Deputy Secretary of the Security Council Rashid Nurgaliyev, General Director of the Roscosmos State Corporation for Space Activities Yury Borisov, and Director General of State Atomic Energy Corporation Rosatom Alexei Likhachev.

* * *

President of Russia Vladimir Putin: Good afternoon, colleagues,

Today we are holding a planned meeting, which is called Standing Conference on nuclear deterrence. We hold it twice a year. And today, we will discuss an issue related to updating the Basic Principles of State Policy on Nuclear Deterrence.

Alongside the Military Doctrine, this is a document that officially defines and details Russia’s nuclear strategy. First of all, it sets forth the basic principle of using nuclear weapons: the use of nuclear forces is the last resort measure to protect the country’s sovereignty.

Let me stress that we have always been highly responsible in matters like this, being well aware of the colossal power these weapons have, striving to strengthen the international legal foundation for global stability and prevent the spread of nuclear weapons and their components.

At present, our nuclear triad remains the most important security guarantee for our state and citizens, an instrument for maintaining strategic parity and balance of power in the world.

At the same time, we can see that the modern military-political situation is rapidly changing and we have to factor that in, including the emergence of new sources of military threats and risks for Russia and our allies.

It is important to predict the development of the situation and adjust the provisions of the strategic planning document in accordance with current realities.

Over the last year specialists from the Defence Ministry, Foreign Ministry, Security Council Office and other agencies have made an in-depth and comprehensive analysis, and evaluated the need for adjusting our approaches to a possible use of nuclear weapons. Based on the results of this work, a number of updates have been proposed in terms of defining the conditions for using nuclear weapons.

Thus, the draft Basic Principles expand the category of states and military alliances in respect of which nuclear deterrence is exercised and expand the list of military threats to be neutralised by nuclear deterrence measures.

I would like to draw your attention specifically to the following. The updated version of the document is supposed to regard an aggression against Russia from any non-nuclear state but involving or supported by any nuclear state as their joint attack against the Russian Federation.

It also states clearly the conditions for Russia’s transition to the use of nuclear weapons. We will consider such a possibility [to be used] once we receive reliable information about a massive launch of air and space attack weapons and their crossing our state border. I mean strategic and tactical aircraft, cruise missiles, UAVs, hypersonic and other aircraft.

We reserve the right to use nuclear weapons in the event of aggression against Russia and Belarus as a member of the Union State. All these issues have been agreed upon with the Belarusian side and the President of Belarus. Including the case when the enemy, using conventional weapons, creates a critical threat to our sovereignty.

In conclusion, I will note that all the updates have been deeply calibrated and are measured against contemporary military threats and risks to the Russian Federation.

Let’s get down to work. I give the floor to Defence Minister Andrei Belousov.

<…>

[The President then gave the floor to Defense Minister Andrei Belousov, and the meeting continued behind closed doors.]

——

Here was a good analysis published the following day:

https://rg.ru/2024/09/26/francuzskij-ekspert-o-tom-chto-dlia-zapada-znachit-izmenenie-iadernoj-doktriny-rf.html

https://archive.is/mvyIG

IN THE WORLD

"Stop Before It's Too Late": What Does the Change in Russia's Nuclear Doctrine Mean for the West?

26 September 2024, by French expert on what the change in Russia's nuclear doctrine means for the West, Emmanuel Leroy (French political scientist) [and whom the U.S. Deep State constantly try to smear as being 'far-right' because he opposes U.S. imperialism (as-if that’s a “far-right” position), and also because he has been called “Marine Le Pen's Closest Advisor”]

The additions to Russia's nuclear doctrine, voiced by its President Vladimir Putin, make it clear that Moscow takes the threats coming from Western countries seriously. Situations are specifically outlined when Russia will be ready to use its nuclear potential in the event of aggression against it. Moreover, such a reaction will be similar in the event of an attack on its ally - Belarus.

How Western media reacted to Putin's proposals to change the nuclear doctrine

In my view, Russia is thus sending a strong warning to forces in the US and its allies (particularly the UK) who are pushing NATO towards a direct confrontation with Russia. The message is "stop before it's too late, because the consequences could be catastrophic."

It should be noted that the Russian president's demarche took place against the backdrop of Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky's trip to the United States, where he once again attempted to obtain permission to use long-range Western weapons on Russian territory. This threat is real, but I hope that there will be sensible heads in Washington who will not allow such a development of events.

It should be clear to everyone: Zelensky is trying to save his regime, whose troops are in a dire situation at the front, especially in the area of Ugledar. Western military experts believe that with the fall of this city, as well as Krasnoarmeysk, Russian units will be able to advance to the Dnieper, which will radically change the situation on the ground.

And here's another thing: I am extremely depressed by the irresponsible position of the European Parliament, where, at the instigation of the majority - and these are the social democrats and liberals - a resolution was recently adopted in support of Western missile strikes deep into Russia. A decision with extremely dangerous consequences, because it could turn the European Union into a participant in the conflict in Ukraine, which in no way meets the interests of the peoples of Europe. A conflict in which they will by definition gain nothing, but could lose a great deal.

Yes, actually, we have already lost it. Look, for example, what happened to Germany, whose economy is experiencing a deep crisis, as is the whole of Europe.

This is the result of the Russophobic policy pursued by a number of European politicians in recent years.

——

So, now, I shall continue:

Russia gave its final warning on September 25th. That night, U.S. Presidential candidate Donald Trump made clear in a speech, that as America’s next President he would respect Russia’s national-security needs and not cross those red lines, but the next day, on September 26th, his opponent Kamala Harris condemned Trump for that.

The chief issue in the U.S. Presidential contest is therefore starkly clear, if (but that’s a big “if”) it will be reported to the American public as being such (the supreme existential question in this political contest), instead of covered-over or outright lied-about, in America’s news-media. The ball is now in their court — from today until Election Day on November 5th — to report honestly upon this central issue in American politics: whether there will, or won’t, be a future for the world. 

President Biden, on September 13th, tacitly accepted Russia’s warning: As I had reported on that day (which was the day that Keith Starmer of the UK was to meet privately with Biden to get America’s permission to allow Ukraine to use the UK’s Storm Shadow missiles to bomb The Kremlin), Putin had said the prior day, on the 12th, that “If this decision is made [by Biden allowing Starmer to allow Ukraine to use those missiles that way], it will mean nothing less than the direct participation of NATO countries, the United States, and European countries in the war in Ukraine. This is [Putin meant “would be”] their direct participation, and this, of course, significantly changes the very essence, the very nature of the conflict.” So, Biden said no to Starmer, and therefore we’re still around to communicate about it (if the media will allow that). By Kamala Harris’s having, on September 26th, condemned Trump for his having accepted the stated national-security red line from Russia, she has demonstrated that she rejects the stated national-security red line from Russia — and, moreover, that she believes that the U.S. Government now owns Ukraine and will never “surrender” it to Russia. (You can see that statement of hers, right there.) If Biden had crossed Putin’s red line on September 13th, perhaps a billion people would no longer be alive today to discuss whether he should have — but he didn’t do that. If Harris becomes the President-elect on November 5th, then maybe Biden will at that point negotiate with Putin a settlement of the Ukraine war, so that President Harris won’t have to start her term by either doing it or else starting the nuclear war that will end everything. If Trump becomes elected, then he’ll probably have a terrific relationship with Putin and a domestic civil war against the neocons who had brought the world to the brink of nuclear annihilation by their placing continued U.S. Government domination of the world as their #1 objective for the U.S. Government — and America’s Deep State would then be doing everything possible to kill or otherwise eliminate him, so that the White House will need to become a virtual fortress in order to protect him.

This will be do-or-die time for the neocons. And only if they die will everybody else live — because it is they, the agents of the Deep State, who, by their grip upon the U.S. Government ever since 25 July 1945, have led this world to the very brink of annihilation (if that fact — as documented here — will even be allowed to be reported).

—————

Investigative historian Eric Zuesse’s latest book, AMERICA’S EMPIRE OF EVIL: Hitler’s Posthumous Victory, and Why the Social Sciences Need to Change, is 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.