u/glurb_

Ness 448 – Russland kan bruke taktiske atomvåpen

Norwegian Oberstløytnant and teacher on the war school Amund Osflaten believes it goes a little better for Ukraine right now, that they have taken back some territory. He says there is a stalemate on the frontline.

He explains the main events which he thinks shaped the security perception of the Russian elite, which lead to their reaction in 2014 onward.

He begins with 1941, when the Germans launched a surprise extermination attempt, through Ukraine, which caused enormous amounts of deaths. Alexander the Great had modernized the Russian army earlier on, and it had adopted a scientific method of theorizing war. Osflaten believes that preventing another 1941 became a primary goal of the Soviet doctrine since.

Putin and his cohort grew up in the Soviet Union, powerful enough to defend itself. Osflaten suggests that the dissolution of the USSR in 1991 caused them to feel less secure, since Russia was not a global power as the USSR had been.

In 1999 Nato bombed Yugoslavia without UN mandate, under the pretext of preventing an ethnic cleansing.

Around 2010 came the Arab Spring, a series of colour revolutions to Western-friendly governments. The protests and regime changes were made possible with the help of social media, which were all in the hands of Western corps.

Then came a regime change in Ukraine, overthrowing a more Russian-friendly, into a western-friendly government, abrogating the Minsk 2 agreement, and Nato presence with medium range missiles and excercises. In sum, he thinks the Russian leaders thought all this would lead to an existential threat for Russia.

Ole Asbjørn Ness asks whether or not Russia sees itself as an empire. If by that, we mean a global power, then yes, but if we see imperialism as the desire to expand and subjugate new territories, then that was not the consideration in this case, Osflaten says.

Then he goes on to talk about atom bombs. He says Russia views them more as a tool, whereas we in the West "would feel that we lost if we had to use them". At least until now, among the nuclear powers who admit they are, I thought only USA had a first strike doctrine, whereas Russia and China would only respond with atomic wepons if attacked by atomic weapons. Alexander Mercouris says there is no evidence that anyone in the Russian leadership are talking about atom bombs. USA is the only country that used them.

Osflaten goes on to say there is a theory that the drone threat on the Victory Day parade, and the attack on refinery capacity, may force Putin to accept a peace deal where he got less than what he wanted. If his motives are expansionist, imperialist, then this might work, in the same way as any imperialist would not risk the core, the economy, the army, the popularity of the regime, in order to get more territory.

But if the war is viewed as existential, that the goals are set because they are considered essential to reach, then this type of attack on ie the oil and gas industry, will have an effect on the ability to fight, but probably not the will. Perhaps even the opposite. The losses which Russia has absorbed supports this view.

There are only 20-25 million people left in Ukraine, from well over 30 before the war, he says. Some of these were in the territories now occupied by Russia, some fled, hundreds of thousands or more may be dead. In the long term, he believes Ukraine will lose. As of now, he can unfortunately not see any turning in the war, he says.

The West has a lot of bad strategic options to choose from. He believes that if supporting Ukraine so that it can fight longer, leads to weakening Ukraine, then the peace terms that they can achieve will unfortunately be worse. He still believes we should support Ukraine's war efforts, so that its army does not collapse, but at the same time, find a diplomatic solution to end the war. If it does collapse, there is higher chance for uncontrollable escalations.

The problem, he says, is that it will be difficult for many people to accept an arrangement that also Russia would accept. He thinks the Minsk treaty was unfair to Ukraine, at least from Ukraine's point of view, and forced by use of Russian military, and that the terms that Ukraine can get now is even more unfair. Sometimes there are no good strategic solutions. Westerners, who have been used to get what we want, need to get used to this, he says.

He does not think that Russia necessarily is worried by the rearmament project in Europe. Whether or not they view it as a threat, depends on how it's deployed etc. He is more worried about uncontrollable escalation scenarios.

As far as Norway is concerned, we did manage ok during the Cold War. Osflaten thinks we need to find back some of the realizations we made then. "The most important task for strategy is not to win wars, but to avoid them. Not because war is bad in itself, but because of nuclear escalation. Among other things."

Ness had looked at Russia as perhaps an empire, and therefore thought it was like a bicycle, that it had to keep going in order to not fall over. "In this case it does not have much explanatary power, one has to dive into the close details."

Ecological disaster. Dead fish, clams, dolphins and birds. Black rain over civilian areas, just like what USA did to millions of people in Tehran.

They did it just now that the Global South risks famines due to lack of fuel and fertilizer from the Hormuz Strait.

"When black rain falls, it acidifies the soil. Typical rain will have a pH of around 5.5, whereas the pH of acid rain is much lower, between 2.0 and 4.0, due to the presence of dissolved sulfur dioxide or nitrogen oxides, among other acidic pollutants. This increased acidity reduces the availability of essential nutrients such as calcium and magnesium, while simultaneously increasing the solubility and mobility of toxic heavy metals like mercury and aluminum. As a result, soils become depleted of vital nutrients, weakening plant systems, reducing photosynthetic efficiency, and ultimately impairing growth and reproduction. Crops such as wheat, corn, and soybeans are especially vulnerable to these effects.

Additionally, heightened soil acidity disrupts and destroys essential microorganisms responsible for breaking down organic matter and maintaining nutrient cycling. This further degrades soil quality, compounding the adverse effects on plant health and agricultural productivity.

Another long-term impact of black rain is its disruption of the Earth’s natural water cycle. When acid rain reaches the Earth’s surface, a significant portion is transported into rivers, lakes, and other water bodies via surface runoff or groundwater flow. This process increases the acidity of these water systems, with particularly sharp pH drops occurring in smaller or confined bodies of water. Acidification renders these ecosystems toxic to sensitive aquatic organisms.

According to the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), aquatic ecosystems are among the most vulnerable to the effects of acid rain. Species that inhabit these environments cannot migrate to less acidic areas and may face extinction, leading to cascading effects throughout the food web. For example, frogs can tolerate pH levels as low as 4, but the mayflies they rely on for food are far more sensitive and cannot survive in water with a pH below 5.5. The loss of such sensitive species can trigger a chain reaction, ultimately culminating in the collapse of entire ecosystems.

But the damage caused by black rain extends beyond soil and water systems, setting in motion a destructive cycle that degrades both ecosystems and the atmosphere. This is because the chemical reactions responsible for forming the toxic pollutants that are washed into rivers also release carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, contributing to greenhouse gas accumulation and worsening climate change. This atmospheric degradation creates conditions that make the formation of black rain even more likely, perpetuating the cycle of environmental harm."

"Clouds carrying these acidic droplets can even be transported by winds over long distances before releasing precipitation, resulting in acid rain through a process known as wet deposition."

"Health risks may arise both from breathing polluted air and from direct contact with contaminated rainwater. Scientists say particles from oil fires often contain black carbon, a fine soot that can penetrate deep into the lungs. These particles may also carry toxic compounds such as polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) and trace metals like nickel and vanadium."

"Long-Term Health Effects: Prolonged exposure to certain pollutants, especially PAHs and heavy metals, has been linked to increased risk of cancer and chronic respiratory disease. Black rain can also contaminate soil, crops and water sources, potentially affecting food safety and ecosystems."

"Individuals suffering from pre-existing cardiovascular and respiratory issues such as asthma, children, the elderly, and pregnant women are significantly more vulnerable to the effects of toxic pollutants present in the air.

Finally, the environmental impacts of black rain inevitably extend to and affect human health and food security. As contaminated rainfall infiltrates groundwater and surface water systems, it facilitates the leaching of heavy metals and pollutants into drinking water supplies and agricultural crops, increasing the risk of gastrointestinal issues, skin irritation, and a range of other health problems, and threatening global food security."

Toxic fumes in Russian Black Sea town after oil refinery attacks

Black Rain Falls After Ukraine Strike On Russian Oil Hub

Epic Fury Ends, Project Freedom on Pause. Zelensky Ceasefire Crumbles as SWEDEN Monitors Black Sea

Explainer: What Is Black Rain and What Threats Does It Pose to People and the Planet?

UKRAINE RUSSIA WAR Has Lasted Longer that WW2 /Lt Col Daniel Davis

Putin has lost popularity in Russia lately, and Davis thinks part of it is because the SMO, as they call it in Russia, has lasted longer than the Great Patriotic War, which is what they call WW2.

Recently, Ukraine built very strong fortifications, he says. John Mearsheimer said that in 2022 there were almost a million Ukrainian troops once the reservists were activated, against less than 300 000 Russian and separatist troops. The Ukrainian army had 8 years experience in the war, it had Nato weapons, intelligence and training, and Ukrainian historian Marta Havryshko says there were long lines in front of the conscription offices. Russia failed to convince Ukraine to be neutral in the Istanbul negotiations 2022, and retreated into 2023. Stubb, the unfortunate outcome of Finland's banned pleasure robot industry, thinks 35 000 Russian troops now die per month.

The dead soldiers exchange is counted by both parties. It is far from indicative of a total casualty ratio, but since it has been almost consistent for two years, around 20-30 dead Ukrainians for every Russian, Stubb's findings seem extraordinary. Now there are almost no Ukrainian volunteers, and thousands of clips are floating around showing Ukrainians being kidnapped off the street instead.

Havryshko said this is a form of colonization, and that Ukrainians don't want to have their children blown up for our security, or whatever it is that we imagine we are doing. Polls seem to agree with her, such as Gallup in 2025, who said 2/3 wanted peace, and only 1/4 wanted to keep fighting. She had to flee since she is an scholar in ethnic violence and such, and was threatened by the Ukrainian Nazis. She says they train German neo-Nazis, French neo-Nazis, American neo-Nazis, and Russian neo-Nazis. They have tremendous wealth and the arsenal that we gave them.

Perhaps Ukraine is better described a concentration camp, especially when European countries like Germany and Norway on the one hand undermine efforts to make peace, and on the other hand, talk about expelling Ukrainian men for them to get exterminated on the front line.

Iran War's Real Ticking Timebomb: Imminent Energy & Food Crisis /Lt Col Daniel Davis & Steve Jermy

Jermy says the consequences of the war on Iran are dire, on top of already accelerated de-industrialization of EU. It is dangerously indebted and the inequality increases astronomically. USA and EU together could not defeat Russia in 2022 or 2023, when some of the numbers were on their side. The US defensive missile systems were proven quite ineffective in the Middle East, and US supplies for Ukraine dried up in favour of the war against Iran, which the Empire is losing bigly. And yet, EU wants to escalate towards full scale war against Russia. Indeed, it seems that Ukraine specifically escalates attacks against oil installations, increasing the pain for the world economy, and causing ecological disasters and black rain in civilian areas, just like USA did in Tehran.

In the autumn, Nato Gen Sec Mark Rutte prepared us for the scale of suffering our grandparents endured in the 2nd WW, as soon as 2027 against China, Iran, North Korea and Russia. Hungary's PM Victor Orban confirmed that this was the EU policy, though it seems that EU and Nato now talk more about war in 2030.

The West, ie the Norwegian Foreign Minister Espen Barth Eide, believes more pressure should be put on Iran and Russia to force them to the negotiating table, a table EU has refused to sit at for 4 years, and where Iranians regularly get assassinated. The West also thinks that two nuclear powers trying to destroy Iran is not a reason for Iran to have the atom bomb. Eide says that is why USA is attacking Iran. USA tore up the JCPoA treaty, and killed Iran's religious leader, who had issued a religious edict, a fatwah, against nuclear weapons, and 168 school children, during negotiations where they had gotten an even better inspection treaty, surprising because they used the previous one to try to assassinate anyone in Iran with knowledge of nuclear physics. Iran did not want the atom bomb and this was confirmad by US intelligence services. Netanyahu however, has warned that Iran is going to get atom bombs in two weeks time, for the last four decades. So perhaps that is where Norway gets its intelligence from.

Sweden and Finland presumably think they have better reason that Iran to leave the non-proliferation treaty, and in compliance with the US policy paper from RAND Corp 2019 on how to destroy Russia, which outlined how to surround it with atom bombs and blowing up the Nord Stream, they talk of letting France put atom bombs on their territories, controlled by France. They would presumably have to unlawfully withdraw from the non-proliferation treaty like the paper says they should. “Withdrawing from certain arms treaties could put pressure on Russian defense planning.”

Russian historian Vladimir Brovkin says the project is not politically possible in France, because the left and the right oppositions both refuse to station French troops in foreign countries, especially not where they could drag France into war with Russia.

From a military point of view, the problem for Russia is the missile flight time, from Finland to St Petersburg for example. Russia therefore considers atomic bombs on its borders a provocation, and Brovkin believes these airoplane deployments would likely be immediate targets in an open confrontation.

Again the official Russian rethoric, or propaganda, is hardening against the West, partly in response to domestic pressures from voters, military and whatnot. It said that Russian-speakers in the Baltics need rights like other people, and that Finland and Baltics should stop letting their territories be used for attacking Russia.

Brovkin presumes that Russia would continue to try to avoid open confrontation with Nato outside Ukraine, at least until other options have been pursued. He said Russia could finish the SMO, or at least cut off Ukraine's weapons import routes, such as the port in Odesa and overland from Poland. It could also shut off EU's fuel pipelines.

After Brovkin made these comments, Putin said he would shut off the pipe going across Russia from Kazakhstan to Germany. Sergei Lavrov, the Russian diplomat, said Western countries had declared war on Russia, and Putin's spokesman Dmitry Peskov for the first time gave Ukraine a deadline to get out of Donbas, 1st of May.

US Col. Douglas MacGregor believes Russia's war aims now include Odesa and Kiev, in order to end the regime. So does fmr CIA analyst Larry Johnson, who unlike Brovkin thinks "the potential for this war now to move into European territory, is very quite high".

EU's 21st sanction package against Russia also has secondary sanctions against China. It means EU punishes China for trading with Russia. Finland also vetoed an EU trade deal with China.

Perhaps someone could explain the logic behind these decisions of the Nordic countries that are causing so many deaths, making Ukraine smaller, driving us towards war, destroying our economies and possibly plunging the world into famines. Where are the rare earths, fuels, fertilizer, helium, industrial products and food going to come from.