Nuclear war: The danger that Norwegian media ignore
The Ukraine war has brought us as close to a nuclear war as we've ever been. Leaked documents show that Russia has pinpointed specific targets in Norway where it can attack with nuclear weapons.
Why do we read this in foreign media, but not in Norwegian?
The Ukraine war is the reason why the scientists in The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists have set the Doomsday Clock to 90 seconds to midnight. The assessment is that the danger posed by the war is the closest we have ever been to a nuclear war. “A durable end to Russia’s war in Ukraine seems distant, and the use of nuclear weapons by Russia in that conflict remains a serious possibility”, said the press release from the nuclear physicists in January this year.
Norwegian media have ignored this warning. If anyone tries to raise the danger of nuclear war, they are silenced or ridiculed. The blind propagandists for unlimited arms deliveries to Ukraine have said that Putin is bluffing and that those who warn of the nuclear danger are victims of Russian propaganda.
New information proves them wrong, their claims are now completely discredited.
Biden gambled on a nuclear “armageddon”
In Bob Woodward's new book “War”, shocking information emerges. US intelligence estimated in September 2022 that there was a 50% chance that Russia would use tactical nuclear weapons in Ukraine. The intelligence information referred to “highly sensitive, credible conversations in the Kremlin” that President Vladimir Putin was seriously considering using nuclear weapons to avoid heavy losses on the battlefield. This was at a time when 30,000 Russian soldiers were surrounded in Kherson.
Prior to this, the Biden administration had estimated the chance of Russia using nuclear weapons at 5-10%. At around the same time, President Biden publicly said that the risk of a nuclear “armageddon” was higher than it had been at any time since the Cuban Missile Crisis. Despite the enormous risk of nuclear war, Biden did not change course!
So the US, with NATO in tow, was willing to gamble with a nuclear “armageddon”, where the odds were as high as 50%!
Since then, the war has only escalated. Rather than ending the war through negotiated agreements, our leaders choose to put everything in the pot for a military victory. They are deaf and blind to counter-arguments.
Woodward's book states that Biden also sent a message to Putin that there would be “catastrophic consequences” if a nuclear bomb was used. Russia is said to have more than 5,500 nuclear warheads in its arsenal, while the US has just over 5,000. The two countries control around 90% of all nuclear weapons in the world. Nevertheless, Biden chose to gamble with our lives, and ultimately with the very existence of humanity.
That we are alive today is not thanks to Western leaders like Biden or Stoltenberg, but in spite of them.
Do we understand how serious this war is?
It was Ola Tunander who asked this question in Klassekampen on May 31, 2022. He pointed out that ever since 2008, Russia has said that Ukrainian NATO membership is a red line that cannot be crossed. The reason is that the Russians cannot defend themselves against American weapons systems placed so close to Moscow. Tunander refers to Putin's statement that the US presence in Ukraine is a threat to “the existence of our state”.
When a threat to Russia is described as “existential”, it is unthinkable that the Russians will give in. Russia is prepared to sacrifice as many soldiers and as much military equipment as necessary. But what is more important: An existential threat specifically allows for the use of nuclear weapons, according to Russian military doctrine. Russia cannot lose this war.
Stoltenberg's and NATO's lie that “weapons are the road to peace”, in the sense of a military victory over Russia on the battlefield, is therefore a strategy that, if successful, will lead to Russia defending itself with nuclear weapons. The US knows this, NATO knows this, yet they are willing to gamble that Russia is bluffing. The rest of us should consider ourselves lucky that Moscow's sanity is probably more intact than Washington's.
Ola Tunander has researched security policy for over 40 years and his books have been read at universities in both the US and Europe. Despite this, Tunander is a voice that Norwegian media and politicians choose to ignore. Instead, it's NATO officers and researchers loyal to NATO who get to speak in the media. We must see this as a form of censorship, where objections to NATO's strategy are deliberately shut out.
Russia's new nuclear doctrine
Since Tunander issued his warning two and a half years ago, Russia has changed its nuclear doctrine. This comes as a direct response to threats of escalation from the West. Russia's original doctrine only allowed the use of nuclear weapons if Russia faced a nuclear or conventional attack that threatened the existence of the Russian Federation.
With the US, UK and other NATO countries now discussing supporting long-range missile strikes inside Russia, Putin says it will mean that NATO is at war with Russia. The new doctrine would consider an attack on Russia by a non-nuclear weapon state supported by a nuclear weapon power as a joint attack, and it allows the use of nuclear weapons in response to a conventional attack that poses a “critical threat to Russian sovereignty”.
To repeat Tunander: Do we understand how serious this war is?
Our media is virtually silent about the fact that specific locations in Norway have already been designated as targets for Russian nuclear weapons if the West decides to support long-range missile strikes inside Russia.
Specific targets in Norway
Among the possible targets published by the Financial Times, based on information from Western intelligence services, are the French west coast, military installations in Norway, Germany and Estonia, as well as the British port of Barrow-in-Furness, where nuclear submarines are being built. The newspaper writes:
“Russia’s Baltic fleet targets are largely located in Norway and Germany - including the naval base in Bergen, as well as radar facilities and special forces facilities.”
The article in the Financial Times reveals that Russia has a much lower threshold for using tactical nuclear weapons than has ever been publicly admitted. Plans have been drawn up for overwhelming attacks in the early stages of a potential war against NATO.
In August, Forsvarets Forum wrote a short article about the revelations in the Financial Times and mentioned Rena, where the Norwegian special forces in the Telemark battalion are based, the air base at Rygge, where the Norwegian Air Force leadership is located, and the naval base Haakonsvern, as targets for Russian nuclear attacks.
Despite these revelations, local media are silent about the fact that Haakonsvern is in danger of being wiped out in a nuclear attack if the Ukraine war escalates through the use of long-range missiles against targets deep inside Russia. Keeping the people of Bergen unaware of this great danger seems to be a virtue of necessity to ensure support for the increasing escalation of the war, and Norway's growing involvement, in Ukraine.
In practice, the major media are either subject to military censorship, or they have chosen to censor themselves in loyalty to the Armed Forces, NATO and the most irresponsible political leaders the West has ever produced.
Sources:
“US scrambled to urge Putin not to use nuclear weapons in Ukraine, Woodward book says”, apnews.com 08.10.24, “US Thought Risk of Russia Using a Nuclear Weapon Was at 50% in 2022, New Woodward Book Says”, antiwar.com 09.10.24, “Kremlin Says Russia’s Nuclear Doctrine Changes Are a Message to the West”, antiwar.com 26.09.24, “Putin sends message to West with nuclear doctrine statements — Kremlin”, tass.com 26.09.24, “Updating Russia’s nuclear doctrine does not require changes to legislation — senator”, tass.com 26.09.24, “Russian navy trained to target sites inside Europe with nuclear-capable missiles”, ft.com 12.08.24, «Rena, Rygge og Haakonsvern blant mål i graderte russiske dokumenter», forsvaretsforum.no 15.08.24