Is Nuclear War Imminent? Energy Publications Reveal a Legitimate Threat

Most of you are likely too young to remember the “duck-and-cover” drills American schoolchildren practiced during the 50’s and 60’s. This was in response to what was termed the “Cold War”, a period of time lasting roughly from 1950 to 1989 during which America and Russia traded political and verbal jabs threatening nuclear war. The end was negotiated between President Reagan and Premier Gorbachev in Geneva during 1985 peace talks. The subsequent four years were essentially “clean-up” efforts, finalizing wording to implement the agreement. Although the declaration was actually signed during George H.W. Bush’s term, make no mistake - this was Reagan’s crowning moment of diplomacy and put an end to a period which included, among other frightening events, the Cuban Missile Crisis. With the world’s two biggest superpowers finally in agreement, the issue seemed to be settled. Enter Joe Biden.

The Biden administration has been an outspoken opponent against the Russia/Ukraine conflict and has authorized more than $64 billion in military assistance since Russia’s full-scale invasion in 2022. Further, another $66.9 billion has been spent propping up the Ukrainian regime since Russia’s initial invasion of Ukraine in 2014. Naturally, this has displeased Russia, causing them to state that “aggression against Russia by a member of a military bloc or coalition is viewed as an aggression by the entire bloc”, a clear reference to NATO. Russia was already pissed about US involvement and it has only escalated further in response to Biden’s recent decision to allow Ukraine to strike targets deep inside Russia via American-supplied long range ballistic missiles.

Russia is not taking this lying down. Rhetoric has included statements decrying the US as the “instigator” and reminding the world that only America has shown the proclivity to use nukes as a weapon of war. “We are moving through unexplored military and political territory” says Sergei Ryabkov, Russia’s Deputy Foreign Minister overseeing arms control and US relations, adding that “the danger of a direct armed clash between nuclear powers cannot be underestimated. What is happening has no direct analogies in the past.” Frightening times indeed, if one is a prudent and rational observer.

Russia is doing more than simply saber-rattling. Much more. For the first time since détente, Russia has formally revised their nuclear weapons doctrine. The new policy states that Russia could launch nuclear weapons in response to an attack on its territory by a non-nuclear armed state back by a nuclear-armed one (yeah, that means you America). Putin has now significantly lowered the threshold for a nuclear strike and has done so in direct response to Biden’s decision. Russia has been warning us for months that if Washington allowed Ukraine to launch US missiles deep into Russia that they would consider us to be “directly involved” in the regional conflict. Directly involved means that we could be “legitimately’ targeted. The updated Russian nuclear doctrine establishes a framework for conditions under which Putin could order a strike from, let’s not forget, the world’s biggest nuclear arsenal. We have clearly violated those conditions and what now remains to be seen are the consequences.

The new doctrine should be taken as “a qualitatively new phase of the Western war against Russia” and they are promising to “react accordingly”, as per Putin’s Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov. Further, he contends that “US personnel and data must have been used in the ATACMS attack conducted last week". Lavrov promised to do “everything to avoid nuclear war”, but reminded world leaders that the US is clearly the "instigator" and that they alone have “used nuclear weapons in the past”, referencing the horrific (but necessary) bombings against the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945.
Russia is taking this dead seriously, with diplomats comparing today’s climate to that of the Cuban Missile Crisis, when the two superpowers came closest to intentional nuclear war. Further, diplomats suggest that “the West is making a mistake if it thinks Russia will back down over Ukraine”. The Kremlin said Russia considers nuclear weapons “a means of deterrence” and that the updated doctrine was intended to “make clear to potential enemies the inevitability of retaliation should they attack Russia.

Analysts pointed out, with alarm, that Russia could consider a nuclear strike in response. The Kremlin considers attacks by these long-range missiles to have created “a critical threat to their sovereignty and/or their territorial integrity”. The big picture? As per Alexander Graef, Senior Researcher at the Institute for Peace Research and Security Policy, “Russia is lowering the threshold for a nuclear strike in response to a possible conventional attack”. One can’t speak more plainly than that.

The previous doctrine, formulated in 2020 by means of decree, said Russia may use nuclear weapons only in response to a “nuclear attack by an enemy or a conventional attack that threatens the existence of the state”. The bar has been lowered considerably and that is the nuclear reality that we live in now. Was Ukraine really worth all this, and on top of the almost $140B price tag? $140B would go a long way to fixing the myriad of problems that exist right here in America, and would, in my opinion, be money much better spent. I guess looking out for America first has become passe, at least among the present leaders in Washington.

DRYAD GLOBAL is generally recognized as the go-to service with regard to reporting on how current events impact maritime operations. They issue what is referred to as a maritime security threat advisory (MSTA) reflecting such. They report that recent happenings, particularly Russia’s revised nuclear policy, are “potentially leading to sea lanes closure and safety zone establishment, resulting in increased insurance rates or ship coverage refusals”. They warn that the situation could be “significantly escalated” and that maritime activities could well be “significantly impacted”, and not in a positive manner.

The 11/22 article on RigZone initially called my attention to the entire matter. Why is an energy site so interested? Well, closure of significant export facilities in the Mid-East would surely spike oil prices and wreak at least temporary havoc on world economies. Closure of the Straits of Hormuz would be downright catastrophic, especially if it lingered for any significant time. A significant hike regarding the cost of OPEC production is certainly not in our best interests, nor that of the international community in general. And let’s not forget about that rabid dog known as Iran. Should warfare occur between Iran and Israel, especially if it involves nuclear facilities, all bets are off. Iran’s nuclear capabilities are presently uncertain, but, even if they are not operational, conventional attacks on Israel’s nuclear facilities would be alarming on a global level. Remember, Iran has no compulsions regarding its status among nations, and is willing and capable of taking drastic and dangerous steps without regard for its reputation. Actions have consequences, as the saying goes.

Why so little fanfare as to this major policy change, and on among the most important of subjects? Why is the American public surprisingly uninformed as to recent happenings? I believe it is because the mainstream media continues to carry water for the Biden administration and will continue to do so until the very end. No need alerting the public to something that would surely reflect poorly on his legacy and contribute to his declining approval ratings.

As for Biden’s motivations? Why the sudden policy change after several years of war and nearing the end of his administration? I believe he is intentionally clouding the waters, hoping to make it difficult for Trump to negotiate an end to this expensive nonsense. A quick resolution on Trump’s part would surely show why Biden is suddenly being discussed (along with Jimmy Carter) as among the most inept Presidents in our history.

The public may not be sufficiently informed, but you had best believe financial markets are. Immediately upon announcement as to Russia’s nuclear policy change, December S&P 500 E-Mini futures move downward by 0.40%. December Nasdaq 100 E-Mini futures dropped 0.32%. Markets were “rattled” by the news even as politicians tried to ignore it. In the November 18 trading session, results were mixed, buoyed by Trump’s impending coronation and its expected positive impact on certain sectors. Tesla was up more than 5% after Bloomberg reported that DJT’s transition team will make a federal framework for self-driving cars one of the Transportation Department’s priorities. Advanced Micro Devices (AMD) gained about 3% after IBM announced plans to deploy the Instinct MI300X accelerator as a service on IBM Cloud. On the bearish side, Palantir Technologies (PLTR) fell over 6% after it was reported that co-founder and CEO Alexander Karp sold shares worth almost $400M during the later part of last week.

Trump will take office in little over fifty days, and he is not one known for patience regarding rogue nations. It will be interesting to see if events compel him to strike militarily against Iran. An attack on Israel’s nuclear facilities would certainly not go unpunished, with Trump being among their most staunch supporters. We must all pray that events do not compel any further military action, especially nuclear in nature, in the Mid-East, or anywhere world-wide, for that matter. Hopefully, cooler heads will prevail, but they seem not to exist in many countries, with American leaders not being immune to foolishness. I’m not predicting Armageddon, but the situation definitely bears watching. We have not been sailing this close to the wind since the 60’s, and that is a trend that we must seek to reverse immediately.