We already knew that Russia would not use tactical nuclear weapons in Ukraine. As much as anything else, why would it need to? It is going to get its satellite states in the south and east that Ukrainian Nationalists could not even really want, it is going to get a constitutionally neutral Ukraine, and it is going to get the necessary denazification, which no one at all is still pretending was the solution to a made-up problem. It never expressed the expectation, or even the hope, to "take Kiev in 72 hours". That one belongs with weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.
Speaking of weapons of mass destruction, Ukraine never gave up nuclear weapons. It never had any. Like Kazakhstan and Belarus, it merely hosted them. The launch codes were in Moscow, and they were never going anywhere else. Sorrow that Vladimir Putin has nukes is matched only by joy that the Azov Battalion does not. Sadly, sorrow that the RSS had them cannot be matched by joy that the ISI did not, or vice versa. But sorrow that they are in the hands of Xi Jinping and Kim Jong-un is matched by joy that they are not in the hands of the Nippon Kaigi, or of the heirs of Park Chung-hee and Lee Teng-hui.
And if you felt safer because Boris Johnson's, Joe Biden's or Emmanuel Macron's finger was on the button, then you would not be a functioning adult. As seen in Saint-Denis, Macron's is the archetype for a Starmer or Streeting Government in Britain. There is a reason why the only ever uses of nuclear weapons have both been by Harry S. Truman. Whether it is tear-gassing at home or nuking abroad, this is what the liberal bourgeoisie does to assert or defend, even against an imaginary threat or an already defeated foe, its economic, social, cultural and political dominance. Such is the beginning of all Fascism. Consider the armed police whom Starmer had engaged to point their guns at delegates to last year's Labour Party Conference, and think on.
Post a Comment