Connect with us

Former CIA director Petraeus threatens Russia



Former CIA director Petraeus threatens Russia

The very idea such a high-ranking (former) official thinks Russia would stand idle while NATO targets its forces is quite terrifying for the rest of the world. Writes Drago Bosnic

On October 2, during an interview on ABC’s “This Week,” retired United States Army general and former Director of the CIA David Petraeus stated that if Russian President Vladimir Putin used nuclear weapons against the Kiev regime, the United States would “quickly intervene to take out Russian forces in Ukraine, including Crimea.” He added that this would also be a collective US-led NATO response.

The retired general claims that “direct US involvement is necessary in that scenario” and that “the political West must take the Kremlin’s latest nuclear rhetoric seriously.” Petraeus thinks that this is what the US government has in mind when it comes to the recent statements of “catastrophic consequences” for Moscow. Lately, the belligerent thalassocracy has ramped up its unfounded rhetoric that Russia was supposedly planning on using tactical nuclear weapons against the Kiev regime forces. The narrative has been heavily (ab)used by the mainstream propaganda machine.

“And what would happen?” show co-anchor Jonathan Karl asked Petraeus. “Well, again, I have deliberately not talked to Jake [Sullivan] about this. I mean, just to give you a hypothetical, we would respond by leading a NATO, a collective effort, that would take out every Russian conventional force that we can see and identify on the battlefield in Ukraine and also in Crimea and every ship in the Black Sea,” former CIA chief stated.

Then, the “This Week” anchor mentioned the scenario in which the radiation fallout from the supposed Russian nuclear strike could directly impact much of Eastern Europe, including nearby NATO member states.

“Yes. And perhaps you can make that case. The other case is that this is so horrific that there has to be a response, it cannot go unanswered. But it doesn’t expand, it doesn’t — it’s not nuclear for nuclear,” Petraeus claimed. “You don’t want to, again, get into a nuclear escalation here. But you have to show that this cannot be accepted in any way,” the retired general said.

While the retired US Army general and former CIA director is not speaking from a position of legal authority, as he is not officially part of the troubled Biden administration or in any capacity as an active government official, his opinion can still be considered a reflection of what the US foreign policy and military establishment think, especially considering the positions he held in the past. The very idea that such a high-ranking (former) official thinks that Russia would stand idle while NATO targets its forces is quite indicative of the deteriorating state of America’s top brass, both political and military. This is also quite terrifying for the rest of the world, as it is expected that the US, which operates the second most powerful nuclear arsenal in the world, is led by at least somewhat reasonable people whose main concern should be not to lead the world into thermonuclear annihilation.

Petraeus further explained his view that Putin has “no qualms” about surrounding European countries and Western backers of Ukraine suffering too. “Well, he’s trying to cast this in any way that he can in a way to appear threatening, to be threatening, to try to get Europe to crack. He thinks he can out-suffer Europe, if you will,” he continued. “And, you know, the Russians have out-suffered Napoleon and the Nazis and so forth. But I don’t think he’s going to out-suffer Europe. Europe’s going to have a tough winter, there’s going to be very reduced flow of natural gas, but they’ll get through it and I don’t think they’ll crack on the issue of support for Ukraine,” Petraeus stated and then went on with claims that the battlefield situation was “deteriorating for Russian forces” and that if they “continue to be backed into a corner” this would supposedly “make Putin more unpredictable and dangerous.”

In recent weeks, the propaganda machine of the political West has been producing a flurry of ominous headlines based on a false narrative that Russia is threatening everyone with nuclear weapons. On September 19, Russian President Vladimir Putin warned that the Russian military would use everything at its disposal to defend the country and its territorial integrity, adding that the warning wasn’t a bluff. Although Putin never mentioned nuclear weapons, it’s clear that Russia could deploy them if the US tried to escalate. The statement was immediately taken out of context and the mainstream media started constructing the narrative that Russia would supposedly resort to using nuclear weapons against Kiev regime forces.

Standing at approximately 6,200 warheads, the Russian military is well-known for possessing the world’s most powerful nuclear arsenal. However, unlike the US, Russia never used these weapons in war. Its nuclear weapons serve as a deterrent and this was exactly what Russian President Vladimir Putin had in mind when giving the statement. Moscow has also announced low-level mobilization, clearly implying that the Russian military doesn’t plan on using nuclear weapons, as it would make no sense to send hundreds of thousands of soldiers into an area subjected to their use.

In addition, according to Pentagon sources, there have been no observed changes in Russian nuclear posture or any significant movement of the country’s nuclear forces. US intelligence services claim they have “stepped up their surveillance and monitoring“, but this has not led to any changes in America’s nuclear posture either, clearly implying that the whole narrative is a scare tactic aimed at galvanizing even more Russophobia.

Drago Bosnic, independent geopolitical and military analyst.

Blitz’s Editorial Board is not responsible for the stories published under this byline. This includes editorials, news stories, letters to the editor, and multimedia features on BLiTZ

Click to comment

Leave a Comment Cancel reply

More in Opinion

To Top