A claim by House minority leader Kevin McCarthy that Republicans could curb US support for Ukraine if they win the midterm elections on November 8 has caught Kiev by surprise, David Arakhamia, who heads President Vladimir Zelensky's party in parliament, has revealed.
Earlier this week, McCarthy said that while still being "important," helping Ukraine in its conflict against Russia couldn't remain the dominating issue on the agenda in Washington anymore. "I think people are gonna be sitting in a recession and they're not going to write a blank check to Ukraine. They just won't do it," he told Punchbowl News. According to a report by Axios on Wednesday, such a sentiment is shared by many other GOP lawmakers.
"We were shocked to hear these comments of Mr McCarthy, honestly," Arakhamia said in an interview with the Financial Times on Wednesday.According to Arakhamia, the congressman's comments contradicted what was said during their face-to-face meeting, which took place in Washington in June.
"Just a few weeks ago, our delegation visited the US and had a meeting with Mr McCarthy. We were assured that bipartisan support of Ukraine in its war with Russia will remain a top priority even if they win in the elections," the Kiev official insisted.Arakhamia's words also appeared to contradict a report by Politico on Wednesday, which cited unnamed White House aides, claiming the Ukrainian government understood that things could change if the Republicans take control of at least one chamber of Congress after the midterms.
Ukraine's Foreign Ministry spokesman Oleg Nikolenko told the Financial Times that the country was still counting on "continued bipartisan support" from the US.
When asked about McCarthy's remarks, White House spokeswoman Karine Jean-Pierre gave assurances that the Biden administration would "continue to work with Congress, as we have these past several months, on these efforts and support Ukraine as long as it takes."
The US has been Ukraine's strongest backer since the outbreak of its conflict with Russia in late February, providing Kiev with weapons, funds and intelligence. Washington has already supplied $16.8 billion in military aid to Zelensky's government, including sophisticated hardware such as HIMARS multiple rocket launchers, M777 howitzers, and combat drones.
Moscow has criticized those deliveries, saying they only prolong the fighting and increase the risk of a direct confrontation between Russia and NATO.
For eight years, NATO has backed puppet rulers in Ukraine, funded attacks on Donbass, repeatedly violated the Minsk Treaties, outlawed the speaking of Russian in the Luhansk and Donetsk Republics, and has destroyed democratic opposition and free media in Ukraine, leaving it a one-party government, essentially owned and financed by the US and administrated by US operatives Not much subtlety there.
Yet, somehow, the US has managed to convince the people of the US and other Western countries that Russia is the bad boy, is out of control and must be stopped. In spite of all the above, Russia remained stoic and sought continually to keep a lid on the situation. It did, however, state firmly that the “red line” would be if Ukraine were to go nuclear, becoming a direct threat to Moscow. That would not be tolerated.
For eight years, Russia had been goaded again and again by the West, yet they did not take the bait.
Then, in February of 2022, at the annual Munich Security Conference, the President of Ukraine announced his intent to make Ukraine a nuclear country.
Well, its continued significance is that NATO (or the US – they are virtually interchangeable at this point) has, from the beginning, behaved recklessly with the prospect of nuclear conflict. Are they mad? Or are they so foolish as to think that they have some sort of “edge” in a nuclear conflict? Or do they see this as a game of one-upmanship in which the only important concern is which antagonist has the greater bluster?
They’ve claimed that the Russians have been either firing on or causing explosions in the Zaporizhzhya nuclear plant that they have held for some time. In essence, they’re being accused of bombing themselves in a facility that has long-since been taken.
So, as to that second question – “What would a nuclear war look like?” there are many studies, but the most illustrative one I’m familiar with was produced by Princeton. It begins with a random single release in Eastern Europe and demonstrates the sizes and numbers of nuclear warheads, along with th e release patterns. It shows the trajectories and, in addition, shows diameters representing the degree of devastation by each missile. The smaller nukes would cover all of Europe, leaving very little intact. Then the larger transatlantic nukes would take over – the state-of-the-art Sarmat missiles. Sarmat has the capacity to elude anti-missile defense systems. It travels at five times the speed of sound, weighs more than 200 tonnes and each one has multiple breakaway warheads. The West has nothing like it.
So, what would the outcome be?
Well, each major US city would be targeted with multiple ICBMs, each big enough to destroy it. Most of the US would be carpeted with other ICBMs. The US would be destroyed within a few hours.
An estimated 90 million people would be killed initially. Those at ground zero would be vapourised. Those on the periphery of a bomb could escape if they were to get to concrete shelter very quickly. They would then need to remain sealed up for weeks, if not longer, until the majority of fallout had settled. It would be a gamble as to when exiting the building would be safe. The northern border of the US would be destroyed, taking in Canadian border cities, such as Vancouver and Toronto. The southern border, with Mexico, would also go.
Next would be the movement of fallout. As the video shows, those who live in or near a direct target would have no hope, but as can be seen, there are locations outside the US that are not targeted at all. Those locations that have no strategic advantage would not be targeted. So, if you were located in, say, Jamaica, you would not be hit, but, just as importantly, the Caribbean weather system – the trade winds – would carry any northern fallout away from you, as would the Gulf Stream.
Better still, the world is separated at the Equator by two weather systems that do not mix. Fallout in the north will be unlikely to travel to the south.
Europe and the Middle East would fare worse than North America.
Finally, there is the question of nuclear winter. No one can know whether this would last months or years and whether it would be localized or global.
We cannot be certain that nuclear war will be undertaken, but if so, it will be quick. There will be no time to create an escape plan. You must already be in a location that you deem to be as safe as possible.
The US government is overextending itself by interfering in every corner of the globe. It’s all financed by massive amounts of money printing. However, the next financial crisis could end the whole charade soon.
[Link]