Segue nostro Telegram.

L’Europa primo importatore di armi al mondo

Il 9 marzo 2026 lo Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) ha pubblicato il suo rapporto annuale sui trasferimenti di armi convenzionali. Il dato principale è inequivocabile: l’Europa è diventata la prima regione importatrice di armi al mondo, superando per la prima volta dagli anni Sessanta sia l’Asia-Oceania sia il Medio Oriente. Le importazioni europee di sistemi d’arma maggiori sono più che triplicate (+210%) nel periodo 2021-2025 rispetto al quinquennio precedente, passando dal 12% al 33% del totale globale.

Il volume complessivo dei trasferimenti internazionali di armi è cresciuto del 9,2% tra i due periodi — il maggiore aumento dal 2011-2015 — e questo incremento è quasi interamente trainato dall’Europa. Come ha dichiarato Mathew George, direttore del programma SIPRI sui trasferimenti di armi: “L’aumento brusco dei flussi di armi verso gli Stati europei ha spinto i trasferimenti globali in crescita di quasi il 10%. Le consegne all’Ucraina dal 2022 sono il fattore più evidente, ma la maggior parte degli altri Stati europei ha iniziato a importare significativamente più armi per rafforzare le proprie capacità militari contro una crescente minaccia percepita dalla Russia.”

Chi compra. L’Ucraina è il primo importatore mondiale in assoluto, con il 9,7% delle importazioni globali (rispetto allo 0,1% del quinquennio precedente). Seguono in Europa la Polonia e il Regno Unito. I tre Paesi insieme assorbono quasi la metà delle importazioni europee. Ma il fenomeno è diffuso: le importazioni dei 29 Paesi NATO europei sono cresciute del 143% nel periodo.

Il caso della Polonia è emblematico. Le importazioni polacche sono aumentate dell’852% — quasi nove volte — rispetto al 2016-2020. Varsavia è il primo importatore NATO in Europa, con il 17% del totale delle importazioni NATO europee e il 3,6% di quelle mondiali. La quasi totalità delle forniture proviene da fuori Europa: il 47% dalla Corea del Sud e il 44% dagli Stati Uniti. La Polonia sta costruendo quello che dichiara essere il più grande esercito di terra d’Europa, equipaggiandosi quasi esclusivamente con armi americane e sudcoreane.

Chi vende. Gli Stati Uniti hanno ulteriormente consolidato il proprio dominio come fornitori di armi, passando dal 36% al 42% del mercato globale delle esportazioni. In termini assoluti, le esportazioni americane sono cresciute del 27%. Il dato strategicamente più rilevante è questo: per la prima volta in due decenni, la quota maggiore delle esportazioni americane è andata all’Europa (38%) anziché al Medio Oriente (33%). Le esportazioni USA verso l’Europa sono aumentate del 217%. Il 48% di tutte le importazioni europee proviene dagli Stati Uniti — soprattutto aerei da combattimento e sistemi di difesa aerea a lungo raggio.

La Francia è il secondo esportatore mondiale con il 9,8% del mercato, in crescita di oltre un quinto. L’80% delle esportazioni francesi va però fuori dall’Europa — soprattutto a India, Egitto e Grecia. La Germania è salita al quarto posto globale, superando la Cina, con il 5,7% del mercato — anche grazie alle forniture all’Ucraina.

466 F-35 ordinati dall’Europa. Un numero riassume la dipendenza europea dagli Stati Uniti meglio di qualunque analisi: alla fine del 2025, dodici Paesi europei avevano 466 caccia F-35 di Lockheed Martin ordinati o preselezionati per l’ordine. A questi si aggiungono almeno 78 ordini israeliani di sistemi missilistici di difesa aerea e 66 ordini tedeschi per analoghi sistemi. L’Europa sta investendo massicciamente in armi — ma le sta comprando in America.

Il paradosso: comprare armi da chi ti destabilizza

Il rapporto SIPRI fotografa un paradosso che nessun commentatore mainstream osa nominare. L’Europa sta triplicando le importazioni di armi perché percepisce una crescente minaccia dalla Russia e una crescente incertezza sull’impegno americano a difendere i propri alleati. Lo dice testualmente il rapporto: “Le percezioni di minaccia riguardo alla Russia, amplificate dalle incertezze sull’impegno degli USA a difendere i propri alleati europei, hanno alimentato la domanda di armi tra gli Stati membri NATO.”

Tradotto: l’Europa compra armi americane perché non si fida più degli americani. La stessa America di Donald Trump che ha abbandonato l’Ucraina, minacciato di invadere la Groenlandia (territorio di un alleato NATO), attaccato verbalmente Spagna e Regno Unito nel mezzo della guerra contro l’Iran, e ha dichiarato apertamente che le esportazioni di armi sono uno strumento di politica estera — come esplicita la nuova America First Arms Transfer Strategy.

L’Europa sta comprando sicurezza dallo stesso Paese che produce la sua insicurezza. E ogni caccia F-35 acquistato, ogni sistema Patriot installato, ogni miliardo speso al Pentagono è un miliardo che non va all’industria europea della difesa — quella stessa industria che Bruxelles dice di voler rafforzare con programmi come il SAFE (Security Action for Europe), dotato di 150 miliardi di euro in prestiti agevolati per acquisti intra-UE.

Ma i numeri parlano chiaro: nonostante la retorica dell’autonomia strategica, il 48% delle armi europee viene ancora dagli USA. L’Europa non è una potenza che si riarma per difendersi: è un cliente che si riarma per comprare protezione. Pedina, non giocatore.

Bunker nucleari a ruba fra i funzionari USA

Mentre l’Europa compra armi per prepararsi alla guerra, chi la guerra l’ha lanciata si prepara a sopravviverle. Secondo un’inchiesta del Telegraph ripresa da ZeroHedge, almeno due membri senior del gabinetto Trump hanno acquistato bunker anti-nucleari privati dall’inizio del conflitto con l’Iran.

Ron Hubbard, proprietario della Atlas Survival Shelters — azienda texana specializzata in rifugi sotterranei — ha dichiarato di essere stato “inondato di chiamate” dall’inizio delle operazioni militari, con un aumento delle richieste di dieci volte rispetto alla media. Ha rivelato che due membri del gabinetto Trump sono tra i nuovi clienti: “Uno di loro mi ha mandato un messaggio ieri, chiedendomi: ‘Quando sarà pronto il mio bunker?'”

I rifugi in questione non sono cantine rinforzate. Sono strutture in acciaio temprato con porte blindate anti-esplosione, sistemi di purificazione dell’aria, e dotazioni di lusso — cinema, piscine, poligoni di tiro — progettate per resistere ad attacchi con droni o testate convenzionali. I prezzi partono da 20.000 dollari per i modelli base e arrivano a diversi milioni per i compound più sofisticati.

Lo stesso Hubbard è però brutalmente onesto sui limiti: “Nessun bunker al mondo è progettato per resistere a una bomba bunker-buster americana. Se gli americani ti vogliono morto, sei morto.” L’ironia è tragica: i membri del governo che hanno ordinato il bombardamento dell’Iran si comprano rifugi perché sanno che le ritorsioni sono inevitabili.

L’azienda ha aperto un nuovo ufficio a Dubai — dove le richieste sono esplose dopo che i missili iraniani hanno colpito la città. “Pensavano di non vedere mai cadere bombe. Adesso che le bombe cadono, vorranno tutti un rifugio. È un dato di fatto.” Atlas Survival Shelters fatturava in media 2 milioni di dollari al mese nel 2026; per il prossimo mese prevede ricavi di 50 milioni. Il business della paura nucleare è il più fiorente dell’economia di guerra.

Tra i clienti precedenti dell’azienda figurano nomi come Mark Zuckerberg e Andrew Tate. Le élite globali si preparano al peggio. Non perché siano paranoiche — ma perché conoscono le conseguenze di ciò che hanno messo in moto.

Due facce della stessa medaglia

I due fenomeni — l’Europa che si riarma e i funzionari USA che comprano bunker — non sono notizie separate. Sono le due facce della stessa medaglia, e quella medaglia si chiama economia di guerra permanente.

Da un lato, l’industria bellica americana raccoglie i dividendi della paura: il 42% del mercato globale delle armi, 466 F-35 ordinati dall’Europa, esportazioni in crescita del 217% verso il Vecchio Continente. BlackRock — il più grande gestore patrimoniale del pianeta — detiene miliardi in Lockheed Martin, Raytheon, Boeing, Northrop Grumman ed Elbit Systems. Ogni bomba sganciata sull’Iran è un ordine di riacquisto. Ogni sistema Patriot installato in Europa è un contratto pluriennale di manutenzione e munizioni.

Dall’altro, chi siede ai tavoli dove si decide la guerra sa perfettamente che le conseguenze sono incontrollabili. Lo Stretto di Hormuz — attraverso cui transita il 20% del petrolio mondiale — è di fatto chiuso dal 28 febbraio. Il Brent ha superato i 120 dollari. Il Qatar ha dichiarato la force majeure sui contratti di gas. L’Iran ha colpito Dubai, basi americane, territorio israeliano. I missili balistici iraniani hanno dimostrato di poter raggiungere obiettivi che si credevano al sicuro.

E chi ha innescato tutto questo? Gli stessi che ora comprano bunker. Non è cinismo: è la logica interna del sistema. La guerra genera profitti per chi la finanzia, terrore per chi la subisce, e rifugi sotterranei per chi la ordina. Il circuito è perfetto.

L’Europa paga il conto

L’Europa si trova intrappolata in una spirale autodistruttiva. Spende per riarmarsi contro una minaccia russa reale ma strumentalmente amplificata, comprando armi dal Paese che destabilizza il suo fianco orientale e il suo approvvigionamento energetico. L’Europa riceve tra il 12 e il 14% del proprio GNL dal Qatar attraverso Hormuz — forniture ora interrotte. La dipendenza dal gas americano cresce, e con essa la subordinazione politica.

Il programma europeo SAFE da 150 miliardi dovrebbe incentivare acquisti intra-UE, ma i grandi fornitori europei — Francia, Germania, Italia — continuano a esportare la maggior parte delle proprie armi fuori dal continente. La Francia vende l’80% fuori Europa. L’UE ha un volume di esportazioni pari al 28% del mercato globale — quattro volte la Russia, cinque volte la Cina — ma non riesce a equipaggiare sé stessa. Come ha osservato il generale Hodges: “La relazione transatlantica esiste ancora, ma non è più la stessa e probabilmente non lo sarà mai più.”

Lo SIPRI stesso nota che la “nuova strategia America First per i trasferimenti di armi” dell’amministrazione Trump rende esplicito ciò che era sempre stato implicito: le esportazioni di armi americane sono uno strumento di controllo politico, non di solidarietà tra alleati. Ogni F-35 venduto all’Europa è un vincolo di dipendenza tecnologica, logistica e strategica che durerà decenni.

La guerra è il prodotto

Il rapporto SIPRI esce il 9 marzo 2026 — dieci giorni dopo l’inizio delle operazioni militari USA-Israele contro l’Iran. I dati coprono il periodo 2021-2025, quindi non includono ancora l’impatto dell’attuale conflitto. Ma come ha dichiarato il ricercatore SIPRI Pieter Wezeman, gli Stati del Medio Oriente avevano già piazzato ordini significativi prima dell’escalation — e il conflitto in corso spingerà ulteriormente la domanda, “soprattutto di sistemi anti-missile e di difesa aerea.”

La spesa globale per la difesa ha raggiunto i 2.700 miliardi di dollari nel 2024 — un aumento del 9,4% in termini reali, il più alto dalla fine della Guerra Fredda. Il commercio di armi è tornato ai volumi del 1989, l’ultimo anno della Guerra Fredda. Non è un caso: stiamo vivendo l’inizio di una nuova Guerra Fredda, ma questa volta con bombe vere che cadono su Teheran, Dubai e le petroliere nel Golfo Persico.

La domanda che il rapporto SIPRI non pone — ma che noi poniamo — è: chi beneficia di questo ciclo? L’Europa, che spende sempre di più e si sente sempre meno sicura? I cittadini americani, i cui funzionari comprano bunker mentre spendono le loro tasse in bombe? O i gestori di fondi, le lobby del complesso militare-industriale, i donatori che finanziano le campagne e dettano le guerre?

La guerra è il prodotto. Il caos è la materia prima. L’Europa compra armi, l’America compra bunker, e chi siede al tavolo dove si decidono i conflitti conta i profitti.

Lo scacco matto è in corso. Ma chi lo sta dando a chi?

In the realm of politics, replete with its cast of colorful culprits, the possibility of radical change always hovers just over the horizon, which gives the subject much of its universal appeal. Stories devoted to environmental issues, on the other hand, inundate the reader with a dizzying array of mind-boggling statistics that are not only incredibly depressing, they seem impossible to do anything about.

For example, take what I consider to be the most depressing story in recent memory – the so-called ‘Great Pacific Garbage Patch,’ a swirling garbage dump trapped in a vortex between Hawaii and California, estimated to be twice the size of Texas. How is anyone expected to wrap their brain around that modern monument to our collective stupidity over their morning cup of coffee? Somehow we always expected the oceans, due to their sheer size and vastness, to remain beyond the reach of mankind’s destructive tendencies. Yet the story of the slowly dying oceans and its vibrant sea life – despite some truly fantastic schemes to reverse the trend – proves not just how wrongheaded that belief is, it belies the destructive nature of our hedonistic and materialistic lifestyles.

This leads to yet another reason so many people shy away from apocalyptic stories of environmental degradation: their own collusion in the ongoing tale of planetary destruction, which is part and parcel of our inquisitive lifestyles. Whether we want to admit it or not, we are all deeply indebted consumers of the corporate cornucopia. The majority of us spend a disproportionate amount of our time earning a living just to feed the monkey of our worldly desires, which our corporate overlords happily provide in superabundance – at excessive interest rates, I might add.

In fact, when our situation is viewed critically and objectively, human beings now live like astronauts, totally cut off from the natural world, yet, at the same time, connected by a fragile umbilical cord to the corporate world. Such a scenario must give any thinking person tremendous pause, for it highlights our dangerous level of dependency on external economic forces – namely, the corporate world – to sustain us. Here is where the idea of ‘environmental destruction’ should really pique our interest.

It is not so difficult to conduct a thought experiment that involves the ramifications of a massive economic downturn, or some unexpected natural disaster (on the scale of Hurricane Katrina, for example, multiplied by 10,000) of such magnitude that corporations are no longer able or willing to provide for our most basic daily needs. It may be exceedingly difficult to imagine such a grim scenario, especially since we now take it for granted that grocery stores will always remain open for business and stocked full of goodies, but the majority of us would quickly perish in the event that some unexpected crisis brought the global economy down on our heads. Such a nightmare may be easier to imagine when it is considered that just 10 companies control the entire global food supply, while most people have no means or knowledge of tilling the land for their food supplies.

Perhaps it is on this point that the topic of ‘environmental destruction’ can become not only sexy, like the exciting world of politics, but vital for mankind’s continued existence. It’s time to stop acting like children and face an ugly truth: our current materialistic lifestyles are not sustainable in the long-term, and probably not in the short term either. Our incredible level ofwastefulness, compounded by Earth’s finite resources, guarantees that the planet’s 7 billion people are living on borrowed time. Exactly what ‘short-term’ means, however, is a question none of us can really answer. It may mean the day after tomorrow or another 500 years. Again, nobody can say. But given the upsurge of interest, for example, in “doomsday prepping” among people of average means (a topic that even the high-brow Financial Times reported on), to the construction of sprawling underground bunkers for the elite, there is a growing consensus among many people that it is time to start taking back some control of our lives.

Currently, I am living in Russia, where the difference between Russians and Americans when it comes to preparing for the ‘unknown’ could not be greater. While Americans spend untold hours per week mowing their lawns, pulling weeds and trimming the hedges, Russians are toiling at their ‘dachas’ (in Russia, it is common for people to own an apartment in the city and a piece of land in the countryside), growing fruit and vegetables in greenhouses, and collecting mushrooms in the forest (picking mushrooms is a veritable art form, where it can literally mean the difference between life and death to choose the correct variety among dozens of species). Every Russian I have met in the countryside also have their own private source of water from painstakingly dug wells on their land. This is no small consideration when it is remembered that corporations are gradually buying up, in addition to our food supplies, the rights to our water supplies as well.

The entire notion of ‘prepping’ in Russia is completely nonexistent since the knowledge of working the land, which became absolutely critical during the severe food shortages of the communist years, has been a traditional part of Russian life since the country’s inception. Although Russians, like any other people, would suffer grave hardships in the event of a severe economic downturn, many of them would still be able to feed themselves due to their time-tested ‘survival’ skills. I am not sure the same could be said of their American and European counterparts.

There is a memorable scene in the 2009 post-apocalyptic US film, The Road, where a father and son, forced to trek across a devastated American landscape following some sort of unspeakable disaster, stumble upon a discarded underground bunker that is loaded with food, allowing them to survive the next leg of their impossible journey.

It is film I would highly recommend every person watch to get a sense of what an unexpected turn of environmental and economic events could mean for them and their loved ones.

Since corporations not only greatly control to what extent the environment will remain viable for our survival, but also the keys to the corporate cornucopia, there is no better time than the present to consider what would happen if or when, to put the matter bluntly, the shit hits the fan.

Wherever you’re so fortunate as to be reading this: here is the reason why the market for luxurious deep-underground nuclear-resistant bunkers has so suddenly blossomed:

In February 2014, an extremely violent, and US-engineered but ‘democracy’-masked, coup in Ukraine on Russia’s very doorstep, was successfully culminated by its overthrowing Ukraine’s neutralist and democratically elected leader, and then by its installing there a rabidly anti-Russian government, out for Russian blood, just like Hitler had been, and, in fact, strongly inspired by him, in many ways, including an ethnic-cleansing campaign. Within less than a month, Russia responded to that coup by accepting the still predominantly Russian Crimea back into Russia. (Crimea had been part of Russia until the Soviet dictator had arbitrarily transferred it to Ukraine in 1954.) For Russia’s having done that, US President Barack Obama (and America’s foreign vassals) slapped economic sanctions against Russia and mobilized NATO troops and weaponry onto and near Russia’s borders — as if they wanted to out-do 1962’s Cuban Missile Crisis, which they are doing, but in reverse direction (against not America, but, this time, against Russia). 

Ever since that singular 2014 event — that coup (which destroyed Ukraine) — the hottest market amongst the super-rich has been nuclear-resistant bunkers deep underground: such as here, and here, and here, and here, and here, and here, and here, and here, and here, and here, and here, and here, and here, and here, and here, and here, and here, and here, and here, and here, and here, and here, and here, and here. 

I think that the three best of these articles about luxury nuclear bunkers, are this (with the best pictures of one of these facilities) and this (with the best commentary about the entire phenomenon), and this, which discusses the increasing number of builders of these facilities. Some billionaires, however, are instead moving to New Zealand. 

So: ever since 2014, private planning to survive a nuclear war is the most booming field amongst the super-rich. This is a real-estate market that no ordinary person could afford to buy into. These people are either principals themselves in the aristocracy, or else prime agents for them and thus likewise extremely wealthy and already well on their own personal ways to entering the aristocracy — the aristocracy of extreme wealth. They’re thus all well-connected; they’ve got the best contacts and sources inside governments. And, since 2014, they are rushing to prepare: to prepare for a nuclear war.

If these people aren’t well-informed about the global situation, then no one is. And they’re investing accordingly. Lots of people invest in stocks, bonds, gold, etc, but only the richest few can afford to invest in nuclear-resistant bunkers, and that’s where the boom nowadays especially is, amongst only the super-rich. (We’re not talking here about high government-officials; they’ve got their Spartan nuclear bunkers long-since paid for by US taxpayers; but these are all just private and extremely wealthy individuals.) Maybe their attitude is: if you’ve got three-or-more homes, then at least one of them should be designed for the post-WW-III world and near enough to your main home so that maybe you can reach it before any missiles will be flying.

A nuclear war between US and Russia would be over within less than 30 minutes, start-to-finish; so, there won’t be any time to plan if the nuclear phase of the NATO-v.-Russia (plus, maybe China) war appears to be imminent — waiting that long in order to depart for one’s private bomb-shelter would already be too late. A quick ‘vacation’ to the secret location would thus necessarily be of the unplanned sort, which means that the system by which the owner will reach the spot, needs to be operational 24 hours every day, and needs to be maintained continuously, until — if and when — the nuclear exchange starts. Therefore, these facilities have airports and helicopter-access, and are continuously staffed, so that the richest people in the US and its allied countries, can arrive there at any moment’s notice and receive the full range of services that they are accustomed to.

Any of these billionaires and centi-millionaires could have chosen instead to establish (either alone or in combination with one-another) the first foundation or other propaganda-operation to publicize the fraudulence of the US-and-allied case for sanctions against Russia, and the fraudulence of NATO’s continuing assertions after 1991 that it’s a ‘defensive’ military alliance (it’s no longer that, at all), and the fact (contrasted against that fraud) of NATO’s being nowadays purely an alliance for aggression against Russia and China, as if the Cold War had never ended (and it never really did end except on the Russian and Chinese side, which now recognize that the US and its allies had lied in 1990); so, all of these billionaires rather buy private nuclear-bomb shelters, than establish a foundation to expose to the public the US side’s apocalyptic lies, which actually cause the danger that’s heading to destroy the entire world.

America’s own leading scientists on strategic weaponry have recently (on 1 March 2017) documented that the US nuclear-weapons-modernization program against both Russia and China is “planning to have the capacity to fight and win a nuclear war by disarming enemies with a surprise first strike.” Obviously, only the most-insiders of insiders will know in advance about this “surprise first strike.” (Otherwise, it wouldn’t be a surprise, and the advantage of being the first to attack will be gone.) However, nuclear-proof bunker-space is presumably so limited so that the people who are buying these few spots will be amongst those few. (Of course, high federal officials will be taken care of elsewhere.)

Ever since at least 2006, America’s Establishment — its billionaires and their agents — have been virtually unanimously and actively supporting the abandonment of the “Mutually Assured Destruction” concept that had long dominated nuclear thinking on both sides (not only on the Soviet and continuing under the Russian side, but also on that of America and its NATO military alliance) and have been replacing that paradigm, the “M.A.D.” paradigm (which has staved off WW III ever since 1945). They replaced it by the US-NATO paradigm (ever since at least 2006) of “Nuclear Primacy,” in which The West’s nuclear weapons are to be used not to stave off WW III, but instead so as to achieve ‘victory’ in an actual US-v.-Russia nuclear war. Ever since 2014, US-and-allied military moves cannot be coherently explained on any other basis than that the US and NATO are planning a blitz nuclear attack against at least Russia — and perhaps also against China.

Clearly, whoever are buying these luxury-pads for the post-apocalypse, are hoping for a NATO ‘victory’ in WW III, and are certainly not favorably inclined to preventing that armageddon, which they know is based on lies (unless they’re too stupid to be able to distinguish between their own propaganda versus the actual historical reality, which is documented in the links here, which links show that any decent billionaire in The West would instead be publicly exposing the horrific fraud that’s perpetrated by all of themselves, not trying to protect themselves from that fraud’s immediate global consequences).

Unfortunately, these people are the ultimate “conformists.” It’s clear by their 100% unity on this. They’ve become so gated-community, one-way-glassed, that they’ve no concern remaining (if they ever did) for the billions of people (not to mention entire planet) that they’re placing into the severest form of danger: global annihilation. Instead, their only concern (quite evidently) is to be ‘winners’. (Like I had said at that last link: “In military parlance, the side that suffers the less harm is the ‘winner’, regardless of any other factor. That’s the basic reality of military strategy: it’s inevitably win-lose, not win-win.” However, M.A.D. was the first-ever exception to that strategic principle; and, now, it’s gone — as of 2006 in US, and by now also in Russia (if not also in China). M.A.D. is gone; it’s been replaced by a real insanity, which is clearly psychopathic and clearly pervasive amongst the super-rich: “Nuclear Primacy”.

The psychological reality that had long staved off a WW III is completely gone. And the people who have caused it to end are now buying all these nuclear bunkers for themselves.

In a rare exception to the unanimity of the US aristocracy’s voices regarding what’s behind this change (which cause is the stifling nazi or racist-fascist ideology at the top in America), the capitol-hill newspaper, The Hill, allowed to be published on 9 November 2017, an article — even with numerous links to high-quality sources — titled “The reality of neo-Nazis in Ukraine is far from Kremlin propaganda”. An indication of just how extraordinarily thorough the takeover of the US Government by nazis has become, is that both under President Barack Obama and under President Donald Trump, the US has been among the only 3 countries (in Obama’s case) and the only two countries (in Trump’s) that officially stood up at the United Nations in support of nazism, even of its Holocaust-denial. On both occasions, Ukraine joined with the US on that vote. On one occasion, Canada also did (thus being the third). This scandal was virtually entirely ignored in the Western ‘news’ media.

This is the world we are living in today. How many ‘news’ media are reporting this reality? How many have reported it? Just one billionaire standing out from the pack, so as to reach the masses with these truths, could make a whole world of difference. But, instead, perhaps they’re all just buying nuclear bunkers, so as to be amongst the few ‘winners’, in a war on behalf of the global regime that represents, actually, only themselves.

This is the catastrophe of our times.

This surging demand for nuclear bunkers started right after the U.S. government arranged a coup in Ukraine that replaced the existing Moscow-friendly democratically elected President by installing a rabidly anti-Russian Prime Minister and national-security appointees from Ukraine’s two nazi Parties, the Right Sector Party, and the former Social Nationalist Party of Ukraine (which the CIA renamed «Svoboda» meaning «Freedom» so as to enable it to be acceptable to the American public). Then, the intensifying U.S. effort to replace the secular pro-Russian Syrian leader Bashar al-Assad by a sectarian jihadist government that would be dependent upon the Saudi-Qatari-UAE-Turkish-U.S. alliance, has only intensified further the demand for these types of «second homes». 

Whereas all of the purchasers of these bunkers are being kept secret, the U.S. federal government provides, free-of-charge, to top officials, nuclear bunkers, so as to allow the then-dictatorship (continuation of America’s current dictatorship) to function, in order, supposedly, to serve their country, which they’d already have destroyed (along with destroying the rest of the world) by their determination to conquer Russia. No one knows what the reality would actually be in such a post-WW-III world, except that there would be no functioning electrical grid, nights would be totally dark for anyone whose sole reliance is on the grid, and all rivers and other water-sources would be intensely radioactive from the fallout, so that groundwater soon would also be unusable — and, of course, the air itself would also be toxic; so, lifespans would be enormously shortened, and excruciating, not to say extremely depressing.

No one has published a computer-model of a U.S.-Russia nuclear war, because doing that would be unacceptable to the «military-industrial complex» including the U.S. government, but in 2014 a «limited, regional nuclear war between India and Pakistan» was computer-modeled and projected to produce global ozone-depletion and «the coldest average surface temperatures in the last 1000 years», which «could trigger a global nuclear famine». But such a war would be only 50 bombs instead of the 10,000+ that would be used in a WW III scenario; and, so, everyone who is paying money in order to survive WW III is simply wasting money.

But, somehow, there are people who either want a Russia-U.S. war, or else whose preparations for it are directed at surviving in such a world, instead of at ending the current grip on political power in the United States, on the part of the people who are working to bring about this type of (end to the) world. At least the owners of the major U.S. armaments-firms, such as Raytheon Corporation, would have an explosive financial boost during the build-up toward that war, but buying bunkers in order to survive it, would seem to be a dubious follow-up to such an investment-plan. On the other hand, it might appeal to some thrill-seekers who don’t even feel the need for a good computer-simulation of a post-WW-III world; maybe they’ve got money to burn and a craving to experience ‘the ultimate thrill’, and don’t want unpleasant knowledge to spoil the thrill.

After President Trump threw out his National Security Advisor Michael Flynn and replaced him with the rabidly anti-Russian H.R. McMaster, and then lobbed 59 cruise missiles against the Syrian government (which is protected by the Russian government), the cacophony of press that had been calling for President Trump to be impeached and replaced by his rabidly anti-Russian Vice President Mike Pence, considerably quieted down; and, so, the Obama-Trump market for nuclear bunkers seems now to be established on very sound foundations, for the foreseeable immediate future. And, if anyone in the U.S. federal government has been planning to prepare the U.S. for a post-WW-III world, that has not been publicly announced, and no newsmedia have even been inquiring about it — so, nothing can yet be said about it.

The general message, thus far, is that, after World War III, everyone will be on his or her own, but that the dictators will (supposedly) be in a far better position than will anyone outside that ruling group. However, if the survivors end up merely envying the dead, it will be no laughing matter, regardless of how silly those nuclear bunkers are. It would be nothing funny at all.

On April 17^th, Scott Humor, the Research Director at the geostrategic site «The Saker,» headlined «Trump has lost control over the Pentagon», and he listed (and linked-to) the following signs that Trump is following through with his promise to allow the Pentagon to control U.S. international relations:

March 14^th, the US National Nuclear Security Administration field tested the modernized B61-12  gravity nuclear bomb in Nevada.

April 7, Liberty Passion, loaded with US military vehicles, moored at Aqaba Main Port, Jordan

On April 7^th the Pentagon US bombed Syria’s main command center in fight against terrorists

April 10, United States Deploying Forces At Syrian-Jordanian Border

April 11, The US Air Force might start forcing pilots to stay in the service against their will, according to the chief of the military unit’s Air Mobility Command.

April 12, President Donald Trump has signed the US approval for Montenegro to join NATO

April 13, NATO chief Jens Stoltenberg announced the alliance’s increased deployment in Eastern Europe

On April 13^th, the Pentagon bombed Afghanistan. The US military has bombed Afghanistan with its GBU-43/B Massive Ordnance Air Blast Bomb (MOAB)

April 13, the US-led coalition bombed the IS munitions and chemical weapons depot in Deir ez-Zor killing hundreds of people

April 14, The Arleigh Burke-class, guided-missile destroyer USS Stethem (DDG 63) has been deployed to the South China Sea

April 14, the US sent F-35 jets to Europe

April 14, Washington failed to attend the latest international conference hosted by Moscow, where 11 nations discussed ways of bringing peace to Afghanistan. The US branded it a «unilateral Russian attempt to assert influence in the region».

April14, the US has positioned two destroyers armed with Tomahawk cruise missiles close enough to the North Korean nuclear test site to act preemptively

On April 16^th, the US army makes largest deployment of troops to Somalia since the 90s.

Mr. Humor drew attention to an article that had been published in «The Daily Beast» a year ago, on 8 April 2016, «CALL OF DUTY: The Secret Movement to Draft General James Mattis for President. Gen. James Mattis doesn’t necessarily want to be president—but that’s not stopping a group of billionaire donors from hatching a plan to get him there». Though none of the alleged «billionaires» were named there, one prominent voice backing Mattis for the Presidency, in that article, was Bill Kristol, the Rupert Murdoch agent who co-founded the Project for a New American Century, which was the first influential group pushing the «regime-change in Iraq» idea during the late 1990s, and which also advocated for the foreign policies that George W. Bush, Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, and Donald Trump, have since been pursuing, each in his own way. It seems that whomever those «billionaires» were, they’ve now gotten their wish, with a figurehead Donald Trump as President, and James Mattis actually running foreign policy. Humor also noted that Mattis wants to boost the budget of the Pentagon by far more than the 9% that Trump has proposed. Perhaps Trump knew that even to get a 9% Pentagon increase passed this year would be almost impossible to achieve. First, the unleashed Pentagon needs to place the military into an ‘emergency’ situation, so as to persuade the public to clamor for a major invasion. That ‘emergency’ might be the immediate goal, toward which the March-April timeline of events that Humor documented is aiming.

As regards the military comparisons of the personnel and equipment on both sides of a U.S.-Russia war, the key consideration would actually be not the 7,000 nuclear warheads that Russia has versus the 6,800 nuclear warheads that the U.S. has, but the chief motivation on each of the respective sides: conquest on the part of the U.S. aristocracy, defense on the part of the Russian aristocracy. (Obviously, the U.S. having continued its NATO military alliance after the Soviet Union’s Warsaw Pact military alliance ended in 1991, indicates America’s aggressive intent against Russia. That became a hyper-aggressive intent when NATO absorbed Russia’s former Warsaw Pact allies. NATO even brought in some parts of the former USSR itself, when in 2004, Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania, entered NATO, and in 2014 U.S. President Obama tried to get Ukraine into NATO, and these five countries hadn’t even been Warsaw Pacters, but had instead been parts of the USSR itself. It was as if Russia had grabbed not only America’s allies, but some states in the U.S. itself. This constituted extreme aggression, and shows the U.S. aristocracy’s obsessive intent for global empire — to include Russia.) 

Any limited war between the two powers would become a nuclear war once the side that’s losing this limited war becomes faced with the choice of either surrendering that limited territory (now likely Syria) or else going nuclear. On Russia’s side, allowing such military conquest of an ally would be unacceptable; the war would then expand with the U.S. and its allies invading Russian territory for Russia’s continuing refusal to accept the U.S.-Saudi and other allies’ grabbing of Syria (on ‘humanitarian grounds’, of course — as if, for example, the Sauds aren’t far more brutal than Assad). After the traditional-forces’ invasion of Russia, Russia’s yielding its sovereignty over its own land has never been part of Russia’s culture: If Russia were to be invaded by allies of the U.S., then launching all of Russia’s nuclear weapons against the U.S. and America’s invasion-allies, would be a reasonably expected result. Here’s how it would develop: On America’s side, which (very unlike Russia) has no record of any foreign invasion against its own mainland (other than the Sauds’ own 9/11 ‘false flag’ attacks), the likely response in the event of Russia’s crushing its invaders would be for the U.S. President to seek to negotiate a face-saving end to that limited war, just as the American President Richard Nixon did regarding America’s invasion and occupation of Vietnam.

However, a reasonable question can be raised as to whether, in such a situation, Russia would accept anything less than America’s total surrender, much as Franklin Delano Roosevelt in WW II was determined to accept nothing less than Germany’s total surrender, at the end of that war. If Trump wants to play Hitler, then Putin (acting in accord with Russian tradition) would probably play both FDR and Stalin, even if it meant the end of the world. For Russia to be conquered, especially by such intense evil as those invaders would be representing, would probably be viewed by Russians as being even worse than ending everything, and this would probably be Putin’s view as well. If America did not simply capitulate, Putin would probably nuclear-blitz-attack the U.S. and its allies, rather than give Trump (or Pence) the opportunity to blitz-attack Russia and to sacrifice all of the U.S. side’s invading troops in Russia so as to ‘win’ the overall war and finally conquer Russia. It would be like WW II, except with nuclear weapons — and thus an entirely different type of historical outcome after the war. 

Consequently, either the U.S. will cease its designs on Russia, or there will be WW III. Russia’s sovereignty will never be yielded, especially not to the thuggish gang who have come to rule the U.S. (both as «Republicans» and as «Democrats»). The bipartisan neoconservative dream of America’s aristocrats (world-conquest) will never be achieved. Russia will never accept it. If America’s rulers continue to press it, the result will be even worse than when the Nazis tried. It’s just an ugly pipe-dream, but any attempt to make it real would be even uglier. And nobody who buys a ‘nuclear-proof bunker’ will get what he or she thinks is being bought — safety in such a world as that. It won’t exist.

This article was originally published by Global Research  in February 2010 under the title: Europe’s Five “Undeclared Nuclear Weapons States”.

The media, politicians and scientists have remained silent. The focus was persistently on Iran’s non-existant nuclear weapons.

Amply documented, Belgium, the Netherlands, Germany, Italy and Turkey are in possession of nuclear weapons which are deployed under national command against Russia, Iran and the Middle.

In recent developments, following the failed July 2016 military coup, the media has reported on Turkey’s nuclear weapons stored and deployed at the Incirlik base. 

The US National Resources Defense Council in a February 2005 report confirmed Turkey’s deployment of 90 so-called tactical B61 nuclear weapons, some of which were subsequently decommissioned    

The stockpiling and deployment of tactical B61 in these five “non-nuclear states” are intended for targets in the Middle East. Moreover, in accordance with  “NATO strike plans”, these thermonuclear B61 bunker buster bombs (stockpiled by the “non-nuclear States”) could be launched  “against targets in Russia or countries in the Middle East such as Syria and Iran” (quoted in National Resources Defense Council, Nuclear Weapons in Europe , February 2005, emphasis added) 

The accuracy of the numbers of bombs quoted in the media reports remains to be acertained. Some of the bombs were decommissioned. Some of them may have been replaced with a more recent version including the B61-11. 

It should be emphasized that in the last few years, the Pentagon has developed a more advanced version of the B61, namely the B61-12, which is slated to replace the older versions currently stored and deployed in Western Europe including Turkey. Moreover, a trillion dollar nuclear weapons is now being contemplated by the Pentagon. 

The notion of deterrence has been scrapped  These so-called mini-nukes are intended to be used. Under The Pentagon’s so-called Life Extension Program, the the B61 nuclear weapons are  intended to “remain operational until at least 2025.” 

Does this make Turkey an undeclared nuclear power?

The answer is Yes, but this also applies to four other countries, namely Belgium, The Netherlands, Germany and Italy which also possess B61 nuclear bombs, deployed under national command and targeted at Russia, Iran and the Middle East.

Michel Chossudovsky, July 30,  2016

* * *

“Far from making Europe safer, and far from producing a less nuclear dependent Europe, [the policy] may well end up bringing more nuclear weapons into the European continent, and frustrating some of the attempts that are being made to get multilateral nuclear disarmament,” (Former NATO Secretary-General George Robertson quoted in Global Security, February 10, 2010)

“‘Is Italy capable of delivering a thermonuclear strike?… Could the Belgians and the Dutch drop hydrogen bombs on enemy targets?… Germany’s air force couldn’t possibly be training to deliver bombs 13 times more powerful than the one that destroyed Hiroshima, could it?… Nuclear bombs are stored on air-force bases in Italy, Belgium, Germany and the Netherlands — and planes from each of those countries are capable of delivering them.” (“What to Do About Europe’s Secret Nukes.”Time Magazine, December 2, 2009)

The “Official” Nuclear Weapons States

Five countries, the US, UK, France, China and Russia are considered to be “nuclear weapons states” (NWS), “an internationally recognized status conferred by the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT)”. Three other “Non NPT countries” (i.e. non-signatory states of the NPT) including India, Pakistan and North Korea, have recognized possessing nuclear weapons.

Israel: “Undeclared Nuclear State”

Israel is identified as an “undeclared nuclear state”. It produces and deploys nuclear warheads directed against military and civilian targets in the Middle East including Tehran. Iran There has been much hype, supported by scanty evidence, that Iran might at some future date become a nuclear weapons state. And, therefore, a pre-emptive defensive nuclear attack on Iran to annihilate its non-existent nuclear weapons program should be seriously contemplated “to make the World a safer place”. The mainstream media abounds with makeshift opinion on the Iran nuclear threat. But what about the five European “undeclared nuclear states” including Belgium, Germany, Turkey, the Netherlands and Italy. Do they constitute a threat?

Belgium, Germany, The Netherlands, Italy and Turkey: ”Undeclared Nuclear Weapons States”

While Iran’s nuclear weapons capabilities are unconfirmed, the nuclear weapons capabilities of these five countries including delivery procedures are formally acknowledged. The US has supplied some 480 B61 thermonuclear bombs to five so-called “non-nuclear states”, including Belgium, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands and Turkey.

Casually disregarded by the Vienna based UN Nuclear Watchdog (IAEA), the US has actively contributed to the proliferation of nuclear weapons in Western Europe. As part of this European stockpiling, Turkey, which is a partner of the US-led coalition against Iran along with Israel, possesses some 90 thermonuclear B61 bunker buster bombs at the Incirlik nuclear air base. (National Resources Defense Council, Nuclear Weapons in Europe, February 2005) By the recognised definition, these five countries are “undeclared nuclear weapons states”.

The stockpiling and deployment of tactical B61 in these five “non-nuclear states” are intended for targets in the Middle East. Moreover, in accordance with  “NATO strike plans”, these thermonuclear B61 bunker buster bombs (stockpiled by the “non-nuclear States”) could be launched  “against targets in Russia or countries in the Middle East such as Syria and Iran” ( quoted in National Resources Defense Council, Nuclear Weapons in Europe, February 2005)

Does this mean that Iran or Russia, which are potential targets of a nuclear attack originating from one or other of these five so-called non-nuclear states should contemplate defensive preemptive nuclear attacks against Germany, Italy, Belgium, the Netherlands and Turkey? The answer is no, by any stretch  of the imagination.

While these “undeclared nuclear states” casually accuse Tehran of developing nuclear weapons, without documentary evidence, they themselves have capabilities of delivering nuclear warheads, which are targeted at Iran.  To say that this is a clear case of “double standards” by the IAEA and the “international community” is a understatement.

The stockpiled weapons are B61 thermonuclear bombs.  All the weapons are gravity bombs of the B61-3, -4, and -10 types.2 . Those estimates were based on private and public statements by a number of government sources and assumptions about the weapon storage capacity at each base .(National Resources Defense Council, Nuclear Weapons in Europe , February 2005)

Germany: Nuclear Weapons Producer

Among the five “undeclared nuclear states”, “Germany remains the most heavily nuclearized country with three nuclear bases (two of which are fully operational) and may store as many as 150 [B61 bunker buster ] bombs” (Ibid). In accordance with “NATO strike plans” (mentioned above) these tactical nuclear weapons are also targeted at the Middle East. While Germany is not categorized officially as a nuclear power, it produces nuclear warheads for the French Navy. It stockpiles nuclear warheads (made in America) and it has the capabilities of delivering nuclear weapons.

Moreover, The European Aeronautic Defense and Space Company – EADS , a Franco-German-Spanish  joint venture, controlled by Deutsche Aerospace and the powerful Daimler Group is Europe’s second largest military producer, supplying .France’s M51 nuclear missile. Germany imports and deploys nuclear weapons from the US. It also produces nuclear warheads which are exported to France. Yet it is classified as a non-nuclear state.

globalresearch.ca