Oxford Neocon Calls for Disregarding Russia’s “Red Lines”

He has called for an aggressive push for WWIII and nuclear armageddon

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.


Nigel Gould-Davies has penned an op-ed in The New York Times calling for the disregard of Russia’s red lines. He has called for an aggressive push for WWIII and nuclear armageddon.

Gould-Davies is an Oxford academic and member of the shady Integrity Initiative, a British deep state project designed to substitute facts with convenient lies and smear counter-narrative individuals. It is a NATO and Institute for Statecraft project, the latter exposed in 2018 as “a UK deep faction obsessed by permanent war mentality promoting a new cold war against Russia,” according to WikiSpooks.

The registered headquarters of the outfit is an abandoned mill in Fife, Scotland, and its leader, Christopher Nigel Donnelly, a former adviser to Margaret Thatcher, served as special adviser to the secretary general of NATO. Donnelly is wedded to the idea of confronting Russia, no matter the prospect of world war and nuclear annihilation.

According to Gould-Davies, Russia’s red lines exist to be violated.

Concerns about Russia’s “red lines” are driven above all by the fear that Russia might resort to nuclear escalation. The West should avert this by deterring Russia rather than by restraining itself — or pressuring Ukraine to do so — for fear of “provoking” Russia. It can do so by communicating the certainty of severe consequences should Russia use nuclear weapons. Russia has tried and failed to impose red lines with nuclear threats several times since the war began — most recently in November, when Ukrainian forces liberated Kherson just six weeks after Vladimir Putin had declared it part of Russia. Ukraine and the West rightly rejected these bluffs, and should continue to do so.

First and foremost, regardless of what the propaganda media claims, Russia was not defeated in Kherson. It decided in early November to pull its troops from the right bank of the Dnieper River and the regional capital of Kherson. “The Defense Ministry explained that it wants to avoid unnecessary losses among its forces and spare the lives of civilians,” RT reported. Russia engaged in a strategic retreat in fear the ultranats would blow up the Kakhovskaya hydroelectric dam and flood the city.

In the West, this was reported as Russia running away with its tail tucked, licking its wounds, frustrated by the loss of Kherson, which the war propaganda media celebrated as a turning point in the war. The Russian-orchestrated humanitarian evacuation of civilians is reported as mass abduction.

Nigel Gould-Davies urges the USG and its partners to march with hobnail boots right over Putin’s red lines.

America should focus on three things. First, it should no longer declare that there are measures it will refrain from taking [violating red lines], and weapons systems it will not provide, to support Ukraine. To signal unilateral restraint is to make an unforced concession. Worse, it emboldens Russia to probe for, and try to impose, further limits on U.S. action—making the war more, not less, risky.

In other words, Gould-Davies is calling for total war, apparently incapable of realizing radical escalation will result in nuclear war, as Russia has said it will resort to the use of nukes if its existence is threatened.  Russia never said it would use nukes in Ukraine. There is no evidence it ever said this. The war propaganda media exists on lies and deception. Donbas and Crimea are no longer part of Ukraine. The people voted to exit the nazified Ukrainian state.

Second, America, with its partners, must make clear that time is working against Russia — not in its favor, as Mr. Putin still believes. The West should demonstrate readiness to mobilize, and quickly, its huge economic superiority to enable Ukraine to defeat Russia and to impose further severe sanctions. The military and economic costs to Russia will drain its far more limited resources and place greater strains on the regime.

In order for this to even approach success (and it does not), the USG would need to mobilize hundreds of thousands of troops and move assets into place, an effort that would take months. As it now stands, the USG can’t provide enough war materiel to match Russia.

As an example of the effectiveness of the USG’s military, consider Afghanistan. Trillions were spent, and the USG is now back to square one with the Taliban resuming power after two decades.

Sanctions are not crippling Russia, never mind war propaganda lies to the contrary.

Anti-Russian sanctions aren’t having the devastating effect the West hoped they would, and haven’t served to collapse Russia’s economy, German media have reported, citing economic data for the current year and projections for 2023.

Deutschlandfunk, the German version of NPR, “expressed hopes that the dragging out of the conflict in Ukraine would cause Russia the economic pain that sanctions apparently haven’t,” according to Russia’s Sputnik International.

More to the point, supposedly public media in Germany looks forward to additional death and misery as a way to punish Russia for its insistence on national security, which an Oxford neocon argues is there to be violated, never mind the risk of thermonuclear war.

It really is a form of mental illness, the inability to perceive what sort of response Russia will take if its national security is violated. If Nigel Gould-Davies believes Putin will be overthrown and Russia will suffer an ignoble defeat—and this is, after all, the primary objective, as stated by sec. of state Blinken—he is seriously out of touch with reality. Russians will defend their homeland, as they did against the Nazis during the Great Patriotic War, at a cost of more than 26 million dead.

The USG and Europe will pursue this war at their own peril. Europe especially, now as it enters winter with an energy crisis, exacerbated by the idiotic decision to not buy Russian natural gas to heat their homes and run their industries.

Of course, it wasn’t the people who made this decision, but their “leaders,” the same sort of sociopaths now running the USG, all seriously deluded by their own hubris and, as is usually the case with careerist politicians, psychopathic belief in an inviolable and “indispensable” state run by a self-serving financial elite.

Here is my New Year’s wish. Gould-Davies and his fellow neocons and humanitarian interventionists—Biden, Blinken, Austin, every member of the uniparty congress, every bureaucrat in the state department and Pentagon—be sent to Donetsk to witness firsthand the relentless, non-stop bombardment by neo-Nazis of civilian neighborhoods. All should be forced to see the shrapnel-mangled bodies of the victims, many of the dead women and children.


Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

This article was originally published on the author’s blog site, Kurt Nimmo on Geopolitics.

Kurt Nimmo is a regular contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from the author

Towards a World War III Scenario: The Dangers of Nuclear War” 

by Michel Chossudovsky

Available to order from Global Research! 

ISBN Number: 978-0-9737147-5-3
Year: 2012
Pages: 102

PDF Edition:  $6.50 (sent directly to your email account!)

Michel Chossudovsky is Professor of Economics at the University of Ottawa and Director of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG), which hosts the critically acclaimed website www.globalresearch.ca . He is a contributor to the Encyclopedia Britannica. His writings have been translated into more than 20 languages.


“This book is a ‘must’ resource – a richly documented and systematic diagnosis of the supremely pathological geo-strategic planning of US wars since ‘9-11’ against non-nuclear countries to seize their oil fields and resources under cover of ‘freedom and democracy’.”
John McMurtry, Professor of Philosophy, Guelph University

“In a world where engineered, pre-emptive, or more fashionably “humanitarian” wars of aggression have become the norm, this challenging book may be our final wake-up call.”
-Denis Halliday, Former Assistant Secretary General of the United Nations

Michel Chossudovsky exposes the insanity of our privatized war machine. Iran is being targeted with nuclear weapons as part of a war agenda built on distortions and lies for the purpose of private profit. The real aims are oil, financial hegemony and global control. The price could be nuclear holocaust. When weapons become the hottest export of the world’s only superpower, and diplomats work as salesmen for the defense industry, the whole world is recklessly endangered. If we must have a military, it belongs entirely in the public sector. No one should profit from mass death and destruction.
Ellen Brown, author of ‘Web of Debt’ and president of the Public Banking Institute   

Comment on Global Research Articles on our Facebook page

Become a Member of Global Research

Articles by: Kurt Nimmo

Disclaimer: The contents of this article are of sole responsibility of the author(s). The Centre for Research on Globalization will not be responsible for any inaccurate or incorrect statement in this article. The Centre of Research on Globalization grants permission to cross-post Global Research articles on community internet sites as long the source and copyright are acknowledged together with a hyperlink to the original Global Research article. For publication of Global Research articles in print or other forms including commercial internet sites, contact: [email protected]

www.globalresearch.ca contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of "fair use" in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than "fair use" you must request permission from the copyright owner.

For media inquiries: [email protected]