‘WWIII’ Media Hype – All Red Herrings

An outrageous deluge of exaggerated WWIII propaganda has hit the networks. Every pundit is tearing their hair out at a slew of canard-riddled reports, taken entirely out of context, deliberately misinterpreted, or pumped up in phony headlines for people who don’t read the actual article contents.

Let’s debunk the three major ones in series:

“Zelensky To Be Given Nukes!”

This comes from a desperate NYT article which quotes the following:

This is either some insider troll-job or just outright amateurishness on behalf of the creative writer. How can Biden return Russian nukes to Ukraine? It doesn’t even make sense and is the most absurd of the current panic-inducing psyops.

Anyway, the fatuous dreck above is worded cleverly to try to make it sound like Biden has already discussed or considered this. Nothing of the sort: the “anonymous official” is merely suggesting it on his own behalf, and trying to pass it off as Biden’s idea. This is merely crude amateur fantasy on behalf of the writer or some no name desk jockey to be dismissed as the leaky refuse it is.

But how did it get so amplified? Simple: when it was rehashed in the infamous “telephone game” in other places, the wording was slightly changed to increasingly reflect that it was the administration itself already deep in talks with providing nukes to Ukraine. Case in point, this ZeroHedge version refers to the same article as above but gives it a far more definitive edge:

“US and European officials have discussed…including providing Kiev with nuclear weapons”—and it links to the very NYT article from above. Yet no where in that article is this “discussed”, rather juvenilely proposed by an “anonymous” writer’s self-insert.

French and UK Troops to Ukraine!

This canard is equally specious. It stems from the very provocatively titled Le Monde article:

The problem is, it’s a total nothingburger. The entire hoopla stems from this one tossed-off answer to a question, from the article:

So, some French Foreign Minister is first asked about the possibility of sending troops and he merely suggests from his own opinion that “no red lines should be set”. That’s it. Just another vague suggestion or some nobody’s unasked for insertion.

In fact, later in the article they attempt to curb expectations by then implying that any such troops would be for a peace keeping force after cessation of hostilities. That’s because Biden signaled to dump the conflict on Europe, and Trump seeks to implement a ceasefire along the contact line—so the thought goes that European troops may have to be sent as a kind of KFOR force.

French and British reflections on this issue echo the scant public information that has filtered through about Trump’s intentions regarding Ukraine, beyond his declared desire to settle the war “in 24 hours”. On November 6, the Wall Street Journal reported the anonymous words of three members of the president-elect’s team. They described a plan whereby, after a ceasefire, the front line could be sealed off with a demilitarized zone, with the support of a peacekeeping force.

Again: totally misleading hogwash to build a psyop mountain-out-of-molehill.

Oops:

European Businesses Told to PREPARE FOR [NUCLEAR] WAR!

Sigh. Another heaping of misrepresented nonsense.

This entire fake stems from a single quote from “Admiral” Rob Bauer, head of the ‘NATO Military Committee’. The irrelevant pipsqueak mewled something along these lines to powder on the phony fear-porn:

The head of the NATO Military Committee, Admiral Rob Bauer, recommended that European businesses prepare and adjust their work with an eye to a possible military conflict with China. A key factor in this conflict will be the role of European businesses in replacing essential services and goods when China ceases to supply them.

China has deposits of 60% of all rare earths and 90% is processed. Also from China, the main suppliers of chemicals for sedatives and anti-inflammatory drugs, antibiotics and medicines for low blood pressure

“We are naive if we think that the Chinese Communist Party will never use this power,” concluded Rob Bauer.

You read that right—he was referring to a future conflict with China—and his dribbling nonsense had nothing whatsoever even to do with the Ukrainian war. But see how easy it is to string together a bunch of disparate canards into one barn-burning ‘Nuclear War’ narrative?

—

There is one somewhat real story along this tack. And that is the NATO Parliamentary Assembly has adopted a resolution which calls to transfer medium range missiles to Ukraine. But this is nothing binding or concrete, merely a kind of performative motion:

NATO Parliamentary Assembly adopted a resolution calling for the transfer of medium-range missiles (1000 – 5500 km) to Ukraine.

Earlier, Zelensky asked the United States Tomahawk.

The resolution, of course, does not oblige to anything, but the verbal escalation continues☝️

For the record, it’s not really possible to transfer Tomahawks to Ukraine. These missiles can only be fired from US warships or nuclear subs. Sure, the new Aegis Ashore ground variant MK 41 VLS tubes can fire them, but there are only two such installations on earth, in Deveselu, Romania, and the new one in Poland. It’s doubtful Ukraine would get one, and even if it did it would be one easy to destroy installation.

Tomahawks represent the US’ Empire’s flagship missile system and last line of defense that is doubtful they’d risk by giving to Ukraine. The US has no other extreme long range missile system like that; LRSO is not out yet, JASSM is sub-1000km (and only in JASSM-ER variant anyway), AGM-129 is retired, and AGM-86 only has long ferry range when counting its delivery craft’s range (B-52, etc.).

So again, this is mostly a nothingburger, although the US is likely considering on giving the JASSM in the closer near to medium term future. But it all depends which variant, the non-extended range variant has roughly 300km range—not very impressive. And again—Ukraine appears terrified of flying its jets anywhere near the Russian border which limits the range even more because they’re forced to fire them from around the Dnieper River.

The US may expand the range of weapons transferred to the Ukrainian Armed Forces. The topic has been raised again that Washington is “close to a decision to transfer JASSM missiles to Ukraine.” It is not yet known which version they plan to transmit – with a range of 360 km or more than 900 km. JASSM is manufactured by Lockheed Martin, which received a new $130 million contract in late summer to increase production of those same missiles. JASSMs are launched from F-16 fighters, which, as is known, are already being used in Ukraine. The conclusion from all this is more than obvious – the destruction of carriers of Western cruise missiles and the destruction of airfield infrastructure – equals the security of Russian cities at an impressive distance from the state border.

CONTINUE READING HERE

************