Mike Whitney

The New York Times thinks that Putin might use a nuclear weapon in Ukraine, but there is a flaw in the Times’ reasoning. Putin has nothing to gain from a nuclear blast and everything to lose. A nuclear weapon will not help Putin win the war in Ukraine, in fact, it would further deepen Russia’s isolation, strengthen the position of Russia’s enemies, and create a justification for NATO to enter the war. Putin would become a global pariah overnight inviting even harsher economic sanctions and criticism while greatly undermining his prospects for success in Ukraine. Detonating a nuclear device in Ukraine would undoubtedly prove to be the biggest mistake in Putin’s 22 year-long political career.

Only Washington stands to gain from a nuclear explosion in Ukraine because only Washington would benefit from a wider war that involved NATO. But the Times never mentions Washington in its analysis because–according to the Times–the only person capable of such perfidy is Vladimir Putin which strongly suggests that the list of suspects was determined before the article was even written. But, why? Why is the Times’ trying to incriminate Putin for an incident that has not yet taken place and for which other suspects have a clear motive? Is this a preemptive frame-up intended to shape public opinion on some future event? It sure looks like it. Here’s an excerpt from the article:

“The White House has quietly assembled a team of national security officials to sketch out scenarios of how the United States and its allies should respond if Russian President Vladimir Putin — frustrated by his lack of progress in Ukraine or determined to warn Western nations against intervening in the war — unleashes his stockpiles of chemical, biological or nuclear weapons.

The Tiger Team, as the group is known, is also examining responses if Putin reaches into NATO territory to attack convoys bringing weapons and aid to Ukraine, according to several officials involved in the process.” (“U.S. Makes Contingency Plans in Case Russia Uses Its Most Powerful Weapons“, New York Times)​

Notice how the information is presented. The author assumes the tone of an objective and well-informed observer who is imparting his privileged information to 5 million of his closest friends. He provides zero hard-evidence to support his claims nor does he positively identify any of the officials in this elusive “Tiger Team”. In fact, by Sanger’s own admission, the members of this clandestine club only “spoke on the condition of anonymity,” which basically relieves the author of any responsibility to verify his claims.

But let’s ignore the article’s shortcomings for a minute and focus on the central assertion, that “White House has quietly assembled a team of national security officials” to explore the possibility that Putin might use WMD in Ukraine because he is “frustrated”. That seems particularly unlikely, after all, it takes more than a “hunch” about Putin’s mental state to convene a special advisory panel at the highest level of the national security state. So, while it might sound believable within the context of Sanger’s overall storyline, it’s highly improbable. There would have to be some extremely compelling intelligence suggesting that something serious was afoot, like the suspected transfer of nukes to locations closer to the front. That would certainly do the trick; that would precipitate the kind of response that Sanger is talking about, not just someone’s psycho-babble analysis of Putin’s alleged mood-swings. That’s not how government works.

Of course, we cannot prove that Sanger is lying, but the lack of any corroborating evidence or positive identification of the officials involved, coupled with the sketchy assertion that a special “hush-hush” Team was slapped together in response to Putin’s “frustration” makes us suspect that Sanger is not objectively reporting on events but crafting a narrative for some unknown agenda. Even so, we don’t dismiss what he says out-of-hand because the issue of nuclear weapons is too serious to ignore. So, we’ll move on to the next two paragraphs:

“Just a month ago, such scenarios seemed more theoretical. But today, from the White House to NATO’s headquarters in Brussels, a recognition has set in that Russia may turn to the most powerful weapons in its arsenal to bail itself out of a military stalemate.

NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg underscored the urgency of the preparation effort Wednesday, telling reporters for the first time that even if the Russians employ weapons of mass destruction only inside Ukraine, they may have “dire consequences” for people in NATO nations. He appeared to be discussing the fear that chemical or radioactive clouds could drift over the border. One issue under examination is whether such collateral damage would be considered an “attack” on NATO under its charter, which might require a joint military response.” (“U.S. Makes Contingency Plans in Case Russia Uses Its Most Powerful Weapons”, New York Times)

Once again, the author’s analysis draws mainly from conjecture and the incendiary statements of public officials, but where are the facts? So far, there is not a scintilla of evidence to back up Sanger’s claims. Having heard many similar unverified claims in the last few weeks, we have to assume that the allegations may be nothing more than talking points that were conjured up to smear Putin and to lay the groundwork for a false flag operation that could be used to justify NATO’s intervention in the war. Is that Sanger’s real assignment, building a case for NATO intervention?

What is noticeably absent from Sanger’s analysis is the fact that Putin would be the last one to initiate a nuclear attack knowing that any such incident would be used by his enemies to widen the conflict and, possibly, derail the Russian military operation. No, the only people who stand to gain anything are the neocons in the State Department (and their allies in the Intel agencies and media) who see NATO involvement as critical to their geopolitical ambitions. If NATO stays out of the war, Russia wins, it’s that simple. And that is the outcome the neocons want to avoid at all cost. Here’s more:

“These are questions that Europe has not confronted since the depths of the Cold War… and many (leaders) have never had to think about nuclear deterrence or the effects of the detonation of battlefield nuclear weapons, designed to be less powerful than those that destroyed Hiroshima. The fear is that Russia is more likely to use those weapons, precisely because they erode the distinction between conventional and nuclear arms.

Sen. Jack Reed, D-R.I., who heads the Armed Services Committee, said on Wednesday that if Putin used a weapon of mass destruction — chemical, biological or nuclear — “there would be consequences” even if the weapon’s use was confined to Ukraine. Reed said radiation from a nuclear weapon, for instance, could waft into a neighboring NATO country and be considered an attack on a NATO member….” (“U.S. Makes Contingency Plans in Case Russia Uses Its Most Powerful Weapons”, New York Times)

Wait a minute: It wasn’t Putin who withdrew from the Intermediate-range Nuclear Forces treaty (INF) nor did Russia develop an entire new regime of low-yield “usable” nuclear weapons. That was the United States; just like it was the US under Obama that refused to abandon its first-strike policy (National Posture Review) that allows Washington to preemptively use nuclear weapons if it thinks its national security is threatened. So, if we had to hazard a guess about ‘Who might use a nuclear weapon in a false flag operation in Ukraine’, Uncle Sam would top the list.

Uncle Sam’s Grab-bag of “Usable” Nukes 

The only country to use nuclear weapons on a civilian population is back for more

---

Check out this blurb from an article at the Arms Control Association:

“There now is a push to overturn existing U.S. policy barring the development of new nuclear warheads or nuclear weapons for new military missions in order to build new types of “more usable” nuclear weapons. In December 2016, the advisory Defense Science Board recommended the development of a “tailored nuclear option for limited use”… The pursuit of new nuclear weapons, however, would represent a radical reversal of existing U.S. nuclear policy and practice, which stipulates that the “fundamental role of U.S. nuclear weapons is to deter nuclear attack.” (New, ‘More Usable’ Nukes? No, Thanks, Arms Control Association)

He’s right, the “fundamental role of nuclear weapons is to deter nuclear attack,” but that doctrine has changed. In fact, there are a number of fanatics in the Deep State who appear to be looking for the right opportunity to use one of these low-yield nukes. Naturally, this has the Russians quite concerned. Here’s how Russian Deputy Foreign Minister, Sergie Ryabkov, summed it up recently:

“This reflects the fact that the US is actually lowering the nuclear threshold and that they are conceding the possibility of the waging a limited nuclear war and winning this war. This is extremely alarming.” (You Tube)

And here’s one more from Maria Zakharova, Director of Information and Press Department of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation:

“The US arguments for fielding low-yield nuclear warheads is intended to blur the lines between strategic and non-strategic nuclear weapons which inevitably leads to the lowering of the nuclear threshold and the growing threat of nuclear war…. Those who like to theorize about the flexibility of US nuclear capability, must understand in line with Russian Military Doctrine, that such actions (using low-yield nukes) will be seen as warranting retaliatory use of nuclear weapons by Russia.” (“Russia slams US argument for low-yield n-warheads”, You Tube)

It’s not Russia that’s “lowering the nuclear threshold” and making the case that nuclear weapons are “usable”, it’s Washington. And that is why we think there is a constituency in Washington for using a nuclear device in Ukraine.

That’s also why we are spending so much time parsing Sanger’s article which appears to have been maliciously crafted to prepare the public for a false flag operation that will undoubtedly be quickly blamed on Putin.

So, is there a constituency in Washington for usable nukes? Check out this blurb from an article titled “Pentagon Deployment of New, “More Usable” Nuclear Weapon Is a Grave Mistake”:

“The Pentagon argues the weapon is necessary to counter what it says is Russia’s willingness to use low-yield nuclear weapons, first to gain an advantage over the United States and its allies in a regional conflict and secondly, to prevail in such a war…. the stated purpose is to make their use “more credible” in the eyes of U.S. adversaries, which means that they are meant to be seen as “more usable.” (“Pentagon Deployment of New, “More Usable” Nuclear Weapon Is a Grave Mistake“, Just Security)

See what I mean? The Pentagon is making the case that low-yield Nukes–which can blow up a city the size of Hiroshima, and which are already deployed on Trident subs around the world– are “usable”. This is a fundamental change in US Nuclear Doctrine. (which emphasizes “deterrence”) Also, it is wrong to say that Russia has developed low-yield nuclear weapons. That’s not true. Russia’s nukes come in a range of sizes, but they have never explicitly developed nukes with the intention of reducing their impact so they could be used on the battlefield. Russia’s nuclear doctrine ONLY allows the use of nukes if the country faces an existential crisis, that is, if Russia’s very survival is at risk. For Russia, nuclear weapons are the last resort. Here’s more from Sanger’s article:

“A U.S. official said Biden remained adamant about keeping U.S. forces out of Ukraine. But the official said the administration believed it would be misguided not to closely examine the thresholds, if any, under which the president would reverse himself, or to be prepared to deal with the consequences of the use of weapons of mass destruction.

A senior administration official said any use of a “small” tactical nuclear bomb by Russia — even inside Ukraine and not directed at a NATO member — would mean that “all bets are off” on the United States and NATO staying out of the war. But when pushed, the official declined to lay out the responses under discussion.

The official said American and NATO intelligence communities had not seen any activity by Russian military officials that suggested preparations to use a nuclear weapon. But he said that during internal discussions, administration officials were urging caution, because there was more at stake than just Ukraine…” (New York Times)

Repeat: “The official said American and NATO intelligence communities had not seen any activity by Russian military officials that suggested preparations to use a nuclear weapon.”

So, Sanger waits until the very end of his article to tell us what we should have figured out from the very beginning; that he’s got nothing; no facts, no reliable intelligence, and no expert corroboration to support the basic thesis. Nada.

So, what was the purpose of the article if the author could not produce any proof that Putin intends to “unleash his stockpiles of chemical, biological or nuclear weapons”?

The article is an exercise in perception management. That’s all. Sanger’s job is not to produce evidence or convey the truth. His job is to put the seed-thought into peoples’ minds that if a chemical or nuclear attack takes place in Ukraine, the motive and the identity of the perpetrator will have already been revealed by the Times. Sanger is using the power of insinuation and innuendo to divert attention from other, more likely, suspects, (Like Uncle Sam) in order to frame Putin. More importantly, he is building the case for a broader and more violent conflict which, as always, will be spearheaded by the New York Times.

Andrei Martyanov
Reminiscence of the Future...

---

Macron bloviating: all western leaders do.

---

It is not very enviable. An acquaintance of mine who spent a good deal of time around the Atlanticist political top and knows many people there personally sent me his (her) thoughts on the issue of "elites" (I know the identity of this person, which should remain obscured for now) in which notes of this significance appear: 

I saw all these people and many others like John Bolton, etc., and you are absolutely correct in that they are irredeemably obtuse - clever at manipulation of their own populations while driving their empire to ruin even as they fuck up one project after another and label it a triumph, leaving death, misery and disaster in their wake. I'm thankful they are as stupid as they are wicked (evil has that effect over generations), but that is also still dangerous for the rest of us. Regarding the France article, the evil is generational and (in my view) ultimately spiritual in nature. If you examine the Dutroux affair in Belgium, you will find a nexus of NATO, politicians and nobility, satanic cults, high finance, organized crime, media and the Catholic hierarchy, rather like P2/Gladio in Italy, Jimmy Savile and MPs in Britain, or the Franklin pedo scandal in America which also tied in to cults and Iran Contra. In the UK case, London residency of KGB FCD had identified these rings as being under the protection of British intelligence. Similar revelations have also come out of Australia. Not to mention Epstein...It is all extremely dark and people have lost their lives attempting to expose it. That's the nature of the "elite" that rules the crumbling West today. Not many people can handle that all the same.

Well, evidently some French journalists had it with Macron:

ENTRETIEN. Gérard Davet et Fabrice Lhomme : « Nous avons cherché à démasquer Emmanuel Macron » Les journalistes Gérard Davet et Fabrice Lhomme publient, cette semaine, « Le traître et le néant » aux éditions Fayard. Une enquête de 630 pages sur l’accession au pouvoir d’Emmanuel Macron et son quinquennat. « Certains trouveront que l’image renvoyée du Président n’est pas si mauvaise, d’autres qu’elle est accablante », expliquent-ils.

Translation: Gérard Davet and Fabrice Lhomme: "We sought to unmask Emmanuel Macron" The journalists Gérard Davet and Fabrice Lhomme publish, this week, “The traitor and the nothingness” from Editions Fayard. A 630-page investigation into the accession to power of Emmanuel Macron and his five-year term. "Some will find that the returned image of the President is not that bad, others that it is overwhelming," they explain.

The leading nations of the West are lacking in leadership worthy of the name. 

Read the whole thing (use Google Translate) and you will get the idea how human "nothingness"  (an apt definition) do betray their countries. Here is one quote:

The "thing" of Emmanuel Macron is that he is flirtatious, charismatic, clever, making the person in front of him believe that he is the most important in the world. He sends back to his older interlocutors the image of who they were or what they wanted to be. And Brigitte Macron plays a major role in this mechanism. She is present at every important moment.

Yes, they all are--they all are avatars, holograms with zero capabilities to run anything, and still, who is guilty that this kind of human material gets elected? In Macron's case, France. French people--they elected him, they fell for his utter BS and agreed for their country to be finished off. Same goes for the United States--no matter what were the manipulations at the ballot box--the fact that half the country voted for a senile, demented, con-artist and swamp creature--sorry guys, you wanted, you got it. [Not that the vile incumbent nincompoop was much better, both representing essentially the same oligarchy.—Ed] Now live with the consequences. This is how the decline of civilization looks like: perverts, pedophiles and con-artists at the top, ignorant "bread and circuses" masses on the bottom. 

This is the reason why today Vladimir Putin speaking at Valdai reiterated his (and many others') point that: 

“Everyone says that the existing model of capitalism, which is now the basis of the social order in the vast majority of countries, has run out of steam,” Putin said. “There is no longer any way out of the tangle of more and more confusing contradictions.”

Obviously, this is not news to anyone who didn't slumber under the rock for the last 20 years and saw how modern model simply stopped producing real wealth and value. Now we have a new version of FIRE woke capitalism which is a direct path to a complete totalitarianism and a bacchanalia of human depravity, led by people akin to Macron and his ilk. So, expect new Macrons, new Bidens and new Epsteins emerging from the murky depths of the West's political machine. Yes, I know, sounds depressing but it is what it is. Modern West and globalism are one and the same and the rest of the world doesn't like it, and West's departure from its dominant position is one of the indicators that the system doesn't work anymore. There is a lot more to be said about this whole thing but for now I need to run to do some chores, after that we may discuss the issue of China's test of hyper-sonic weapon, which evidently, shook the United States and forced Pentagon to declare:

The U.S. Navy and Army tested hypersonic weapon component prototypes on Wednesday that will inform development of new weapons, the Pentagon said, calling the three tests successful.

Right. "Components" of "prototypes". In related news, the tests of components of the prototypes of apple pies, like flour and apples, have been conducted in a number of households around the world and those tests have been successful, so in the future some apple pies could be baked. As Scott Ritter stated commenting on this launch about US efforts:

Pro hint: It’s not an arms race if one side is spending all the money while losing ground.

I am blunter for the last 10 years: the West lost the arms race because it was preparing for the war which nobody is going to fight. So, it is not just a technological gap, it is doctrinal, and this one is much harder to close. 

Posted by smoothiex12 

ANDREI MARTYANOV is an expert on Russian military and naval issues. He was born in Baku, USSR in 1963. He graduated from the Kirov Naval Red Banner Academy and served as an officer on the ships and staff position of Soviet Coast Guard through 1990. He took part in the events in the Caucasus which led to the collapse of the Soviet Union. In mid-1990s he moved to the United States where he currently works as Laboratory Director in a commercial aerospace group. He is a frequent blogger on the US Naval Institute Blog. He is author of Losing Military Supremacy, The (Real) Revolution in Military Affairs, and Disintegration: Indicators of the Coming American Collapse.

The views expressed herein are solely those of the author and may or may not reflect those of  The Greanville Post. However, we do think they are important enough to be transmitted to a wider audience. 

If you find the above useful, pass it on! Become an "influence multiplier"! 
The battle against the Big Lie killing the world will not be won by you just reading this article. It will be won when you pass it on to at least 2 other people, requesting they do the same. 

The Unmasking of Imperialist Media by Jimmy Dore & Others is Not Just Drama

The always formidable Fiorella Isabel provides an eloquent description of the current hostility between opportunists and fake leftists (the Young Turks and their supporters and sycophants, plus a hefty contingent of pro-imperialism "breadtubers" like Vaush, Skipy the ear, etc.) and the genuine left, led by Jimmy Dore, the tireless folks at The Grayzone (Ben Norton, Aaron Maté, Max Blumenthal, and Anya Parampil), plus Eva Bartlett, Vanessa Beeley, Abby Martin, Lee Camp, Caleb Maupin and others of that caliber and dedication. In this kerfuffle, which is, as Fiorella points out, far from being a superficial and egotistical "drama" about mere personalities but a struggle for the very survival and viability of the genuine anti-imperialist left, many folks, like Kyle Kulinksy and Krystal Ball, are opportunistically sitting on the fence or actually supporting the fake leftists, thereby operating de facto as obstacles to the advance of antiwar forces.

If you find the above useful, pass it on! Become an "influence multiplier"! 
The battle against the Big Lie killing the world will not be won by you just reading this article. It will be won when you pass it on to at least 2 other people, requesting they do the same. 

Rachel Maddow "Is Not News" Says Court Ruling!

Annotated by Patrice Greanville

July 1, 2021

Although both Jimmy Dore and Glenn Greenwald find little to criticize in the judge's ruling, taking it as legal certification of Rachel Maddow's worthlessness as a "news provider", all of them may be missing the point. The judge is acting—in my view— a bit disingenuously. Her opinion packs several errors that vitiate its meaning. No one expects the judge to rule with the depth and precision of a sophisticated media analyst, let alone a genuine left media analyst. But even for those like us on the left happy to find an "official" seal corroborating what we have always said, that Maddow is toxic trash, the judgment obfuscates much more than it elucidates. It is not really helpful to truthseekers fighting the establishment narrative. Consider the following:

---

• 1. The judge underestimates the power of "confirmation bias" and the gullibility factor.  Most Maddow fans—people we could reliably describe as brainwashed liberals suffering from acute Trump derangement syndrome— completely agree with her claims and assertions. They've been primed to do so. Such people do not have, as the judge claims, high discriminatory power, the ability to easily tell ludicrous exaggerations and outright lies from credible statements. They are actually low-info consumers who appear happy swallowing Maddow's river of imperialist lies. 

---

• 2. Maddow and others of her rank and ilk working in "news organizations" in the Western media are not there to provide news but disinformation designed to bolster the credibility of the official narrative propping up the global imperialist system, that is, the rule of a grotesquely small sociopathic and uber rich oligarchy. The judge's ruling, claiming that Maddow and her ilk are "news providers" completely misreads the nature of imperialist mass communications. Using "the news" as a platform for lies is not journalism. 

---

• 3. Maddow and her ilk engage most of the time not just in "exaggerations" but in big lies, complete fabrications. As a rule exaggerations do not negate their basic content.  Hence they cannot be dismissed as incapable of conveying actionable meaning. If I say, "He ate until he burst", I am using hyperbole, but the fact remains that "he" ate a lot.  The Judge errs in letting Maddow off the hook on account of exaggerations. There's a qualitative distinction here, but the important point is that both types of expression—gross exaggeration and outright lies can be used sneakily to commit grand deception. That's why Maddow is first and foremost a dangerous paid propagandist whose underhanded warmongering mission on behalf of the imperialist establishment makes her doubly repugnant and reprehensible. 

—The Editor

If you find the above useful, pass it on! Become an "influence multiplier"! 
The battle against the Big Lie killing the world will not be won by you just reading this article. It will be won when you pass it on to at least 2 other people, requesting they do the same.