Why I am not expecting a World War Three

Eric Zuesse (blogs at https://theduran.com/author/eric-zuesse/)

Earlier today (May 31st), I headlined “U.S. President Biden Now Authorizes Ukraine to Start WW3”, and explained Biden’s strategy to provoke from Russia a response that the U.S. regime can then use in order to ‘justify’ ramping up the U.S. Government’s participation in the war in Ukraine so as to defeat Russia. That article was based upon and cited and linked to an article today from Politico that opened “The Biden administration has quietly given Ukraine permission to strike inside Russia — solely near the area of Kharkiv — using U.S.-provided weapons.” I have since noticed that the Russian Government news-site RT News (which usually I have found to be much more trustworthy than any mainstream ‘news’-medium in the U.S. and its colonies is) is not reporting the narrowness of Biden’s authorization, to cover ONLY in and “near” the Ukrainian City of Kharkov bordering Russia. In fact, one of their news-stories is headlined “NATO ‘lying’ about not allowing Kiev to strike deep inside Russia – Moscow”, and actually the U.S. President (and Commander-in-Chief) controls NATO’s policies; so, RT is giving the impression that Biden’s limiting Ukraine’s authorization to only “near” Kharkiv is probably not real. Another of the RT news-stories is headlined “US officials reveal weapons Ukraine can use to attack deep inside Russia – media”, and it likewise gives the impression that Biden would allow U.S. missiles from Ukraine to be fired into, for example The Kremlin, which is much farther away, not “near” Kharkiv. This story is based upon one from today’s Wall Street Journal, headlining “U.S. Allows Ukraine to Carry Out Limited Strikes Inside Russia With American Weapons: But Washington still rules out use of long-range ATACMS missiles beyond Ukraine’s borders”, and which says that, “The new policy will allow Ukrainian forces to use artillery and fire short-range rockets from Himars launchers against command posts, arms depots and other assets on Russian territory that are being used by Russian forces to carry out its attack on Kharkiv in northeastern Ukraine. But the policy doesn’t give Ukraine permission to use longer-range ATACMS surface-to-surface missiles inside Russia.” So: RT’s headline “US officials reveal weapons Ukraine can use to attack deep inside Russia – media” misrepresents what its source (the WSJ) alleges. Overall, the RT headlines and ‘news’-reports on this particular matter, though claiming to be based upon mainstream U.S. news-reports, are actually misrepresenting what those news-reports are saying, which is: Biden’s newly announced policy does NOT allow Ukraine to use U.S.-supplied missiles to hit and decapitate Russia’s central command (The Kremlin).

Why would RT News be deceiving on this particular matter, when it is normally far more trustworthy than any U.S.-and-allied mainstream news-medium is? RT’s deceiving about this matter is highly irregular for RT. I have a hypothesis to explain this, and it is that Putin’s policy in response to Biden’s has been decided upon and is precisely what it ought to be: to have Russia’s forces in and near Kharkiv switch from their current offense to defense — to hold, but not seek to expand, their current positions in that area. He can devote those resources to increasing offensive operations in other parts of Ukraine instead. (Then, after Russia wins the war that Obama had started in Ukraine, Putin will take control safely over Kharkiv, too.) If he does this, then Biden’s response to that would either be to allow Russia to take however much of Ukraine it will need in order to move the current 317-miles-from-Moscow Ukrainian border, to at least 1,000 miles to Moscow; or else, it would be to announce that the “near” to Kharkiv restriction for Ukraine is cancelled — which would then indeed risk provoking a nuclear attack by Russia against all of NATO. I am not expecting Biden to take he latter course, because if he were, then all of the blame if WW3 results would go to Biden, none to Putin. (Of course, Putin won’t announce this policy; his RT has falsified the matter so as not to inform the U.S. regime prematurely what his response will be.)

I have previously been critical of some of Putin’s strategic decisions, such as here and here. However, no one is perfect, and Putin has an overall track-record of performance, for the people of his nation, that is probably second-to-none in all of Russian history, and he might also be also the current world’s best leader of any nation. It’s a terrific track-record, but not flawless.

UPDATE: I have just listened to today’s analysis of this situation by the person I consider the best of all analysts of international relations, Alexander Mercouris, headlining his hour-and-seventeen-minute-long video commentary, “Zelensky Meltdown; US No Missile Strikes; Rus Storms Volchansk, Krasnogorovka, Ukr Troops Surrender”. As usual, his analysis, though much lengthier than mine and based upon different facts and argument, concurs completely with mine.

—————

Investigative historian Eric Zuesse’s latest book, AMERICA’S EMPIRE OF EVIL: Hitler’s Posthumous Victory, and Why the Social Sciences Need to Change, is about how America took over the world after World War II in order to enslave it to U.S.-and-allied billionaires. Their cartels extract the world’s wealth by control of not only their ‘news’ media but the social ‘sciences’ — duping the public.