Accusations of Disinformation Regarding Ukraine

US Secretary of State Antony Blinken Accuses Russia of Propaganda

Last week, US Secretary of State Antony Blinken, during a series of meetings in various European NATO countries, accused Russian propaganda programs of spreading misleading information about US intentions to escalate the conflict in Ukraine. This alleged escalation would involve allowing Ukraine's military to use long-range US missiles to strike targets up to 200 miles within Russia's borders. This is something the Biden administration had previously not allowed, due to the fear that it could lead to a larger, potentially nuclear, war. However, Blinken's accusations were not entirely truthful. At the time he was accusing Russia of dishonesty, he was aware that President Biden had already decided to authorize Ukraine to strike Soviet air bases, missile launch sites, and troop concentrations well within Russia's borders using US-supplied missiles.

The Truth Revealed

This truth was revealed by Politico in a report published on May 30th. The report disclosed the secret decision by President Biden, which was made following intense lobbying by US National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan, Secretary Blinken, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, and various Ukrainian military leaders. Since the beginning of Russia's invasion of Ukraine over two years ago, Biden had made it clear that no US troops would be sent to fight for Ukraine, and no US weapons would be used against Russian territory. The intention was to avoid any actions that could risk turning the conflict into a direct battle between US and Russian forces, due to the potential for nuclear warfare.

Why the Change in Policy?

The question then arises as to why Biden suddenly decided to take the first steps up the "nuclear ladder" of escalating conflict. The answer appears to be that Ukraine has begun losing the war. The country is running out of ammunition and anti-aircraft missiles, is short of troops, and is facing a mass exodus of draft-age men due to recently expanded conscription efforts. Furthermore, it is losing ground around Kharkiv, Ukraine's second-largest city located near the Russian border in eastern Ukraine. In addition, it has become clear that the US weapons supplied to Ukraine, including some widely banned ones like anti-personnel shells, rockets, bombs, and depleted uranium shells, have not been as effective against Russian forces as initially hoped.

The Terrifying Reality

The reality of attacking Russian targets, not just in Russian territory close to Kharkiv but potentially much further inside Russia, is nothing short of terrifying. Russia has a nuclear arsenal of ICBM missiles and nuclear warheads that closely matches the US's in terms of number and destructive power. For 75 years, since the Soviet Union successfully tested its first nuclear bomb in August 1949, this rough parity has prevented the use of any third nuclear weapon against another nation since the bombing of Nagasaki on Aug. 9, 1945.

The "Escalation Ladder"

The concept of the "escalation ladder" comes into play in this situation. In war games played by Pentagon strategists, one country, its forces pinned down and in danger of losing, launches a "small" so-called tactical nuke. This presents the other side with a bleak choice: sue for peace, or respond in kind with a nuclear shot targeting the other side. The process of ascending the escalation ladder in these games can be quite rapid, moving from bigger and deadlier back-and-forth exchanges to a full-scale nuclear apocalypse within hours or days.

Public Perception and Potential Consequences

Most ordinary people are aware of this instinctively, which is why Biden tried to keep his decision to change his policy and allow Ukraine to start using US-supplied weapons to hit Russian targets a secret from the US public. However, what if Ukraine gets longer-range US missiles and then takes shots at critical targets deep inside Russia despite a lack of US approval?

Final Thoughts

Consider this experiment, suggested by Noam Chomsky and the late Edward Herman: take a story in the US media about the US approving Ukraine's use of US longer-range missile to strike military targets deep inside Russia. Now wherever you see Russia, substitute US, and wherever you see US, substitute Russia. And for good measure, where it says Ukraine, replace it with Cuba or Venezuela. Now read it and see if you think you’d ever see that article in a US newspaper or magazine. The idea of the US sending rockets to Ukraine to do exactly that to Russia is presented in the American news media as perfectly logical and safe. But what could possibly go wrong? What are your thoughts on this matter? Share this article with your friends and sign up for the Daily Briefing, which is every day at 6pm.