The Empire of Lies has an alarming combination of propaganda this week. We are seeing the claim that there are various nuclear, biological, and chemical risks associated with the war in the Ukraine – either that the Russians will deliberately cause a nuclear or biological disaster, or that they will use chemical weapons. We’ve seen this sort of nonsense before with Iraq and Syria and probably a dozen other examples I am forgetting.
The narrative goes like this:
Russia is losing the war in the Ukraine. They may only be able to fight for another two weeks. In their desperation, they may turn to the use of classes of weapons that would trigger direct NATO involvement in the war.
See this Daily Mail article:
“Russian forces may only be able to sustain full fighting capacity for ten to 14 days, UK defence sources said”
“But, as Russia’s invasion falters, its methods become more brutal – with cities increasingly coming under indiscriminate rocket fire. Kyiv, the capital, suffered another round of bombing on Tuesday morning as apartment blocks were set on fire by early-hours strikes, though there was no immediate figure on casualties.”
Tony Blair says:
“The next two weeks may be the last chance to achieve a negotiated settlement before the assault on Kyiv becomes worse, the Ukrainian people become hostile to any negotiation, or Putin faces a binary choice between “double down” or retreat.”
And the current Secretary-General of NATO (the highest office) Jens Stoltenberg, says:
“We are concerned Moscow could stage a false flag operation in Ukraine, possibly with chemical weapons.”
Is he saying that Russia is going to pretend that the Ukranians used chemical weapons? That seems to be what he is saying, which seems utterly insane, but I don’t know how else to interpret it. Why would Russia even consider doing that?
Watch for a false flag in Kharkov in particular, which is adjacent to the largest pocket of Ukranian military regulars, and the city that the Russians are having the most trouble encircling. I’m not predicting that there will be a false flag – I am pointing out that a “““credible””” narrative is being set up in advance to explain why the Russians used chemical weapons. It keeps the option of a false flag on the table, which is the kind of casus belli NATO requires to enter the war. To me, all this “two weeks/ fourteen days” stuff is basically telegraphing the timeline for the false flag, especially since everyone from Tony Blair to the chief of NATO is saying it at exactly the same time, along with “sources” in British intelligence. If there is no false flag, then they will probably periodically release stories like this, just to keep the option on the table.