AP Admits Erroneously Reporting Russian Attack on Poland
False flag or accidental missile strike on Polish border identified in 2019 simulation as possible spark for a nuclear war with Russia. Do the hawks in Washington want nuclear war?
By John Leake
On March 4, 2022, Harry J. Kazianis—director of defense studies at the Center for the National Interest in Washington DC—wrote a provocative piece in the Federalist titled, “Nato Intervention in Ukraine Could Spark Nuclear War. Here’s How It Could Happen.”
Yesterday I was reminded of this article when I saw reports of a purportedly Russian missile strike just inside of Polish territory. Though I sensed that this report was probably false, I still found it frightening, because it is precisely such an attack that was identified as THE SPARK for nuclear war in a 2019 simulation described by Mr. Kazianis.
The Spark
Here is where things take a turn for the worst. A Russian ballistic missile’s guidance system fails and crash-lands into NATO member Poland, killing 34 civilians as it tragically lands into a populated village along the Polish-Ukraine border. While the missile was not directed at Poland intentionally, pictures on social media show children crying for their mothers and bodies left unrecognizable, and demands for justice and revenge mount.
From here the situation rapidly escalates, leading inexorably to a nuclear exchange that kills a billion people.
As I suspected, the AP Report was false, as AP admitted in today’s Correction (see below).
I wasn’t at all surprised to read in the correction that the missile was “most likely fired by Ukraine in defense against a Russian attack.” The question of why Ukrainian forces fired a missile towards Poland without proper guidance is apparently not being asked by our mainstream media, and perhaps not even by whoever is calling the shots of US-Nato policy in Ukraine.
What concerns me is that THE SPARK identified in the 2019 simulation is well-known to people in Ukraine who seem to be doing everything in their power to induce direct Nato involvement in the war with Russia.
I also question the wisdom of printing such highly inflammatory reports based on the verbal assurances of “a senior American intelligence official who spoke on condition of anonymity.”
Aren’t WE THE PEOPLE tired of being misinformed and manipulated by senior intelligence officials who speak on condition of anonymity?
After the abysmal performance of our intelligence and military establishments in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, and Libya, aren’t WE THE PEOPLE tired of our country being dragged into wars thousands of miles from our territory—wars that kill and maim hundreds of thousands, achieve nothing, and even make matters worse?
Now we’re not talking about ISIS maniacs being unleashed on Iraq after the US pulls out, or Afghanistan given back to the Taliban after twenty years of US blood and treasure was spilled in that godforsaken country. Now we’re talking about the dramatically elevated risk of nuclear war with Russia.
Is it possible that certain hawks in Washington want nuclear war with Russia?
 | A guest post by
|
In response to a reader comment, I (John Leake) would like to add the following to my original post in which I posed the question: "Is it possible that certain hawks in Washington want nuclear war with Russia?" To be sure, I do NOT know if certain persons in Washington WANT nuclear war, but I've seen zero evidence of anyone in our government making any effort to deescalate this conflict and seek a negotiated settlement. The doctrine of "unconditional surrender" (urged by Stalin and adopted by Roosevelt and Churchill) against Nazi Germany is now apparently considered the ONLY acceptable doctrine in warfare, but I doubt the rationality of this. Whoever is in charge of our government seems to think that --with an endless supply of Nato weaponry and training going to Ukraine --Ukraine will succeed in pushing Russia out of the eastern territories and Crimea. But is this a truly realistic assumption? Likewise, it is safe to assume that if Putin's back is to the wall, he won't use a tactical (battlefield) nuclear weapon to defend his position? I keep hearing that he stands too far outside of civilized norms to be a negotiating partner, so what is the basis for the assumption he won't use a tactical nuke if his back is to the wall? It reminds me of the assumption that Saddam Hussein DID possess WMD, but would NOT use them against an invading US military. Per the simulation referenced in the Federalist article, it is well understood in military circles that war is a very unpredictable business that can rapidly and unexpectedly escalate. Accidents, miscommunications, and miscalculations may happen, with terrible, unforeseen consequences. Our military establishment knows this, but apparently considers the territorial integrity of Ukraine to be so vital to the interests of the American citizenry that it warrants an all or nothing approach with Russia, even if it means placing the American citizenry at an elevated risk of nuclear war. Finally, the you will note that my post is animated with a general spirit of distrust of the US government and mainstream media. The conduct of our government in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, and Libya--not to mention its catastrophic pandemic response --caused me to lose faith in its prudence and competence.
That was the Ukraine plan! Even the claim of Ukraine firing the missiles because of an incoming Russian missile is false. The goal was to use the missiles as a false flag to draw NATO in, but too many are wising up to the lies coming out of Ukraine and the media! A lot less people fell for this one and it was debunked almost right away. What’s telling is those people with the data available to them knew that it was Ukraine all along, but still threw shade on Russia!