Featured Image
 Ivan Marc/Shutterstock

(LifeSiteNews) — Last weekend Russia’s defense minister made a flurry of calls to his counterparts in the U.S., Turkey, France, and the U.K., warning that the Volodymyr Zelensky regime in Ukraine would soon commit a false flag attack utilizing a radioactive detonation. This would have the purpose of falsely blaming Russia and inciting a massive U.S.-led intervention in the war.

Such a significant incident on the world stage might also serve to disrupt the important midterm elections in the United States.

As would be expected, whether this charge was true or not, the U.S., France, and the U.K. issued a joint statement rejecting the allegation, calling it “transparently false,” and warning Russia against using it for the purpose of escalation in the region.

But are these allegations credible? Might it be possible that the neoconservatives with the Deep State, their Ukrainian patrons, and media allies, may be planning such an event to generate a cause for direct armed conflict between U.S. forces and Russia?

Let’s review the facts.

In his contacts with his counterparts in these four other nations, Russian Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu voiced concern about “possible Ukrainian provocations involving a ‘dirty bomb,’” which utilizes conventional explosives to scatter radioactive waste. While this device doesn’t have the force of a nuclear weapon, it is designed to contaminate broad areas with radiation.

Shoigu’s call with U.S. Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin was the second in three days, which is notable given these defense chiefs had gone several months without speaking. While no details of the call were provided by Moscow, the Russian Ministry of Defense did report that Shoigu’s conversations with French Defense Minister Sebastien Lecornu, Turkish Minister of Defense Hulusi Akar, and U.K. Minister of Defense Ben Wallace, detailed concerns about “possible provocations by Ukraine with the use of a ‘dirty bomb.’”

The readout from the U.S. Department of Defense stated, “Secretary Austin rejected any pretext for Russian escalation and reaffirmed the value of continued communication,” indicating an expectation that Russia would soon be initiating a broader invasion.

On Monday, Russia’s Commander of Nuclear, Biological, and Chemical Defense, General Igor Kirillov, reiterated Shoigu’s warning, providing a broader explanation. He stated that the use of such a device by Ukraine would have “a purpose to accuse Russia of using the weapons of mass destruction on the Ukrainian theater of war. It will trigger worldwide a massive anti-Russian campaign aimed to undermine the trust in Moscow.”

He also claimed the Kremlin had information indicating “two Ukrainian institutions are commissioned to build a so-called ‘dirty bomb.’ The works are in the final stage now. We have information about contacts of Ukraine president’s office with U.K. representatives of prospects of receiving technologies for the production of nuclear weapons.”

“According to the plans of the Kiev regime, a detonation of such a nuclear device could be disguised for a spontaneous explosion of Russian low-yield nuclear weapons charged with highly enriched uranium. By means of provocation deploying the ‘dirty bomb,’ Ukraine wants to terrify the local population, to increase the exodus of refugees (to Europe), and present the Russian Federation as a nuclear terrorist,” Kirillov said.

As previously noted, the foreign ministers of the U.S., France, and the U.K. issued a joint statement on Monday stating “we all reject Russia’s transparently false allegations that Ukraine is preparing to use a dirty bomb on its own territory. The world would see through any attempt to use this allegation as a pretext for escalation. We further reject any pretext for escalation by Russia.”

Narrative that Russia may use a ‘tactical’ nuke is ‘ridiculous’

For several months western media — which by all appearances work very closely with Washington’s “Deep State” — have advanced the notion that Russia may use, or is even planning to employ, “tactical nuclear weapons” in the Ukraine war theater. But retired U.S. Colonel Douglas Macgregor, who has often been a guest on Fox News and other outlets, stated that this narrative is “ridiculous.”

When asked in an October 17 interview what he thought the chances were of a nuclear war developing, the decorated combat veteran answered, “Non-existent, unless we [the U.S.] employ a nuclear weapon.”

“There is no evidence of the Russians preparing to use nuclear weapons, whatsoever. No nuclear warheads in sight, nothing being moved forward. [It’s] out of the question,” Macgregor emphasized.

“Putin has repeatedly said… that nuclear weapons are exclusively for retaliatory purposes. In other words, ‘If we are struck with a nuclear weapon, we will retaliate.’ So, the notion that he has any plans for that is ridiculous,” Macgregor added.

Additionally, the Pentagon also confirmed on Monday that they “have no indications that the Russians have made a decision to employ nuclear weapons.”

“Secondly,” Macgregor continued, “if [Putin has] never used more than 20 percent of his ground force — and we haven’t even looked at the Air Force and the rocket forces, and everything else he has at his disposal — what makes anyone think that he would feel the need to use a nuclear weapon?”

“Today, the conventional armaments at his disposal, these warheads on these missiles and rockets, are so devastating and so precise, there’s no longer a requirement for a nuclear warhead” to guarantee the striking of a specific desired target, he said.

Russian doctrine on use of nuclear weapons is only for retaliatory and existential defense

The Russian doctrine for the use of nuclear weapons is spelled out clearly in a 2020 update of their policy, which, according to Russian news outlet RT, states it could only be done “in response to the use of nuclear and other weapons of mass destruction against Russia or its allies,” as well as “in response to a conventional attack that threatens the very existence” of Russia as a sovereign state.

“None of these hypothetical scenarios is relevant to the situation in Ukraine,” summarized Russian diplomat Andrey Belousov at a United Nations conference in August.

In face of Western allegations that Moscow has been threatening to use nuclear weapons against Ukraine, Russian officials have repeatedly responded that the Kremlin will only use nuclear weapons according to their policy above and called such accusations to the contrary “untenable and baseless,” “absurd,” and “unscrupulous,” being unable to “stand up to any criticism.”

One basis provided for these Western charges is a statement made by Putin during his September 21 speech wherein he ordered his nation’s first military mobilization since World War II: “If the territorial integrity of our country is threatened,” he said, “we will without doubt use all available means to protect Russia and our people – this is not a bluff.”

Though this statement has been widely interpreted as a “nuclear threat” in the west, it is not only consistent with the simple right of self-defense that any nation should be expected to employ, but it also plainly does not contradict the Kremlin’s doctrine on the use of nuclear weapons for retaliatory and existential defense purposes only.

In fact, the U.S. government’s policy is significantly more aggressive, stating they refuse “to countenance the promise to not use nuclear weapons as a first-strike option” in order to keep adversaries “guessing whether the U.S. would ever employ its nuclear weapons.”

This U.S. posture manifested itself as recently as Tuesday when U.S. Deputy Secretary of State Wendy Sherman warned North Korea that use of nuclear weapons against them was an option, and she listed it first: “We will use the full range of U.S. defense capabilities to defend our allies, including nuclear, conventional, and missile defense capabilities.”

Zelensky still presses Russia nuke-threat narrative and demands public commitments from West for ‘immediate military response’

Yet, despite all of this, Ukrainian president Zelensky, with the assistance of the Western media, has oddly been promoting the expectation that Russia may utilize a nuclear weapon in this conflict, and demanding the West make commitments on how they will respond.

For example, in April Zelensky told CNN’s Jake Tapper that “all of the countries of the world” should be prepared for such an event. On October 6, he warned that Putin would not be able “to preserve his own life” if Russia used nuclear weapons against Ukraine, and just last Friday he persisted in imploring the world to make public commitments that Russia’s use of such a weapon “would be met with an immediate military response.”

In September, Zelensky’s senior aide Mykhailo Podolyak sought an even greater pledge encouraging a full nuclear exchange under such a scenario. He stated, “The other nuclear states need to say very firmly that as soon as Russia even thinks of carrying out nuclear strikes on… Ukraine — there will be swift retaliatory nuclear strikes to destroy the nuclear launch sites in Russia.”

It is reasonable to ask if the Zelensky regime, along with the neocons and their Western media and Deep State allies, are advancing this nuclear threat narrative and demanding retaliatory military commitments so that, when such a false flag detonation may occur, it will be sufficiently accepted by the public, and Western powers will be engaged to enter the war on Ukraine’s behalf.

Flashback: In 2013 after making his ‘red line’ commitment, Obama was pressured strongly by neocons and the media to bomb Syria following a false flag sarin gas attack

Such desired verbal commitments are reminiscent of U.S. President Barack Obama’s “red line” statement in August 2012 that should Syria’s Bashar al-Assad employ chemical weapons in his war against Syrian (ISIS) rebel forces, this would change his “equation” regarding direct U.S. intervention in this civil war.

According to a 2016 analysis by former CIA officer Ray McGovern it just so happened that one year after Obama’s pledge, a sarin nerve-gas attack occurred outside Damascus, killing hundreds of people. Though the Western media relentlessly began pressing the case that this attack came from al-Assad, crossing Obama’s “red line,” alternative sources provided “persuasive proof that Syrian rebels supported by Turkish intelligence” bore responsibility for the attack which had “all the earmarks of a false-flag.”

McGovern went on to say that “Obama smelled a rat – or rather he sensed a mousetrap,” and “disappointed many of Washington’s neocons and liberal war hawks, including those in his own administration, by deferring action” and sending the issue to Congress.

Interestingly, it was Putin who stepped in at this point and offered Obama a peaceful solution to the crisis by arranging for Syria to give up their chemical weapons.

In response, McGovern writes, the neoconservatives became “irate” at Putin’s thwarting of their enormous pressure on Obama to order the military strikes on Syria and they “felt cheated out of their almost-war.”

McGovern, who spent his career as a Russian specialist, at times providing briefings to U.S. presidents, explained that the neocons responded by immediately moving in earnest to “make Putin pay for his interference six months later” by initiating the current crisis in “promoting an anti-Russian putsch in Ukraine.”

These same neocons McGovern refers to as “mousetrap setters” are leading players today in conducting the current proxy war campaign against Putin on behalf of the Biden regime. Secretary of State Anthony Blinken and Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs, Victoria Nuland, are two of the prominent names who were involved in the 2014 putsch, and it is widely understood that American diplomatic and defense experts are in constant contact with Ukrainian officials, including Zelensky.

Neocons ‘capable of anything,’ projected and celebrated ‘unimaginably reckless’ destruction of Nord Stream pipeline

“Mousetrap setter” Nuland came under scrutiny in late September as having projected in advance the destruction of the Nord Stream pipeline in January, asserting that “If Russia invades Ukraine, one way or another, Nord Stream 2 will not move forward.”

Nuland has been identified as a prominent player in a powerful network of policy influencers and office holders who have made continual deliberate decisions for at least 25 years – but most earnestly since the Biden regime took power – to provoke Russia into a military confrontation with the West.

Covering the Nord Stream bombing in late September, Fox News host Tucker Carlson called Nuland “a lifelong war cheerleader. She worked to bring about the Iraq invasion, never apologized, kept going. She helped engineer the [2014] coup that overthrew the Ukrainian government some years back. So, clearly, she’s capable of anything.”

In demonstrating that Biden himself and his regime promised to end Nord Stream, and that other players like Russia and Germany were plainly damaged by the attack, Carlson said that if the administration was indeed responsible for this sabotage “it would be one of the craziest, most destructive things any American administration has ever done, but it would also be totally consistent with what they do.”

“[And] what do they do? They destroy. These people build nothing, not one thing. Instead, they tear down and they desecrate: from historic statues to the Constitution to energy infrastructure, and no one in Congress is trying to stop any of it.”

The blowing-up of Nord Stream, he said, is “an unimaginably reckless act… the kind of thing that you would do if you wanted to start a nuclear war.”

Though the destruction of the pipeline is expected to cause famine and freezing across Europe this winter, fellow neoconservative “mousetrap setter” Blinken proposed a benefit for the West’s war campaign, calling it “a tremendous opportunity to once and for all remove the dependence on Russian energy and thus to take away from Vladimir Putin the weaponization of energy as a means of advancing his imperial designs.”

Russia’s ‘dirty bomb’ allegation ‘entirely plausible,’ Ukraine must ‘get the Western powers directly involved in the war’

In one analysis, a British commentator on The Duran YouTube channel, Alexander Mercouris, acknowledged the “endless [media] spin over the last months about the Russians using tactical nuclear weapons,” in contrast to the Kremlin’s repeated affirmation that they have no intention of using such weapons at all.

Matching these factors with “Zelensky’s comments which are very disturbing” and the fact that “Ukraine has the capacity [to construct a ‘dirty bomb’],” one can conclude, he said, that Russia’s allegation is “not impossible” but in fact “entirely plausible.”

This becomes even more clear “given what Ukraine has been trying to do ever since the war started, [which is] to get the Western powers directly involved in the war. That’s the only way, realistically, that they can win this war,” Mercouris observed.

“So [detonate a] dirty bomb, [blame it on Russia], provoke a reaction from the West, draw the West into the conflict. You can see that that might be something that somebody in Kiev, perhaps Zelensky, perhaps his media advisers, even his military advisers, might be contemplating,” he said.

“And I have to be frank. It’s the kind of thing that I can imagine, very easily, some people in Ukraine doing,” Mercouris said. Furthermore, “I can imagine [the neocons] hatching some sort of crazy scheme like this. And it’s not impossible because undoubtedly some of them are talking to people in Ukraine or Ukrainians all the time.”

Potential Ukraine false flag meant to put ‘Republicans on the defensive’ just prior to election

And should such a tragedy occur, its timing to impact what many patriotic analysts see as the most important midterm elections in our lifetime, couldn’t be better.

In June, feminist author and journalist Naomi Wolf issued a dire warning that “November [2022] is going to be a very dangerous month in America.”

“I say this as a political consultant: there is no way these people [the Democrats] are acting like there’s going to be midterm [elections]. They’re acting like there’s never going to be accountability. There’s never going to be investigations. They’re never going to be impeached,” she said in an interview with Dr. Joseph Mercola.

“If I were to bet, I would bet the midterms will be dramatically compromised, if not taken off the table altogether, or made cursory,” she said. “I mean, these people will stop at nothing and I’m literally afraid of a nuclear attack. I’m afraid the war in Ukraine will be the proxy or the rationale for an attack on the whole land. It’ll be blamed on Russia, but it could be [done by] anyone.”

Former state senator in Virginia and pro-life and pro-family hero Richard Black recently affirmed in an interview that he believed Russia’s warning regarding the “dirty bomb” attack by Ukraine was correct, which “would [also] tie directly into the elections taking place.”

“I believe that the plan is a false flag intended to be blamed on Russia, in order to inflame public opinion against Russia, just as the elections are about to be held, putting the Republicans on the defensive because they have been calling for peace,” he said.

Black continued to observe that “there is no circumstance under which Russia would do anything dramatic like this just days before the [U.S.] election.” This is the case since “the party that is more reasonable towards them, in their view,” currently has “tremendous momentum” and even a minor event could assist the Democrats who are probably “opposed to [Russia’s] continued existence as a nation.”

Narrative of Russian nuke-attack continues; Petraeus projects a triggering of US military intervention

Contributing to the Western narrative that the Russians may use a nuclear weapon in Ukraine is disgraced former CIA director and retired U.S. Army General David Petraeus who spoke out in early October raising expectations in the public that a Russian nuclear attack may very well happen.

If such an event did occur, he said, “we would respond by leading a NATO – a collective – effort that would take out every Russian conventional force that we can see and identify on the battlefield in Ukraine and also in Crimea and every ship in the Black Sea.”

Such a “hypothetical” event would be “so horrific that there has to be a response – it cannot go unanswered,” Petraeus proposed.

And in an interview published in France’s L’Express on Saturday, the retired general nuanced this projection, stating that such a “shocking” event would elicit a military response from “a multinational force led by the U.S. and not as a NATO force.”

Colonel Macgregor wrote in a Monday column for The American Conservative that Petraeus’ suggestion “merits attention because [he] would never make such a recommendation unless he was urged to do so by powerful figures in Washington and on Wall Street.” And it remains clear that “globalist and neocon elites clearly want a direct armed confrontation with Russia.”

Furthermore, despite the broad narrative that Russia is losing the war, the decorated colonel observed that these proposals confirm “the perilous state of the Ukrainian Armed Forces,” that they have “little left to withstand the Russian winter offensives.”

And secondly, he observed, “it is the eleventh hour. The Russian sledgehammer, scheduled to fall on the Zelensky regime in the November or December timeframe, or whenever the ground freezes, will crush whatever remains of Ukrainian forces.”

Western preparations for radiation and direct conflict escalate

This dire situation faced by American neoconservative operators, and their proxies in Ukraine, contributes to establishing a compelling motive for such a potential false flag crime, not to mention these accused having both the means and the opportunity for accomplishing it.

And false flag attacks are anything but foreign to this gang.

For example, during the neocon-facilitated 2014 putsch of the democratically elected president of Ukraine, of which Nuland was a central player, there was at least one false flag operation which occurred when the opposition leaders ordered sniper fire upon their own allied protestors who were clashing with police. This was done to create a pretext for blaming then-President Viktor Yanukovich and demanding he be removed from office.

With regards to the U.S. government in general, false flag operations have been a developed option for planning the initiation of wars, implemented for the purposes of regime change operations abroad, and even utilized domestically to terrorize American citizens.

And given this is a crowd that is “capable of anything,” and “will stop at nothing,” likely including the recent “unimaginably reckless act” of destroying energy infrastructure in Europe as winter closes in, this allegation from Russia remains “entirely plausible.”

Catherine Austin Fitts, who served in the George H.W. Bush administration (1989–93), spoke of her experience working with neocons in Washington stating: “It was clear they were looking to get the bit in their teeth and if they got it, they would do any scale [of damage] you can imagine. They would do destruction to the whole planet” if they were allowed to do so.

In further comments (edited for clarity) she also recalled how “when the Roman Empire conquered, they brought the infrastructure of education, roads, bridges, and water systems.”

Comparing this to the record of the neocons in Iraq, Libya, Syria, Ukraine, and elsewhere, she observed, “what you realize is the neocons bring chaos, the end of civilization, and institutional organized crime which destroys people, civic infrastructure, and culture. They’re like a whirling dervish of demonic force.”

Finally, broader preparations for such a “dirty bomb”-type false flag event appear to be in the process of being established. In the same late September program cited above, Tucker Carlson reported that the government is preparing for some type of “fallout,” including a Senate spending bill which includes $35 million for the Department of Energy to “prepare for and respond to potential nuclear and radiological incidents in Ukraine.”

In addition, for the first time since World War II, the White House deployed around 5,000 soldiers of the 101st Airborne Division to Romania, just miles from the Ukraine border to prepare for war.

Brigadier General John Lubas confirmed, “This is not a training deployment, this is a combat deployment for us. We understand we need to be ready to fight tonight.”


‘Monumental provocation’: How US and international policy-makers deliberately baited Putin to war

The secret to peace in Ukraine lies in Our Lady of Fatima’s call to prayer and penance

Naomi Wolf: We are at the final stage before tyrannical leaders ‘crush democracy’

US gov’t suspected of sabotaging major European gas pipeline after Biden threatened to ‘end’ it

Trump COVID official relates shocking saga of experience in DC, profound corruption of ‘Deep State’