On May 20, 2022, the Deputy Director of the U.K.’s Royal United Services Institute (RUSI) Malcolm Chalmers published an article arguing that orchestrating a “Crimea Missile Crisis'’ between NATO-backed Ukraine and Russia could be the best way to force Russia to capitulate to Western interests. It would be “the Cuban Missile Crisis on steroids,” Chalmers acknowledged, but “precisely because of the peril inherent in such a situation, a nuclear crisis of this sort could make it easier for leaders to make difficult compromises.” This terrifying strategy did not come from some obscure lunatic; RUSI has served as the leading defense and security think tank for the British monarchy since its founding in 1831. (https://larouchepub.com/pr/2022/20220521_royal_defense.html )
EIR News Service raised a hue and cry internationally, charging that the article demonstrated that the British Crown is deliberately driving the world to the precipice of nuclear annihilation, on the assumption that when push came to shove, Russia would back down.
Few listened, dismissing EIR’s warning on the assumption that no one could be that insane.
This past week, on Nov. 14, one day before the Polish “incident” brought the world to the brink of nuclear war, the City of London’s Economist weekly published an article again promoting the idea that forcing a nuclear showdown with Russia over Crimea is the “best option” for this conflict.
“Three Scenarios for How War in Ukraine Could Play Out” was penned by the weekly’s Defense Editor Shashank Joshi. “The best one for Ukraine is also the most dangerous,” the kicker reads.
The first scenario, a Russian victory on the battlefield of Ukraine, is judged unlikely, and unacceptable to London. The second, a military “stalemate,” is more likely, but not satisfying.
As you can read for yourself, Joshi’s third scenario is the RUSI “option.” He writes:
“The third scenario is the most encouraging—and perhaps the most dangerous. Ukraine keeps the initiative and the momentum, inflicting heavy damage on Russian forces as they leave Kherson and then bringing its long-range HIMARS rockets within range of Crimea for the first time…. As Russian casualties mount, new recruits refuse to fight. Western countries rush new air-defense systems to Ukraine….
“In the spring, Mr. Zelenskyy orders his army to open a new front in Zaporizhzhia. Five brigades slice through Russian lines, cutting Mr. Putin’s land bridge to Crimea and encircling Mariupol by the summer. Ukraine moves its HIMARS rocket launchers into the south, targeting ports, bases and depots in Russian-occupied Crimea. Ukraine threatens to enter the peninsula. Mr. Putin issues an ultimatum: stop, or face the use of nuclear weapons. Victory is within sight. But so, too, are the risks that it brings.”
Two days later, The Economist’s “Leaders” editorial note reprimanded Gen. Mark Milley and his call for negotiations to end the Ukrainian “stalemate,” rejecting that option and charging some Americans are losing their nerve. With Ukraine’s President Zelenskyy’s apparently flight-forward call for a NATO showdown with Russia over the Polish missile incident, it is clear that the Kiev regime is sticking to London’s orders. (https://www.economist.com/the-world-ahead/2022/11/14/three-scenarios-for-how-war-in-ukraine-could-play-out )
