Europe’s billionaires have decided to cross Russia’s red lines to WW3.
1 June 2025, by Eric Zuesse. (All of my recent articles can be seen here.)
INTRODUCTION
The people who control the U.S. and its allied Governments are their billionaires, not their voters (who are offered ONLY nominees by political Parties whom their billionaires control). Ever since the Soviet Union ended in 1991 and so the U.S. Government’s need for armaments all but disappeared, America’s armaments manufacturers, which are the corporations that sell to the U.S. Government and to its colonies (such as in NATO), instead of to consumers, have been by far the most profitable corporations in the U.S.; and, so, perhaps the reason why America’s billionaires’ net worths have been rising far faster than America’s GDP has been rising, is that those individuals are especially heavily invested in these armaments manufacturers, and thereby control the U.S. Government (which is their main market) as they do. America’s Military Industrial Complex is controlled by its beneficiaries, who need to control the U.S. Government in order to control their market — the market for the type of corporations that produce their extraordinarily high rates of return on investment. It’s the most profitable way to operate; and, so, they do. Consequently, the American Government has continued treating Russia as an enemy even after it no longer actually was; and this Government’s empire’s news-media, which likewise are controlled by American-and-allied billionaires, have continued reporting as-if Russia and China were their enemies. This is the reason why the U.S. coup in February 2014 taking over Ukraine’s government has been reported throughout the U.S. empire as having been, instead, a democratic revolution there. It actually OVERTHREW the last democratically elected Government of Ukraine, and established an American dictatorship there — ever since that coup.
In relations between the U.S. empire (including NATO) versus Russia, Russia’s national-security “red line” which would provoke it to initiate World War Three (WW3 or WW III) against the enemy’s (NATO nations’) central-command locations (their capitals) would be if NATO expands “too close to Russia,” meaning too close to Moscow (where Russia’s central command is). The nearest of all borders to Moscow is Ukraine’s border, which, in the outskirts of Ukraine’s city Sumy, in Ukraine’s northeast, is only 300 miles, or a mere five-minute missily-flying distance, away from blitz-nuking The Kremlin in order to decapitate Russia if the objective is to prevent retaliation (which is probably impossible to achieve, but the enemy might be willing to try). So, ever since 2007, Russia’s President Vladimir Putin has been stating that if NATO expands too close to Russia (and adding Ukraine to NATO would definitely be too close), then that will provoke Russia to start WW3, so as to prevent being decapitated. U.S. President JFK, during the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis, was in a similar position to what Vladimir Putin is in now, but JFK and the leader of the Soviet Union privately negotiated and so WW3 was averted — but this time, the U.S. empire refuses to back down (because their billionaires are determined to continue their high rates of return on their investments, in armaments etc. — which would plunge in value if peace were to occur), and so does Russia refuse to yield on this (because Putin is determined not to allow the U.S. and its colonies to take over Russia). Putin tried many times to get negotiations going with the U.S. regime in order to get them to stop trying to make Ukraine a NATO member, but the U.S. constantly refused. The last time America and its NATO refused was on 7 January 2022. Russia then invaded Ukraine on 24 February 2022; and, on that day, he also explained to the Russian people why it was necessary to do this (in this speech that was ignored by U.S.-and-allied news-media), which speech to his nation he opened by saying:
“In my address on February 21, 2022. I spoke about our biggest concerns and worries, and about the fundamental threats which irresponsible Western politicians created for Russia consistently, rudely and unceremoniously from year to year. I am referring to the eastward expansion of NATO, which is moving its military infrastructure ever closer to the Russian border.”
So, all of the U.S. empire’s lies to the effect that this invasion of Ukraine was an “unprovoked” invasion can be understood ONLY as the lies by Hitler and other imperialistic tyrants throughout history can be understood: as being PART OF THEIR OWN AGGRESSION (in order to fool their own people to go along with their nation’s aggression against their own tyrannous regime’s foreign targets to conquer, so as to further expand that tyranny’s empire). It is war by the tyrrany against their own public, to make them complicit in (i.e., “manufacture their consent” to) the tyrants’ international-war crimes, which aggressioins (subversions, sactions, coups, invasions, etc.) benefit ONLY those tyrants, at the expense of not ONLY the targeted nations, but of one’s OWN nation’s taxpayers, who must fund those vicious foreign ‘adventures’.
The U.S. empire continues, even today, to try to get Ukraine into NATO, but has never yet been able to obtain the required unanimity of all of NATO’s member-nations in order to achieve it. The billionaires who control the U.S., UK, Germany, France, and perhaps some of the other NATO-member nations’ Governments, have apparently now collectively decided to force the issue, since their efforts thus far to get Ukraine into NATO have all failed; and this means that they are trying to set up a way to enable Ukraine to blitz-attack The Kremlin with U.S.-and-allied ammunition and weapons and satellite intelligence and strategic control — but to do so by means of using Ukrainian “cannon-fodder” and NATO guidance and “cannonballs” (weapons etc.) — not by means of the NATO (North Atlantic Treaty Organization) Article 5, but by means of a work-around, to skip over the intermediate step of getting Ukraine into NATO. And, apparently, the people who control at least the U.S., UK, Germany, and France, have actually decided to do this.
EVIDENCES THAT THE DECISION FOR WW3 HAS BEEN MADE BY NATO
#1: Analysis by Scott Ritter on May 30th:
Let's just focus, because I don't want people to trivialize, um on the attack that
7:07
took place um against President Putin while he was in Kursk.
7:13
Um, both the uh nuclear doctrine of the United States,
7:19
and the nuclear doctrine of um of
7:24
uh Russia, hold that if anybody challenges
7:30
or attacks or seeks to neutralize the command and control, um, of strategic
7:37
resources, namely, uh, nuclear uh launch uh command and control, uh that that will
7:43
trigger an immediate nuclear retaliation because it'll be deemed that, um, you know
7:49
our our strategic uh nuclear deterrence is under attack, um, the tip of the uh command and control
7:57
of the nuclear command and control is the president of Russia and the president of
8:02
the United States. That's why, uh, you know, our president has the little briefcase guy following around with them, the
8:08
Russians have their briefcase guy, um, so I just want everybody to understand that
8:13
this attack against Putin, had it succeeded, would probably,
8:19
um almost certainly, resulted in a nuclear conflict between Russia and the United States and um and NATO. Um you you
8:29
don't get to kill the president of a nuclear armed power and walk away from it. That just is the way it is, and
8:36
because this wasn't an action carried out out by Ukraine singularly, meaning Ukraine was assisted in one way or
8:44
another, uh, by intelligence um and technologies provided by NATO nations, um
8:52
Britain may have taken the lead on this one uh but I'm not absolving the United States of guilt, we would have been
8:57
knowledgeable of this and uh since we didn't move to prevent it, we therefore are complicit. Um, this is the level of
9:05
stupidity that exists, it's the kind of stupidity that we saw during the Biden administration that almost took us to
9:11
the brink of a nuclear war last December, uh, but again, I I don't want to I don't
9:18
want people saying "Well it's a scout Ritter saying things all over again." Hey screw you, I mean I I really get fed up
9:24
with people who spout ignorance, you don't know what the hell you're talking about. We came so very goddamn close to
9:31
dying last December because of people ignorant people like you who didn't understand what Biden was
9:39
doing by authorizing the extension of the range of the ATACM missiles in relation to a new, a newly promulgated
9:45
Russian nuclear doctrine which gave him [Putin] the green light to respond. Russia said "We have a green light now to respond."
9:52
And I don't know what they would have done if Donald Trump hadn't come out and distanced himself from that policy, that
9:59
bought us time to cool the jets until Trump became president and we avoided a
10:06
nuclear conflict. Now we have a situation where out of the blue, out of the
10:13
blue, Putin's helicopter is attacked while Putin's there, by a Ukrainian drone
10:22
swarm. If you don't understand how close you came to dying then [on May 26th], you just your brain doesn't function. So this is very
10:28
serious, what we're talking about here this isn't kids play, this isn’t, you know all this, and the fact that Donald Trump
10:35
was not cognizant of this shows that he's not in control of his policy and
10:40
therein lies the problem you speak of Russia and how their
10:46
response — I believe Russia's already made the determination that this war will end
10:52
violently, there will be no peace negotiated, because the United States is incapable of this. Let's just look at it
10:58
from a simplistic structural standpoint: Marco Rubio has acknowledged that the conflict is a
11:05
proxy war between the United States and Russia and Ukraine is the proxy acting on behalf of the United States. Marco
11:11
Rubio the Secretary of State has said this, so if you're waging a proxy war, and
11:17
we are still waging this proxy war, we have not stopped waging this proxy war, how can we be the innocent peace
11:25
negotiator — ‘all we want is for people to stop dying please stop killing people’ — it's a no from the Russian perspective.
11:33
Everything America's asking Russia to do is to the benefit of America and its policies, uh which are being manifested
11:41
in this proxy conflict, so the Russians have no illusions whatsoever about what's going on. They will play the game
11:47
and they'll do what needs to be done to put the pieces in place, but they know at the end of the
11:53
day, this administration is incapable as currently configured to
11:59
uh create the conditions for a successful negotiation to peace, so this peace this peace process will
12:06
collapse, and Russia's okay with that, because they're winning the war, they're going to win the war, uh they're going to
12:11
achieve everything they want through force of arms anyway. What's important to Russia though is to keep the dialogue
12:18
between Russia and the United States ongoing, to let Trump walk away from the
12:23
peace process as a futile effort but to keep the dialogue between the United
12:28
States and Russia ongoing, to uh reinforce the reality that it's more
12:33
important for Russia and United States to maintain some sort of diplomatic decorum than it is uh for the United
12:41
States to successfully negotiate an end to a conflict on terms unacceptable to Russia. There's a reason why Russia
12:47
initiated the special military operation. They're grounded in what Russia calls the root causes of this conflict [U.S-and-allied aggression], and
12:54
until those root causes are sufficiently addressed, there will be no peace
13:00
#2: Analyses by Alex Christoforou and Alexander Mercouris, on May 31st:
https://theduran.com/ukraine-drone-swarm-failure-angers-west/
To boil it all down (and the speakers here have never yet been found to be wrong about this war, which they have been analyzing ever since 2016): the only way that America and its allied countries can now avoid a total defeat in this war is by directly going to war themselves against Russia. Though that would not start out as being a nuclear war, what would the loser in the conventional war then do? Would it surrender? Or would it instead initiate nuclear war against the side that has won the conventional war (which would then become World War Three)? And why are the stakes in this war (possible annihilation of civilization) not even being discussed in U.S.-and-allied media? Is this the media that would be the media in a democracy, or instead in a dictatorship?
At 13:30 in that video, Alex Christoforu pointed out that “The U.S. is playing the mediator. They’re coordinating and commanding attacks against Russia. That’s the — that’s exactly what’s going on here.” It’s true: The aggressor in this war (this proxy-war by America against Russia) is pretending to be the “mediator” in it. Only fools don’t see the con, but throughout the U.S. empire, that is the majority of the public, because the public here have been ‘educated’ by the billionaires’ ‘news’-media etc.
There already are indications that the U.S. and its allies are intensively preparing for WW3. Is this because there is a public demand for these multi-trillion-dollar measures, or is it instead because the individuals who are in control over our governments (and their news-media) want these expenses by their Government? Why are people not pondering these questions? But perhaps the reason is that they’re not being informed that this is even happening. And why aren’t they?
UK and Israel are part of this empire, and at 7:45-20:30 in that last link is the U.S.-UK-Israel plan laid out and documented (see especially the map at 17:57) for the completion of their final solution to the Palestinian problem in Gaza. Then, from 29:00 till 34:00 is a truthful description of how the U.S. Government’s ceaseless craving to conquer both Russia and China — and to continue providing the weapons that Israel uses to exterminate Gazans — is increasingly foreclosing any other (any peaceful) paths by which America’s economy can even grow.
Although the leaders of Europe (especially of UK, France, and Germany) have made clear that they want to violate Russia’s national-security red lines, and Joe Biden also did, Donald Trump has not yet made clear that he does. As Christoforu said, “The U.S. is playing the mediator. They’re coordinating and commanding attacks against Russia. That’s the — that’s exactly what’s going on here.” Soon, however, Trump’s attempt to be viewed as being both a contestant and a referee in this ‘game’ will end, and he will be either the one or else the other. If he chooses to be with the rest of NATO on this, then he will be opting for WW3. No doubt, Russia is preparing for this.
The very next day, Christoforou headlined “RUSSIA nuclear assets attacked. DEEP STRIKES.” This is a major NATO win — not merely Ukrainian win.
U.S.-and-allied major media say that alternative viewpoints are presented by them, but why are THESE alternative viewpoints NOT among the “altenatives” (I would instead call them truths) that they present? Why are these ‘viewpoints’ being censored-out by them? How and why is that done? Is this a democracy? Or is it something else?
And if it is NOT a democracy, then is there any alternative to a revolution in order to establish a democracy? Of course, that question requires first to define what the word “revolution” necessarily means or entails. So as not to get into that semantical issue (because it would be unproductive), I would focus instead upon the word “democracy” itself, and inquire whether or not that necessarily includes public elections between competing nominees of competing political parties — which political ‘scientists’ all assume to be the case. But it is NOT the case. That assumption by the ‘experts’ is FALSE. Furthermore: all political systems that have been based upon that false asssumption have degenerated into dictatorships by the super-rich — aristocracies — and so the word “democracy” needs to be redefined. I have discussed here a way to do that which (to adhere to as being what a democracy really IS — to carry out in policy as BEING a democracy that will STAY a democracy) MIGHT produce authentic democracy that would be far less easy (and likely) to corrupt (degenerate into an aristocracy) than the existing (elections-based) ‘democracies’ are and have been. Anyone who wishes to communicate with me about that proposed redefinition of “democracy” is welcomed to do so by clicking here and sending me an email.
—————
Investigative historian Eric Zuesse’s latest book, AMERICA’S EMPIRE OF EVIL: Hitler’s Posthumous Victory, and Why the Social Sciences Need to Change, is about how America took over the world after World War II in order to enslave it to U.S.-and-allied billionaires. Their cartels extract the world’s wealth by control of not only their ‘news’ media but the social ‘sciences’ — duping the public.
I read on one of the alternative media websites that: Democracy is an economic system.
This definition is somehow true.
"Europe’s billionaires have decided to cross Russia’s red lines to WW3."
After wealth comes power and the belief in invincibility.