Couldn't Such Fake News Start Wars?
June 18, 2024
Stephen Byren asks in Asia Times:
Why is NATO expanding its nuclear force?
That is a rather weird question. NATO is a consulting mechanism. It does not have tanks, guns or nuclear forces. All such tangible things are owned and controlled by this or that member country.
NATO does not have a nuclear force and currently neither NATO nor those member countries which have nuclear forces are interested in expanding them. The question states as a fact that NATO is expanding something. It is not doing that.
Byren writes:
Jens Stoltenberg, the 13th secretary general of NATO, says that the alliance is in talks to deploy more nuclear weapons and modernize their delivery systems. Stoltenberg told the Telegraph in the UK: “I won’t go into operational details about how many nuclear warheads should be operational and which should be stored, but we need to consult on these issues. That’s exactly what we’re doing.” Stoltenberg emphasized that NATO is a “nuclear alliance.”
The Telegraph piece on the Stoltenberg interview is a write-up, not a transcript. It is inaccurate. Here is what it says:
Nato is in talks to deploy more nuclear weapons in the face of a growing threat from Russia and China, the head of the alliance has said.Jens Stoltenberg added that the bloc must show its nuclear arsenal to the world to send a direct message to its foes in an interview with The Telegraph.
He revealed there were live consultations between members on taking missiles out of storage and placing them on standby as he called for transparency to be used as a deterrent.
Mr Stoltenberg said: “I won’t go into operational details about how many nuclear warheads should be operational and which should be stored, but we need to consult on these issues.
“That’s exactly what we’re doing at Nato, for instance at meetings in Nato, a nuclear planning group as we had during the defence ministerial meeting this [last] week.”
The above sounds as if Stoltenberg was actively doing something. But that is simply not what he said:
Matthew Harries @harries_matthew - 19:38 UTC · Jun 17, 2024Here is a transcript of what Stoltenberg actually said. As suspected, I think there has been too much parsing of his words.
The “operational” vs storage thing was introduced by the interviewer. And “transparency” was in the context of openness about exercises.
As the audio of the interview provides, the whole issue was prompted by a misleading remark by one of the interviewers, not by Stoltenberg himself:
Telegraph: Do you think European allies should follow the lead of the United States by putting more warheads on standby rather than having them in storage?
Britain, which is the country the Telegraph is asking about, usually has one nuclear submarine on patrol and ready to use with a number of others in training or revamp. Only the submarine on patrol will carry nuclear warheads. The ones for the other submarines are usually in storage. To put more of them on 'standby', whatever that may otherwise mean, would not provide a ready way to launch them. It would thus be useless.
The interviewers question to Stoltenberg is answered by him with generalizations and a hint to the ever 'ongoing consulting' on the issue.
The misleading question and mealy mouth answer provide for great irritation but don't really mean anything. And certainly not anything new.
(((James Acton))) @james_acton32 - 21:48 UTC · Jun 17, 2024Based on this transcript, the @Telegraph article by @Barnes_Joe is journalist malpractice. It is a wholly misleading account of Stoltenberg's comments, which were boilerplate.
In times of heightened tensions media are taking a lot of liberty in 'interpreting' things officials say. This does have consequences and those could become lethal:
Kremlin views NATO’s rhetoric on putting nukes on alert as escalation
MOSCOW, June 17. /TASS/. The recent remark by NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg that the bloc’s allied members are discussing putting their nuclear arsenals on alert is another bout of tensions, Kremlin Spokesman Dmitry Peskov told reporters."This is nothing else but an escalation," Peskov said.
But in fact, Stoltenberg did not say anything to that effect.
Consider also this fake Ukranews item which was published two days ago:
Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni said that russia would be forced to surrender if it did not agree to the terms of a peace settlement.Meloni made a corresponding statement at the Global Peace Summit in Switzerland, her words are quoted by the UNIAN news agency.
According to her, protecting Ukraine means protecting the system of international rules. Therefore, it is important to join forces to protect Ukraine.
"If russia does not agree to the terms, we will force them to surrender," Melonisaid.
That quote was immediately suspicious. Neither Meloni nor anyone else has the means to force Russia to surrender.
A few hours after the above was publish corrections came in:
Many comments and consternation were caused by the post of Ukrainian politician Anton Gerashchenko regarding the statement of the Italian Prime Minister during the peace summit that took place last weekend in Switzerland.Gerashchenko quoted Giorgia Meloni on his profile on platform X, who supposedly said: "If Russia does not agree to the terms, we will force them to surrender."
Platform X included a contextual note under the Ukrainian politician's post. From it and the official text of the Italian Prime Minister's speech, it is clear that the words quoted by Gerashchenko were not said during the conference.
Meloni stood by Ukraine, directing strong words towards Russia, but the meaning was somewhat different.
Meloni never said anything about Russia surrendering but a Ukrainian politician, and a lousy news agency which quoted him without checking, planted the false quote.
These are good reminders to check, and double-check, everything one reads about hot conflicts.
Posted by b on June 18, 2024 at 12:10 UTC | Permalink