Light the blue touchpaper………………………………..
Above a pack of “bangers”.
Living where I am, walking along the Tin Coast (https://www.nationaltrust.org.uk/days-out/tin-coast), I’ve discovered that I am doing what my Dad did and what I witnessed (as a child and a youth) other old people did – recall their childhood and youth. I used to be fascinated when Dad did this, probably because he was not that far off fifty when I was born.
Given the parlous state of local government finances many local authorities have announced that (understandably) they are cancelling the organised firework displays. In my childhood, “Bonfire Night” was something most families in my street and surrounding ones celebrated. We had some land to the rear of our house and Dad always set up the bonfire there and we let off some fireworks.
Sometimes me and other boys would attend a bonfire organised near the chapel as well. Of course to us boys there was only one firework that we were interested in: the banger! With particular relish we used to enjoy setting these explosives off in batches in close vicinity to groups of girls! NB: We did not throw the bangers at the girls, merely dropped then onto the ground not close to but still within a safe distance from them, the intention being of course to surprise them and make them scream.
Of course, were this behaviour to be repeated by 8, 9 and 10 year old boys today, the politically correct collective of teachers, social workers and female “community leaders” would become hysterical and claim that these boys were behaving in a deeply misogynistic manner and their family environment should be investigated!
It therefore is with some concern that I am witnessing a remarkable lack of hysteria on the part of the mainstream media – not that I am seeking to encourage it! Of course the traditional suspects CND and such as Dr Kate Hudson CND General Secretary (https://cnduk.org/no-nuclear-war/) are beginning to panic. For once – and she will NOT like this – I am in partial agreement with what she had written in that blog-post! I would however counsel her that the use of a low yield tactical nuclear weapon in a sub-ground burst is NOT going to cause disastrous fallout levels. I DO however AGREE with her that the BIG danger to the use of a nuclear weapon in Ukraine by Russia is the reaction of the USA!
There is a widespread pattern nowadays of internet users going to those sources that they agree with. To an extent this has long been the case for Tories would traditionally get their news from such as the Daily Telegraph (famously known in the past as the “Daily Torygraph”) with the Daily Mirror being the traditional paper of Labour’s working class voters and the Guardian being the traditional paper of Labour’s middle class voters.
This is a pity for the majority of politically interested members of the general public do not get a rounded broad view of events. As a result of this Doctor Hudson is unlikely to have read Doctor North’s blog-post (https://www.turbulenttimes.co.uk/news/front-page/ukraine-a-matter-of-rationality/) today. If she has not, then she should.
What Dr North’s blog-post reveals is that many commentators are missing some points.
The Ukraine supporting main stream media (MSM) are running with the reports of the Ukrainian forces taking Lyman the implication that the Russians staged a fighting retreat whereas other reports indicate they left in an orderly fashion beforehand allowing the Ukrainians to retake the city without a fight.
IF this behaviour by the Russians continues and the Russians stage an orderly withdrawal from the disputed territory (with the exception of Crimea of course) it might indicate a number of things:
It MIGHT indicate that the Russians are abandoning their military adventure and once within the undisputed boundaries of Russian continue to make ominous noises.
On the other hand, the Russians MIGHT be moving towards a strategy that has been used on numerous occasions by the USA: That of relying on air power and long range missiles. Therefore this move by the Russians could indicate a move to a new and more dangerous strategy:
Were Russian forces to retreat from the four of the five disputed provinces (they would not be retreating from Crimea) it leaves the Ukrainians with a set of choices – that would differ as to what the Russians would do next.
If, following their retreat to their pre-invasion boundaries the Russians were to continue to attack Ukraine using the long range conventional missiles that have been used, the Ukrainians would feel compelled to respond. The problem for the Ukrainians would be how and where? The use of the surface to surface missiles supplied by the USA against targets in Crimea could well trigger the nuclear response Dr. North and I have been drawing our readers attention to.
You see, the whole point of using a nuclear weapon in these circumstances is redolent of the first use of nuclear weapons by the USA against Japan in August 1945. The USA’s point being made brutally clear: Surrender now or we continue.
The EU, NATO and the USA would have a choice to make:
Do they pressure the Ukrainians to abandon their struggle and accept Russia’s annexation?
Do they continue to support and supply the Ukrainians in a military response (using surface to surface missiles supplied by the USA)?
BG readers have to consider another thing: The 300,000 men the Russians have called up. These men (especially if they have never served before) need training!
For example from the British Army website (https://www.army.mod.uk/who-we-are/our-schools-and-colleges/atc-pirbright/): “ATC Pirbright delivers the 14 week training course known as the Common Military Syllabus which is completed by all adult recruits (age 17+) when they join the Army. The course is designed to develop the individual and team skills in a progressive manner, preparing recruits for their Initial Trade Training, where they learn the specific skills for their chosen Army trade.”
Russia has lost large numbers of men and materiel and has to recover.
Putin’s plan might be to train these men up and to keep them behind Russia’s undisputed borders and rely on missile strikes (conventional and possibly nuclear) to achieve his objective.
In this he knows that there will be NATO members who will demand that NATO pressures Ukraine to capitulate and others who would be prepared to support Ukraine to continue hostilities against Russia.
The problem for NATO means that ANY attack on Russia by NATO forces could initiate WW3!
I have already expressed my concern, which I will now repeat:
That in the face of a lack of will to continue the fight by key EU NATO members (Germany and Italy), the USA may rely on the UK as a base from which the USA will take military action.
Of course, the USA does not need to use a UK location. The USN has a fleet of nuclear attack submarines all of which operate cruise missiles. The problem for US politicians is this: An attack by the USA against Russia will invite a Russian retaliatory response! This is why the use of a USAF airbase in the UK is so appealing to them (US politicians)! It means that the response by Russia may likely be against the UK and NOT the USA.
Of course, many BG readers may well wish to draw my attention to the UK’s fleet of Trident submarines. They may well suggest that were a nuclear weapon to be used by Russia against the UK, the UK could retaliate with the use of a nuclear weapon of it’s own.
It is that point I can only reply by inserting the YouTube video below: