That’s the response This Writer received from one commenter on the Vox Political Facebook page, to the article raising concerns about Russia deploying nuclear-capable missiles in Kaliningrad, the enclave that is that country’s westernmost point.
But in his TV show today (October 9), Andrew Marr tackled Defence secretary Michael Fallon on precisely that issue, along with the possibility that Nato sabre-rattling along Russia’s western borders may be responsible for this display. He also raised concerns about Syria.
If my article may be considered scaremongering, Mr Fallon’s responses were terrifying.
Not only is he a cheerleader for Nato and for US intervention in Syria, he seems to be completely devoid of any realisation that the United Kingdom is no longer a military power in its own right.
What good have we done in Syria? None. What good would we do in Poland, Latvia, Lithuania or Estonia if Russia decides to fire nuclear weapons? None.
It seems to me that we got into this position partly because successive British governments have been so wrapped up in the idea of making a military difference on the world stage that they failed to realise they were doing no such thing. They would have been better-off following Jeremy Corbyn’s thinking and trying to persuade other nuclear nations to scale down their nuclear arsenals, with a view to abandoning them.
Ah, well. Hindsight is a wonderful thing.
But why would Russia want to fire nuclear missiles or invade other countries? It would be repeating a chapter of history that ended badly for that country. Never mind the fact that it happened under a different political system; there is no reason to believe that Russia has any intention of occupying the eastern European countries – unless I’m reading the wrong media information. Am I?
No, if Russia is considering any military action at all (and let us remember their Foreign minister Sergei Lavrov is denying it with practically every breath), it is far more likely to be for economic purposes.
Western military operations in Syria are said to be about IS, or about Assad, but there is a huge amount of evidence to suggest it is about oil; about putting a pipeline from the Middle East to Turkey and depriving Russia of a market for its own petrochemical products.
If so, it certainly would not be fair dealing under the rules of commerce – starting a war in another country in order to steal its resources. Now, where have we heard that argument used before..?
As I mentioned in my previous article, everybody needs to take a step back and compare what little they stand to gain with how much we all stand to lose.
As another commenter, this time directly to the blog, pointed out, there are similarities to the Cuban missile crisis of the 1960s: “Cuba was a battle of ideologies but now the current dispute appears to be partly over religion but mostly over OIL.
“If we’re not careful the ‘hydrocarbon era’ might be ended more abruptly than we’d prefer – as we enter another stone age.”
Join the Vox Political Facebook page.
If you have appreciated this article, don’t forget to share it using the buttons at the bottom of this page. Politics is about everybody – so let’s try to get everybody involved!
Vox Political needs your help!
If you want to support this site
(but don’t want to give your money to advertisers)
you can make a one-off donation here:
Buy Vox Political books so we can continue
fighting for the facts.
The Livingstone Presumption is now available
in eBook format here:
Health Warning: Government! is now available
in either print or eBook format here:
The first collection, Strong Words and Hard Times,
is still available in either print or eBook format here: