Scaremongering? It seems Vox Political’s nuclear concern is right on the button

Michael Fallon: For Nato, for aggression against Russia; against thinking for himself [Image: BBC].

Michael Fallon: For Nato, for aggression against Russia; against thinking for himself [Image: BBC].

“More scaremongering please.”

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:

Donate Button with Credit Cards

Buy Vox Political books so we can continue
fighting for the facts.

The Livingstone Presumption is now available
in eBook format here:

HWG eBook

Health Warning: Government! is now available
in either print or eBook format here:

HWG PrintHWG eBook

The first collection, Strong Words and Hard Times,
is still available in either print or eBook format here:


15 thoughts on “Scaremongering? It seems Vox Political’s nuclear concern is right on the button

  1. Barry Davies

    What’s worse is that the idiots in brussels are talking about an eu army, to stand up to the Russians, so we will be back to the cold war mutual destruction stand off scenario, less the nuclear capacity and will on one side of it.

  2. roybeiley

    Just read an article on the Quora blogsite where somebody asked whether Russia could “win” a nuclear war if it struck against the US first. The overwhelming answer was NO! US has 14 nuclear submarines EACH WITH 11 NUCLEAR MISSILES . Just one of the subs could destroy every city in RUssia in about 10 minutes. everything would be over before UK and France knew it had begun! So Fallon is talking rubbish and Trident is a waste of money in that scenario.

    1. John

      “Just one of the subs could destroy every city in RUssia in about 10 minutes. everything would be over before UK and France knew it had begun!”

      I’m obviously misinterpreting what you’re saying here, BUT if this was to mean quite literally what I thought it meant, then how exactly does our early warning system work? If someone DOES fire a nuke in our direction, what notice would we have that it was coming?

    2. Jonathan L Trapman

      Sorry that is patent propaganda you have sucked up there. A) Russia will NEVER commit first strike. Secondly all the US and others’ capability depends on their guidance and electronics NOT being neutered by Russian advanced EMP defence. The amount of money being sunk into the Military Industrial Complex has and always had very little to do with defence or successful offence and everything to do with lining pockets. Apart from EMP defence Russia has developed hypersonic capability rockets to not only knock out any incoming but also offer faster than arrival (US arrival) returns from the US. Most Western powers know this and the lie carried on.

  3. Jonathan L Trapman

    Whatever Russia is doing at the present time is defensive. It is not a country that has ever placed offensive methods as the prerequisite to next engagement.
    Unlike the USA that has spent a goodly part of its 230 odd life doing just that.

    The specious words of political figures supporting the aggression of NATO as some sort of defence strategy is ludicrous and merely towing a belligerent US line of self interest.

    Marr’s deplorable statements about Russia are merely an ongoing litany of propaganda to try persuade the general public of the need to wage war.

    I personally have no sympathy for anyone believing that line.

    Much of your thinking is correct. Yet Russia’s interests are more to create a balancec multi polar world devoid of the hegemony of the US. That economic benefits come from that is a bonus and a good goal as it helps all concerned.

    Until the West wakes up from the somnolent illusion that the Russian Federation is the Soviet Union, it will continue to create more and more trouble alongside horrendous misjudgments that threaten the very lives of billions.

    I am personally sick to the teeth with all this propaganda

    If humankind itself does not awaken to intelligence and reason then the best place for it is back in the Stone Age!

    1. James Kemp

      Do you really think we will buy placing a missile where there wasn’t one before defence? Nope these short range missiles are there to threaten and attack! Long range missiles could if I stretched beyond belief the word be called defensive. Then you start on about how wonderful Russia is, how they want to help. Come on i have read history and understand it, russia only wants more power and control just look at Ukraine….

      1. Mike Sivier Post author

        Certainly – economic power.
        But then, isn’t that what the US wants? Isn’t that what Mr Fallon wants?
        Nobody is innocent here.

  4. johncresswellplant

    Mike, I’ve warned about this for some time; unfortunately, I’ve been called worse than a scaremonger – and to my face!

  5. Roland

    All this Anti-Russian only thing they have done is try to give peace a chance but the US keep pushing and pushing and feeding terrorism some day someone will bite then the sparkes will fly and it will be the UK that takes the hammer for being a lap dog the US world dominance program the wheels are coming off just look back at there history war after war after war it as to come to an end

  6. Harry

    Mike, concerns regarding the nuvclear industry are a healthy sign. Mr Shimatsu has again investigated and found terrible flaws related to the Nuclear building programme:-

    This piece was attacked by the nuclear industry gatekeepers which brought this rebuttal by Mr Shimatsu:-

    These materials are almost certain to be used in the construction of Hinckley Point. Given what has occurred at Fukushima:-

    To my way way of thinking, it is not unreasonable to label the actions of those involved with the Hinckley Point project as insane.

    1. Mike Sivier Post author

      Interesting points, but under the wrong article.
      This one is about nuclear weapons.

  7. Jon Jaguar

    We’ve been here over and over. If you haven’t read ‘A Line in the Sand’ by James Barr, have a go now. It’s eerily familiar but it starts with the Sykes-Picot ‘line’ and reveals to what lengths Britain and France were prepared to go to grab the oil. Depressing, educational and well-written.

  8. lin wren

    How come our Government’s not spoken to any of us about this war they are waging? When are going come together and say no, we don’t want war with any country. Syria is a Sovereign Country. By what right do we have to invade another country to kill, maim, bomb to smithereens to steel their countries natural resources? It is an illegal war against international laws. Against humanity

  9. NMac

    Many Tories still haven’t come to terms with the end of the British Empire and hanging on to America’s shirt tails appears to give them the illusion that Britain is still some sort of world power.

Comments are closed.