>
This would make for a good TV thriller: A few years in the future, with the world in economic crisis and the entire planet in a tense and uncertain mess, French-speaking Quebec finally secedes from Canada in a dramatic and landslide referendum.
Canada smiles and bears it. But then Quebec’s elected government is overthrown by ultranationalist fanatics, after violent riots in Montreal in which Chinese diplomats and politicians openly support protesters. A minister from Beijing is even recorded, on his phone, discussing the composition of a new Quebec government with the Chinese ambassador in Montreal.
Quebec’s new regime gives the remaining English-speakers in the country a hard time, knowing full well that this will infuriate English-speaking Canadians and Americans. He also makes a big trade deal with Beijing, and continues to be formed by a military alliance.
In about a year, there are Chinese troops and planes in Montreal, just 370 miles from New York City. Furthermore, China says it plans to place missile launchers in Quebec. He says these are purely defensive. But it just so happens that they could also be used to fire cruise missiles with nuclear warheads. “We wouldn’t do that,” China says. But there is no treaty that prevents it from doing so.
I have been watching the American TV series Jericho (pictured) with a grim fascination, not because its explanation of the nuclear disaster is likely, but because its depiction of a friendly small town in a post-nuclear world slowly descending into savagery is convincing.
What do you think the United States government would do in these circumstances?
Well, let me quote the opening words of a terrifying new book by Ben Abelow, How the West Brought War to the Ukraine.
He says: ‘For nearly 200 years, beginning with the crafting of the Monroe Doctrine in 1823, the United States has asserted security claims to virtually the entire Western Hemisphere. Any foreign power that places military forces near US soil knows that it is crossing a red line. Thus, US policy embodies the conviction that where a potential opponent places his forces is of crucial importance.
“In fact, this conviction is the cornerstone of American foreign and military policy, and its violation is considered a reason for war.”
Because, you see, what I’ve described in my thriller is pretty much the mirror image of what the US and NATO have been doing in Europe for a few years now. For Canada and the US, read Russia. For Quebec, read Ukraine and the Baltic States. In fact, there are NATO troops now stationed in Estonia.
They have been known to organize tank parades just meters from the Russian border. That puts them 81 miles (about the distance from London to Coventry) from St. Petersburg, Russia’s second largest city. Ben Abelow notes that “in 2020, NATO conducted a live-fire training exercise inside Estonia, 70 miles from the Russian border, using tactical missiles with ranges of up to 185 miles. These weapons can strike Russian territory with minimal warning. In 2021, again in Estonia, NATO fired 24 rockets to simulate an attack on air defense targets inside Russia.”
Again, can you begin to imagine the US response to such action near its borders, or Britain’s if (say) Ireland decided to join and host a foreign military alliance, hostile to us?
Now they will throw all kinds of drool at me, saying that I am trying to justify Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. I am not. I still think it’s stupid, barbaric and wrong.
I think the best response to provocation is not to react that way. But not everyone is like me. And if no one in the White House, the Pentagon or NATO thought that their Russia policy could be jeopardizing such an outcome, then I’d be surprised. As I have noted before, even the American anti-Russian superhawk Robert Kagan has publicly said that Russia was provoked. The worst thing about this is the nuclear element. In December 1987 I traveled to Washington to witness one of the most momentous and joyous events of the time. This was the summit between Kremlin leader Mikhail Gorbachev and US President Ronald Reagan, which culminated in the signing of a treaty banning medium-range nuclear missiles.
The danger of such weapons was that they were much more likely to be launched than long-range rockets. Experts calculated that its use may not result in total nuclear elimination. Hence the need to get rid of them.
Well, Donald Trump repudiated that treaty in 2018, blaming Russia, not very convincingly, for his decision. This was the second major nuclear weapons treaty that the United States has broken. Gorbachev snapped that this was “not the work of a great mind.” Scarier, he warned that ‘a new arms race has been heralded’.
And now we have a real war in the Ukraine, which no powerful person seems to want to end. In fact, anyone who urges serious peace talks is denounced as a traitor and appeaser. That dirty and cruel war is now slowly spreading to Russia itself, with consequences I dare not imagine.
Throughout the Cold War I never really believed that we were in danger. The Cuban crisis, which slightly overshadowed the preparations for my 11th birthday, convinced me that everyone would have more common sense. I thought and think that television dramas about nuclear Armageddon, like the BBC’s The War Game and the American The Day After, were not convincing. They could not find a credible reason for a war to start.
But now it seems entirely plausible. And I’ve been watching the American TV series Jericho with grim fascination, not because its explanation of nuclear disaster is likely, but because its depiction of a friendly small town in a post-nuclear world slowly descending into savagery is compelling. Through arrogance and madness, this could have happened, and it would if it did.
So I will continue to say that we need peace in Ukraine, and soon.
We will all suffer for the ecological fanatics
The wind often does not blow when it is very cold. This is even more obvious than the fact that the sun doesn’t usually get very hot in winter. But the ‘net zero’ fanatics, who endlessly exaggerate the ability of ‘renewables’ to keep this country running, cannot face these facts.
So what will we do? Suffer, I hope. I read about plans to ‘operate additional coal-fired plants’. But the green fanatics made sure that most of them were not suspended but exploited. I think I’m the only person who ever protested against this arrogant and clueless madness.
Power outages are becoming more likely as our old nuclear generators wear out. Even France, and the other countries we turn to in trouble, can’t always save electricity to save us. The only thing that won’t happen is a rethinking of our utopian wild green politics. Criticism is hardly tolerated and no one in politics dares to oppose it.
Can someone explain to me why hereditary peers in Parliament were so bad? They were mostly modest, thoughtful people who loved this country and were immune to state bullying. Rather, ‘elected’ MPs are in fact dutifully approved by voters after being selected by ruthless, conformist party machines. They know they will be fired or disgraced if they stand up to their party’s enforcers. However, when I tried to make this point in 1997, when there was still time to save hereditary peers, no one was interested.