npub1vf…25ctd on Nostr: From "The Analyst": THE ‘PRE-WAR ERA’ WHAT DOES IT MEAN? There has been a great ...

From "The Analyst":

THE ‘PRE-WAR ERA’ WHAT DOES IT MEAN?

There has been a great deal of talk lately about the need for us to start thinking that we are no longer in the Post War or even Post Cold War Era, but in an alarming new period: the Pre-War Era.
The concept is interesting in that it’s the first time it’s ever been used to describe a situation before a possible war, rather than in an historical context looking back and saying 1933-39 was the ‘pre-war era’.
The aim of those military leaders and politicians who have used it is to try to get us as the public to appreciate that we are in a dangerous time, arguably the most dangerous we have ever faced in almost all of our lifetimes. If you’re under 80 years old it’s never been as bad as this before. That’s no understatement. It really is that bad.
The need to place our defence and our mental attitude towards the need for defence at the top of our agenda, requires us to look beyond our immediate concerns. Inflation, jobs, cost of living etc etc.
These are the day to day concerns of the public at large. Seeing beyond the next week or month if you live ‘pay cheque to pay cheque’, - and many do, is not an easy thing to do. What is beyond is a nebulous construct. It harkens back to British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain’s words, ‘of a distant land of which we know nothing’. As if distance alone is reason to remain ignorant and unconcerned if an invader strips a country of its independence. He was talking about modern Czechia. That was a mere 1000km away from the very spot he spoke those words outside London. Ukraine is over twice that. And yet there are some who would still say those words are valid. They are the reason the Pre-War Era concept is being discussed.
They are the ones who need to hear that right now, another war is looming like it never has before, with a country whose leadership is busy discussing the use of tactical and theatre level nuclear weapons. Against the Western European nations, in a debilitating military first strike. Why? Because its policy discussion document says, we would be too weak to respond for fear further escalation.
Now it’s fair to say the Russian discourse on using nuclear weapons is always about putting the frighteners on western media and politicians, it’s just what they do. But it’s no less valid for it.
They think we are too weak to stand up for ourselves. They don’t think, when push comes to shove, that we will stand up and fight them. Because we will always be afraid of when they’ll use their nukes. And the easier they make it sound to use them - and that they’re not afraid to, the easier it is to push us aside and take what they want.
So we have to make clear that that’s never going to be true. And politicians say it, but do the people in general think it’s worth it?
Raising the spectre of a land war in Europe some time in the next 5-10 years - which will quickly spread to the North Atlantic, Arctic, North, Baltic and Mediterranean seas, let alone the North Pacific, is something that has to be done. And it can’t be done once, it has to be repeated loud and often until people hear the message.
Russia is coming. Not right now. This is just the first stage. It’s the five to ten year window that counts. Once Ukraine is over and that vast Russian military industry is up and running, do we think they will just wind it down? Or build new and better with recent combat experience to enforce their military capabilities? These are Russians. War is their primary weapon of extending their power and maintaining it.
It’s time to get ready and take it seriously. We should have started a long time ago.