Wildfire or Firestorm? The Wording Matters. Observer Effect 4.0

By Irina Severin, an Expert on Russia and Russian Hybrid Warfare

What looks like war, smells like war, and has the consequences of war is a war.

The word #Wildfire is perceived as a fire ignited by mostly natural causes like lightning or occasional, unintentional arson. What happens in the #UK and # Europe is definitely artificially ignited by professional arsonists and is a matter of arson, not natural lightning.

The most correct definition is firestorm, which is artificially/intentionally ignited with a hostile purpose. A firestorm could be defined as "weaponized wildfire," or "rapidly intensified firestorm," as an analogy to a rapidly intensified hurricane, which creates its own self-enforcing weather system.

Firestorms, once professionally ignited and rapidly intensified, taking into account topography and given a direction, continuously self-generate and expand, capturing huge new territories and advancing in a given direction, which could be corrected by topography.

The fact that, according to the media, so-called UK "wildfires" are targeting three nuclear plants only proves that these are artificially ignited firestorms, not spontaneously appearing wildfires.

Also, it is also important to understand that this is not climate change that is responsible for these firestorms, but a climate, weather, geophysical (all in one) war by Russia against Europe and the US, as I have written many times over the last few years.

Observer Effect 4.0

The more precise the wording is, the more adequate the response is. It looks like France, better than others, understood the situation by involving the military in neutralizing the firestorm.

The mere fact that France de facto recognized this attack as a war by employing the military, instead of a renewed and strengthened heatwave, as the meteorologists forecast, led to normalization of the weather and easing of the firestorm, while Spain and Britain still fight the fire.

This recognition, which Emmanuel Macron emphasized by mentioning that this is a disaster comparable only to WWIII, turned on what I name an Observer Effect - as soon as the Russians understand that they are exposed, they retreat to soften the situation and return again when they are not expected, and there is no Observer Effect.

This means that if the Observer Effect is permanently on, it would restrict the Russian attacks permanently. Weather/climate/ geophysical warfare is effective only when it is not detected and acknowledged and doesn;t provoke retaliation by other military means.