The problem with all analyses like these, are that a very large amount of information is censored, especially information informing folk how nasty our own governments actually can be.
Hence why Assange is in prison.
So actually without that censored information, none of us is qualified to analyse, since all that can do, in the absence of the censored information, is come up with unfair conclusions.
Of course we are going to be biased, as to who we think are the real bad guys, and who is more motivated to "Beat the bad guys back", if we don't even know half the information of how bad our own side is.
This is by far the most serious aspect of the war, the information war.
Now our Will is a very popular writer, and this story will net him some nice appreciation.
But its effect, by making us think we are even more certain of our opinions, based on part truth, is to almost assure the eventuality of nuclear war.
There are some folk who actually want a nuclear war, because they think it wil be survivable for them personally, and they expect to make a tidy profit by it, being invested in the business of it.
They are prepared to pay literally billions for war, and nothing will make them happier than stories like Will's, here, which like any advert for any product, gives only good information about the product being sold, information more likely to make us buy the product being sold, which is nuclear war.
I believe Will has a good heart, yet here he is writing what techhnically is an advert for nuclear war, and he doesn't even realise it, imho.
Those folk happy to pay billions towards war will be very happy with this story of Will's, the perfectly designed advert for nuclear war, the kind of advert which works without us even realising it, mostly.
I wish talented writers like our Will would just avoid the no doubt lucrative temptation to talk about War, as it doesn't do any good at all to talk about things we are not qualified to talk about, not having all of the information, due to people like Assange being in prison.
If we really analyse what Will is saying, in essence, he is firstly informing of the nature of dirty bombs, which is good information, assuming none of us actually wants to build a dirty bomb.
But secondly then he tries to surmise who is bad enough to use one, and this is where he lacks information.
He presents no information that might make us wonder if there could be people bad enough on the Ukraine side, to use one.
He makes it clear that only terrorists would be bad enough to use a dirty bomb, and that also looks like good information.
Who would think that there might be terrorists working for the Ukrainian side?
None of us, if we didn't know that Russian Ukrainians have been victims of Ukrainian government terrorism since 2014.
That history can't be changed, but it is very much suppressed by our mainstream media.
Anyone doubting that just needs to search out "C14, Ukraine, Yehven Karas", to hear just a few of the terrorists themselves boasting of their achievements and big plans for the world.
There, if we care to look, is the proof that such Ukrainian terrorists do exist.
Would they ever use a dirty bomb?
Would we trust them not to? Should we trust them not to?