If Mariupol falls, we could end up at war with Russia.

I have noticed more and more articles about the chances of a NATO/Russian war over the past few days.

Here are a couple.

If Mariupol falls, we could end up at war with Russia...

For the next few weeks, Mariupol in Ukraine is the most important city in Europe. If pro-Russian separatists take it, senior British government figures tell me, the United States will start to arm the Ukrainian government directly. This will lead to a major escalation in the conflict and prompt the most serious showdown between Washington and Moscow since the end of the Cold War. A proxy war between the US and Russia will be raging on Europe’s Eastern border. At the top of the British Government, there is mounting alarm this escalation seems more likely than not. They believe Vladimir Putin has no interest in a resolution of the conflict that isn’t on his terms. One senior figure tells me: ‘Putin will do what it takes to stop Nato and the EU expanding any further east.’ And one British source familiar with the US position says Barack Obama is under ‘enormous pressure’ from Congress to act, and if Mariupol does fall, his hand will be forced.
A diplomatic source laments that ‘the Europeans are being naive about Russia’ when they try to broker a ceasefire. Indeed, the Minsk II agreement that Francois Hollande and Angela Merkel helped negotiate earlier this month, and which was breached almost immediately, didn’t even require the border between Russia and Ukraine to be closed. This meant the Kremlin could continue supplying military hardware to its separatist allies. It is uncertain whether even the US sending weapons to Ukraine would be enough to make Putin pull back. One experienced foreign policy hand says his control of the Russian media means that he is less casualty-averse than Western leaders, so ‘you cannot bleed Putin to change his views’. the British Government is becoming increasingly concerned about the Russian president’s actions and where he will stop. What is clear, though, is that the British Government is becoming increasingly concerned about the Russian president’s actions and where he will stop. One source tells me: ‘He’s not intending to honour any set of civilised values or agreements.’ The military has long been worried that Putin will try to replicate what he has done in Ukraine in one of the Baltic States. If he does, Britain – because of Nato’s Article 5 which requires all member states to come to the aid of another member under attack – would have to come to their defence. But both military and political figures worry that the country hasn’t grasped the seriousness of the situation, and the next few weeks will see politicians and generals laying out Britain’s treaty obligations for all to see. Labour accuse David Cameron of having been absent from efforts to find a solution to the Ukraine crisis. A party source tells me that ‘you wouldn’t even bother sending out a Search and Rescue team for Britain at the moment’ – a waspish comment that indicates foreign affairs are going to play a more important role in the Election campaign than anyone expected. Cameron will come under sustained pressure to guarantee that Britain continues to spend 2 per cent of GDP on defence – something that, revealingly, he refuses to do at present. At a time when Russian bombers are forcing civilian flights into British airports to be diverted, it is hard to justify failing to do that. But if voters are worried about Ukraine when they head to the ballot box, Cameron may benefit. The public might conclude that this is no time for a novice.

So it will be interesting to see the publics reaction when they lay out our treaty obligations for all to see over the next few weeks.

And the second article.

Nato must prepare for Russian Blitzkrieg, warns UK general

Nato forces must prepare for an overwhelming Blitzkrieg-style assault by Russia on an eastern European member state designed to catch the alliance off guard and snatch territory, the deputy supreme commander of the military alliance has warned. Openly raising the prospect of a conventional armed conflict with Russia on European soil, the remarks by Sir Adrian Bradshaw, second-in-command of Nato's military forces in Europe, are some of the most strident to date from Nato. They come amid a worsening in relations with the Kremlin just days into a second fragile ceasefire aimed at curbing continued bloodshed in Ukraine's restive east between Kiev's forces and Russian-backed separatists. Speaking at the Royal United Services Institute think-tank in London on Friday, Sir Adrian warned that as well as adapting to deal with subversion and other "hybrid" military tactics being used by Russia in Ukraine, allied forces needed to be prepared for the prospect of an overt invasion."Russia might believe the large-scale conventional forces she has shown she can generate at very short notice — as we saw in the snap exercises that preceded the takeover of Crimea — could in future not only be used for intimidation and coercion, but could be used to seize Nato territory," he said"Russia might believe the large-scale conventional forces she has shown she can generate at very short notice — as we saw in the snap exercises that preceded the takeover of Crimea — could in future not only be used for intimidation and coercion, but could be used to seize Nato territory," he said. A snap exercise in Russia's eastern military district later the same year was meanwhile the largest since the fall of the Iron Curtain — it involved 160,000 troops. Russia could potentially seize territory in a Nato state using its rapidly assembled forces — for example, the Russian-speaking enclave of Narva in Estonia — before the alliance had time to swing into action, forcing leaders to either declare war or swallow their pride. Such a course of action would raise the prospect of a "slide into strategic conflict", which, "however unlikely we see that as being now, represents an obvious existential threat to our whole being", Sir Adrian added, hinting at the potential for nuclear confrontation. he prospect of a brazen Russian attack is one of the key drivers behind Nato moves to speed up its ability to deploy sizeable military units in the event of a crisis. The centrepiece of the alliance's shift in policy following a summit in Wales in September is a "spearhead" brigade-sized rapid-reaction force capable of deploying within 48 hours. Nato is preparing to deploy "force integration units" in each of its eastern European member states. They will act as eyes and ears on the ground as well as preparing the way for the rapid deployment of Nato forces should they be required by building links and logistical plans with local military units and commands.

a reply to: joho99

Interesting reading, but all I will say is be prepared for the Prop Russian crap storm that will hit your thread like a hurricane.

As soon as the Azov Battalion was mentioned the Nazi flood wave is coming. Just a little friendly advice from someone who has dealt with that storm many times already.

And honestly Russia doesn't have the juevos to fight NATO, and they know this which is why they won't try to annex any other part of Ukraine...at least for now.

Titor was leaking their agenda.

Isn't it amazing that NATO is trying to get more money from member countries and is talking war a lot about Russia

They using scare tactics?

a reply to: Whereismypassword

You seem to be clueless on how NATO is funded.

Member countries make direct and indirect contributions to the costs of running NATO and implementing its policies and activities. The greatest part of these contributions is indirect – or national – and comes through participation in NATO-led operations and missions, and in efforts to ensure that national armed forces are interoperable with those of other member countries. Member countries incur the deployment costs involved whenever they volunteer forces to participate in NATO-led operations. With a few exceptions, member countries also pay for their own military forces and military capabilities. Direct contributions to budgets managed by NATO are made by members in accordance with an agreed cost-sharing formula that is based on relative Gross National Income. These contributions represent a very small percentage of each member’s overall defence budget, and finance the expenditures of NATO’s integrated structures. Direct contributions generally follow the principle of common funding, that is to say, member countries pool resources within a NATO framework. There are three budgets that come under common funding arrangements: the civil budget, the military budget, and the NATO Security Investment Programme. Common funding covers collective requirements such as the NATO command structure, NATO-wide air defence, command and control systems or Alliance-wide communications systems, which are not the responsibility of any single member. Projects can also be jointly funded, which means that the participating countries can identify the requirements, the priorities and the funding arrangements, but NATO provides political and financial oversight. Financial management of these different types of contributions is structured to ensure that the ultimate control of expenditure rests with the member countries supporting the cost of a defined activity, and is subject to consensus among them. The North Atlantic Council (NAC), NATO’s highest political decision-making body, approves NATO budgets and investments, and exercises oversight over NATO financial management. The Council takes into account resource considerations in its decision making. The Resource Policy and Planning Board (RPPB) advises the Council on resource policy and allocation. For example, when the Council decided to undertake the Libya operation, it did so with the benefit of a full evaluation of the costs from Allied Command Operations and the RPPB. The Budget Committee and the Investment Committee, which report to the RPPB, also review and approve planned expenditures.

www.nato.int...

a reply to: joho99

Since Russia claims they aren't involved in Ukraine it really should not concern them on how Ukraine repels the invasion.

Sadly it never should have gotten this far. Putin should have been stopped a lot sooner. I think Putin is starting to underestimate some of the western nations in terms of him feeling he can do whatever he wants without a response.

I am curious what the response would be from the Russian military and Russian citizens. There seems to be pushback as information comes out about Russian involvement in Ukraine.

a reply to: tsurfer2000h

And honestly Russia doesn't have the juevos to fight NATO, ...

Remember the Parker Brothers's game named Risk? I was very good at it. One thing that happen in that game is when a strong ennemy is being attacked by a smaller power, all other player including yourself join at attacking the strong one, even those who made a "pact" with the strong one...

a reply to: PeterMcFly

Remember the Parker Brothers's game named Risk?

Yep, problem is though the only one's that would join Russia know that with even their help Russia still can't take NATO on in a full war.

Sigh. The deal was likely made even before any of this started. Russia would get the Crimea back and would have a land bridge to supply it. It will not escalate into a major war, although protective skirmishes may be fought and then fade out.

originally posted by: tsurfer2000h
a reply to: joho99

Interesting reading, but all I will say is be prepared for the Prop Russian crap storm that will hit your thread like a hurricane.

As soon as the Azov Battalion was mentioned the Nazi flood wave is coming. Just a little friendly advice from someone who has dealt with that storm many times already.

And honestly Russia doesn't have the juevos to fight NATO, and they know this which is why they won't try to annex any other part of Ukraine...at least for now.

Nor Sadam or Gadafi backed Down from the US what makes you so sure that Russia will?

And you say that we should have stopped Putin a long time ago. Like when, and how?

Do you really think NATO will come out of a war With Russia as Victors? What kind of a world do you People live in?

People have got to be out of their minds if they think going to war With Russia is a option on the table. That is insane.

originally posted by: spy66

originally posted by: tsurfer2000h
a reply to: joho99

Interesting reading, but all I will say is be prepared for the Prop Russian crap storm that will hit your thread like a hurricane.

As soon as the Azov Battalion was mentioned the Nazi flood wave is coming. Just a little friendly advice from someone who has dealt with that storm many times already.

And honestly Russia doesn't have the juevos to fight NATO, and they know this which is why they won't try to annex any other part of Ukraine...at least for now.

Nor Sadam or Gadafi backed Down from the US what makes you so sure that Russia will?

And you say that we should have stopped Putin a long time ago. Like when, and how?

Do you really think NATO will come out of a war With Russia as Victors? What kind of a world do you People live in?

People have got to be out of their minds if they think going to war With Russia is a option on the table. That is insane.

If there is war this year with Russia and it goes thermo then Titor is for real!!! No way anyone could have predicted it without knowing it was going to or did happen!!

If there is war with Russia then the use of nukes will become unavoidable, but maybe this is planned to reduce the worlds population and why all these underground bases have been built!

originally posted by: tsurfer2000h
a reply to: joho99

Interesting reading, but all I will say is be prepared for the Prop Russian crap storm that will hit your thread like a hurricane.

As soon as the Azov Battalion was mentioned the Nazi flood wave is coming. Just a little friendly advice from someone who has dealt with that storm many times already.

And honestly Russia doesn't have the juevos to fight NATO, and they know this which is why they won't try to annex any other part of Ukraine...at least for now.

says the one who storms all the threads even remotely related to the ukraine with 'blame putin for everything/whitewash the west' crap.

you were fast to show up here, weren't you? forgot to add 'first!'?

as for the thread, US is already supplying ukraine with some military equipment, so it's not even fear mongering, more like a psyop designed to prepare people for the inevitable.

a reply to: tsurfer2000h

Yep, problem is though the only one's that would join Russia know that with even their help Russia still can't take NATO on in a full war.

I agree, but a couples small ennemies added "here and there" can make a lot of troubles. Not to say NATO could loose the game but that can result in a devastating and long world war.

At the onset of world war 1, attacking parties were believing in their supremacy and convinced it would be a swift war. War have a "mind of itself", once its start it goes where no one expect.

And that is, if it stay a "conventional" war!

a reply to: joho99

Where is Ukraine's IFOR?

It worked in Bosnia, after NATO dissolved the former Federal Republic of Yugoslavia.

Chancellor Merkel asked for it, Hollande asked for it, Prososhenko asked for it, Putin even drafted a resolution to the UN Security Council to pass a mandate for a peacekeeping mission.

One job... UN.

a reply to: Aleister

I hope so,
but to be honest, I'm hearing separatists in debaltseve continually say '' all the way to kiev '' in the last few days of home movies..

I'd like to think someone in the Western world would try to stand in the way before that happens.

As long as Putin calculates NATO has no stomach for war while he has anti war Komrade Obama cowering in a corner, he will use it to his advantage to get as much as he can. Anyone else remember the mic slip up where Obama tells Putin wait till he gets the reelection over with? Looks like it was a green light when viewing history since.

originally posted by: Whereismypassword
Isn't it amazing that NATO is trying to get more money from member countries and is talking war a lot about Russia
They using scare tactics?

Sorry, but I have really tried to find it, but I have come across no mention that NATO is "talking war" with Russia. Are you sure the scare stories are not coming from someone else.

Oh, and running NATO is pretty cheap.

www.nato.int...

a reply to: spy66

Nor Sadam or Gadafi backed Down from the US what makes you so sure that Russia will?

And yet where are those two now?

Also you seem to be a bit confused here as NATO is more than just the US, so they wouldn't be fighting just the US.

And you say that we should have stopped Putin a long time ago. Like when, and how?

So where exactly did I say that, because you seem to be very confused as to what I have said, but feel free to show me?

Do you really think NATO will come out of a war With Russia as Victors? What kind of a world do you People live in?

So Russia is so strong they can take on a multi national military force and come out victorious...what world do you live in?

Russia wouldn't be crying about NATO if they knew they could defeat them, which obviously they cannot which is why they are crying about NATO and their border countries.

People have got to be out of their minds if they think going to war With Russia is a option on the table. That is insane.

That is the last option, one that Putin seems to be aiming for, or he would quit trying to take land that isn't his or Russia's.

The u.s. has no want of peace in ukraine, it doesnt fit americas track record of bomb and destabilize and give money and keep said country in turmoil, with u.s. troops running around said country for years to come.

Russia didnt start the mess in ukraine, the u.s. and the west did. The military industrial complex is running full steam ahead.

Destabilazation in ukraine only benifits the u.s.

a reply to: PeterMcFly

And that is, if it stay a "conventional" war!

Russia wouldn't stay conventional for long. They have already used the nuke talks as a way of keeping Crimea.

“If it comes to aggression against Russian territory, which Crimea and Sevastopol are parts of, I would not advise anyone to do this.” He then added, “We have the doctrine of national security, and it very clearly regulates the actions, which will be taken in this case.”

thediplomat.com...

And here is part of the doctrine Russia is referring to...

“The Russian Federation reserves the right to utilize nuclear weapons in response to the utilization of nuclear and other types of weapons of mass destruction against it and (or) its allies, and also in the event of aggression against the Russian Federation involving the use of conventional weapons when the very existence of the state is under threat.”

thediplomat.com...

So a conventional war would be short lived if they follow their military doctrine.

Which is discussed here...

www.sras.org...