originally posted by: s1ngular1ty
One would assume that if WW3 had already begun, it would be openly announced as such, from mainstream to independent media and journalism.
I don't think war would need to be "declared" as such, at least not until nations were pressured to do so for their people.
For example, if a British or American ship were attacked by Russia, there would likely be a report to the government, meetings called and then a
It's unlikely this would be announced as a war, unless it was clear that it was going to continue. If Russia then hit again, we would probably have
to conclude that war had in fact broken out, rather than it being a "skirmish". Governments would probably be reluctant to confirm war too easily,
so a sequence of events would probably lead to it being called such.
originally posted by: s1ngular1ty
I want your thoughts ATS. I want to see proposed timelines. I want to see previous events stacked against each other, and where you think said events
will lead. Be thoughtful, and try to remain as realistic as possible.
I think this all depends on the motivations of those involved.
I think it's also fair to assume that (right now) WW3 would be between Russia and the West/NATO, around the Baltic nations.
It's hard to work out the mentality of leaders of nations because there is so much we can't possibly have any inkling of, but I do believe that
Putin is directly leading us on a path to war. The rewards for just invading and taking Crimea, or even the whole of Ukraine, would not justify the
economic and military risks to Russia.
We also have to consider the lead-up to this too. Putin has spent a lot of time and money consolidating the Russian media, increasing nationalist
sentiment within the country, modernizing the military, and implementing considerable cyber capabilities too. These are not the actions of a nation
not planning to be at war.
In contrast to that, what have other nations and NATO done? Spending has been lowered, defenses reduced, our capabilities rolled back... America is
already involved in other theaters, the UK has scaled back, NATO has been seen trying to force member states to increase their military spending to be
on par with expectations.
One has been actively preparing for war while the others have not.
Russia continually complains about NATO being a threat, but without the actions of Russia NATO would not be the threat it imagines it to be. Putin is
basically justifying every NATO move of the last twenty years, proving that we were absolutely right to continue to increase our defenses around
Russia. If Putin doesn't want NATO on his borders, breaching borders and invading other countries is not the way to achieve that.
The west has continually offered an Olive branch and opportunities for Russia to join the international community, and for the last 20 years it seemed
that it was heading in the right direction. Everything was going along relatively smoothly, until Putin lost his sh*t and decided he wanted to
recreate the USSR - or at least that's what it seems to be.
Personally, I don't think the west has an appetite for war in the way people seem to fear. We all have enough on our plates with ISIS and the ongoing
terrorist threats to our nations. No matter how much people want to claim that war is a great thing for the wealthy, it's not. They are impacted just
as we are, and no one ever seems to be able to show who made how many millions from "creating" a war. Yes, there are always wars over resources, but
this notion of a secret corporate cabal controlling governments in order to manufacture a war for profit seems nonsensical - they are all at just as
much risk as you and I.
The owners of Lockheed Martin are not immune to nuclear war.
I am no fan of our governments, and I am one of the first to scream "hypocrites!" when I see our politicians playing victim. But there is no denying
the reality, and the reality is that Russia seems to be actively seeking a conflict while the rest of the world has been entirely unprepared for
Based on all of this, I believe it will be Russia starting any conflict by opening fire on a NATO vessel. Analysts have pointed out that the
positioning of NATO and Russian "exercises" is extremely risky, all it would take is an "accident" (a test of willingness to respond) and we could
be in all-out conflict.
I have believed from the start of this that Putin is playing a larger game than many have been willing to admit. Ukraine is worth nothing to a
collapsed Russia, it was already in Crimea and there was no risk to its presence there. Putin took this action for a bigger prize, and I believe that
bigger prize is the reformation - by force - of his nostalgic vision of the USSR.
Putin, like many Russians, truly believes that Russia has a "right" to these countries, he views them as belonging to Russia regardless of
international borders, democratic governments or NATO membership.
No one can know when it's going to happen, but I can imagine we'll see Russia finding an excuse to open fire on a NATO vessel within the next month,
meetings will be had, ambassadors recalled, a military response given, then all bets are off.
The moment NATO or Russia fires any weapon at the other, we should consider ourselves at war, regardless of how long it takes for our governments to
use those words. Be prepared to stock up, make plans, do what you need to do before the rest of the population catches on to what's happening.