Tuesday, January 10, 2017

Can WWIII Be Averted?


10 Ways America Is Preparing for World War 3
Published on Oct 30, 2016
It’s not just Russia that’s building up its nuclear arsenal and training its forces for a potentially imminent all-out war. 
Here’re 10 ways in which America is preparing for World War Three.

If you found this interesting - why not check out 10 Ways Russia is Preparing For World War 3 - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mVe9f...
Music = Murder in Mind by Lee Pomeroy and David Michael 
Click to Subscribe.. http://bit.ly/WTVC4x
Check out the best of Alltime10s - https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list...
Where else to find All Time 10s...

John Pilger on the Threat of World War Three
Published on Jun 4, 2016
Afshin Rattansi goes underground on the outcome of whoever wins the White House in November. Multi-award winning author and filmmaker John Pilger gives his take on the threat of World War Three as Britain's defence secretary Michael Fallon jets off to Singapore for the Asian Security Conference where the keynote address will be given by U.S. Defence Secretary Ash Carter.
LIKE Going Underground http://fb.me/GoingUndergroundRT
FOLLOW Going Underground http://twitter.com/Underground_RT
FOLLOW Afshin Rattansi http://twitter.com/AfshinRattansi
FOLLOW on Instagram http://instagram.com/officialgoingund...

John Pilger - The Truth Game
Published on Dec 26, 2013
The worldwide propaganda surrounding the arms race is scrutinised.
John Pilger - Obama & Empire
Published on Dec 5, 2013
John Pilger speaks at Socialism in San Francisco.
How World War III Could Begin in Latvia
By Paul D. Miller
November 16, 2016
Four years ago, I predicted Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Here’s my next prediction, which by now will strike many people as obvious: The Baltics are next, and will pose one of President-elect Donald Trump’s first and greatest tests. It probably won’t take the form of an overt invasion.
Latvian soldiers during a military parade
Russian President Vladimir Putin has a clear goal and a grand strategy. But it’s not the most realists perceive. Some argue that he is driven by fundamentally rational, defensive goals: NATO expansion appeared threatening and Russia is pushing back. The West expanded its sphere of influence at Russia’s expense, and Russia is now retaliating. That’s why the “Ukraine Crisis Is the West’s Fault,” according to John Mearsheimer.
As with most academic realist analysis, this is nonsense. Putin is not driven by cold calculations of rational self-interest, because no human is. We are not Vulcans. We are driven by our perception of self-interest as shaped and defined by our deeper presuppositions and beliefs — which is to say, our ideology or religion.
Putin believes hegemony over Russia’s near-abroad is necessary for Russian security because of his beliefs about Russian nationhood and historical destiny. Putin (and, perhaps more so, his inner circle) isn’t merely nationalist. The Kremlin appears to be driven by peculiar form of Russian nationalism infused with religion, destiny, and messianism. In this narrative, Russia is the guardian of Orthodox Christianity and has a mission to protect and expand the faith.
A truly rational Russia would not see NATO and European Union expansion as a threat, because the liberal order is open and inclusive and would actually augment Russia’s security and prosperity. But, for Putin and other Russians who see the world through the lens of Russian religious nationalism, the West is inherently a threat because of its degeneracy and globalism.
In this view, NATO is not the benign guarantor of liberal order in Europe, but the hostile agent of the degenerate West and the primary obstacle to Russian greatness. Thus, Putin’s grand strategy requires breaking NATO. Specifically, he must make the Article V mutual security guarantee meaningless.
Putin has already succeeded in eroding NATO’s credibility. His last two targets, Georgia and Ukraine, were not NATO members, but in 2008 had been explicitly and publicly assured that they would be granted Membership Action Plans, the roadmap to membership. Russia clearly and publicly opposed any steps towards NATO membership for both countries — and then proceeded to invade them.
Russia’s invasions of Georgia and Ukraine created disputed territories — South Ossetia, Abkhazia, and Crimea — occupied by Russian soldiers. No country will ever join NATO while being partly occupied by Russia.
Putin now has the most favorable international environment since the end of the Cold War to continue Russian expansion. European unity is fractured. Alliance members are questioning the value of the mutual security pact. And the next American president seems openly favorable to Russia and ready to excuse Russia’s irresponsible behavior.
Putin’s next step is more dangerous than the previous ones, because he is likely to move into the Baltics, which are NATO members. He will not send large formations of uniformed Russian soldiers over the international border — even the most cautious NATO members will not ignore an overt conventional invasion.
Instead, Putin will instigate an ambiguous militarized crisis using deniable proxies, probably in the next two years. Perhaps Russian-speaking Latvians or Estonians (a quarter of Latvians and Estonians are ethnically Russian) will begin rioting, protesting for their rights, claiming to be persecuted, asking for “international protection.” A suspiciously well armed and well trained “Popular Front for the Liberation of the Russian Baltics” will appear. A few high-profile assassinations and bombings bring the Baltics to the edge of civil war. A low-grade insurgency may emerge.
Russia will block all United Nations Security Council resolutions, but will offer its unilateral services as a peacekeeper. The North Atlantic Council will meet. Poland will lead the effort to invoke Article V, declare the Baltics under Russian attack, and rally collective defense against Russian aggression. The Germans and French will fiercely resist. Everyone will look to the United States to see which way the alliance leader tilts.
If the Alliance does not invoke Article V, NATO’s mutual security guarantee becomes functionally meaningless. No alliance member will put any faith in the treaty to guarantee it’s own defense against Russia in the future. The geopolitical clock will rewind to 1939. Some Eastern European states may choose to bandwagon with Russia. Others, starting with Poland, will begin arming to the teeth. Putin’s dream of a fractured West and an open field in Europe will be realized.
But if the Alliance does invoke Article V, it will be tantamount to a declaration of war by the West against Russia. And that’s when Trump will have to decide if the defense of Latvia is worth risking World War III.
WW3 WARNING: Planet closer to catastrophic World War III than at any time for SIXTY years, experts warn… and it doesn’t look good for Britain or America if it does kick off
Several flashpoints could erupt into a global conflict involving the US, China and Russia, it is claimed
By Corey Charlton
7th September 2016
THE world is closer to a catastrophic and bloody World War III than at any other point in the past 60 years, experts have warned.
WWIII Conflict Map
North Korean soldiers march through Pyongyang during a military parade last year carrying nuclear-marked backpacks.
Russian army soldiers in Palmyra, Syria
Experts believe there are a number of trigger points that could set off WWIII
Russia and China, both of which are pumping vast amounts of money into their militaries, could soon rival the US in terms of power and prestige.
All three nations want to remain a global superpower – if not the only one – and are preparing for war, it is claimed.
But they oppose each other on a swathe of issues across the globe, creating a delicate political balance that could collapse and engulf nuclear states and alliances such as NATO.
A range of experts have identified several flashpoints across the globe which are today the most likely triggers for such a war.
The proximity of NATO and Russian bombers flying over Syria, Vladimir Putin’s aggression in eastern Europe, and China’s movements in the South China Sea are among them.
Experts have also raised concerns about the instability of nuclear-power Pakistan as extremist factions and terrorist groups within the country grow in power.
Adding to this is these groups’ sworn opposition to neighbouring India – which holds its own much-coveted nuclear arsenal.
Britain’s Admiral Lord West told The Sun Online: “Basically none of us know what is going to happen but we are in a more dangerous, chaotic and unpredictable time than any other in my 50 years in the force.
“I believe that because of Brexit, I think Europe is very flaky, I think it is unfortunate that we didn’t stay in, because they actually need our military expertise.
“I can see bits of Europe breaking up and when Europe gets into a mess, twice in the past we’ve had to go in there and clear it up with immense loss of blood and lives.”
He warned that Britain was not sufficiently investing in its defence – and in particular, its Royal Navy.
The investment required to maintain its strength had not materialised in the years since the Falklands War, he said, leaving Britain in a precarious place.
In July, a 25-page report by the US-based think tank Atlantic Council warned of Russia’s growing threat to NATO.
NATO has been Europe’s primary military alliance since WWII – all 28 member states have sworn to respond as a group if a single member is attacked.
The council’s report warned that Russia was an “existential threat to the Baltic states and Poland” and an annexation could be implemented “with great speed”.
It continued: “This might come at a time NATO and the EU are distracted by another crisis, or it might relate to some particular high profile event, the outcomes of which Moscow wants to shape.
“It might also result from a misperception of NATO’s activities and a miscalculation of the Alliance’s resolve.”
Admiral Lord West also said: “Russia under Putin is becoming quite aggressive, it’s spending a large amount of money on its military capabilities.
“Putin has said he believes in using tactical nuclear weapons if there is a war. That is highly dangerous.
“There’s little debate that he thinks of the Baltic states and possibly Poland as a Russian sphere of influence. They are NATO countries – I find that extremely dangerous.”
“I think people like Putin understand robust responses, they understand military power. I think he thinks he’ll pick (the Baltic states) off one-by-one.”
Another point of simmering tensions is Syria, where US and Russia are both carrying out airstrikes in support of opposing groups.
While they share a common foe in ISIS, the US has backed Kurdish and moderate Syrian rebel groups against President Bashar al-Assad.
Russia, on the other hand, is backing al-Assad against the rebels.
With both countries carrying out air raids across the relatively small area, the chances of accidental clashes and misperceptions is high.
Peter W. Singer, a leading expert on future war, wrote in The Daily Telegraph last year: “As in the past, it is perfectly possible that a third world war could start with a small event, or even by accident.
“One of the many Russian bomber planes now probing NATO’s borders could collide with an RAF Typhoon, prompting an aerial skirmish the likes of which the world has not seen for decades.
“Indeed, the skies over Syria are starting to get dangerously crowded, with Russian jets flying near US planes on bombing runs, and sparring with NATO air defences in neighbouring Turkey.”
Such an incident – albeit on a much smaller scale – was seen in November when Turkey downed a Russian jet it claimed it had encroached on its airspace during raids in Syria.
The incident led to a collapse in diplomatic relations between the two countries and sparked weeks of mudslinging between Ankara and Moscow.
With neither side prepared to lose face, their military posturing only came back from the brink after a Russian soldier was photographed travelling through the Bosphorus Strait brandishing a rocket launcher.
In the past few years China has moved aggressively to dominate the South China Sea with the construction of artificial islands containing fighter jet bunkers.
The move has alarmed countries such as Vietnam, Malaysia and the Philippines who dispute its territorial claims in the region.
Futhermore, it has aggravated Japan and South Korea – two key members of a Pacific bloc the US has sworn to protect.
Peter W. Singer is also among those to suggest World War III could be triggered when “a Japanese or American ship scrapes paint with its Chinese Navy counterpart amid the reefs in the Pacific that are being militarized as part of Asia’s current arms race”.
Indeed, Chinese military commanders – who are pushing ahead with new submarine deployments into the US’s Pacific sphere – believe this to be a genuine and legitimate scenario.
After a close call last year, China’s naval commander Admiral Wu Shengli warned his US counterpart: “If the United States continues with these kinds of dangerous, provocative acts, there could well be a seriously pressing situation between frontline forces from both sides on the sea and in the air, or even a minor incident that sparks war.”
Experts have long feared the collapse of nuclear-armed Pakistan – a country rife with instability, terror groups and with a sworn hatred of neighbour India.
The concern is that its nuclear arsenal could fall into the hands of non-state groups ready to use it against the West, or other proxy groups.
Notably, Pakistan was the birthplace of the Taliban – a fundamentalist Islamic group that spread into Afghanistan and ran the country following its war with the Soviet Union.
A British Ministry of Defence report released in January earmarked the region as one that will continue to generate threats to the UK.
It also warned that “inter-state conflict and internal instability” were possible.
A March report by Harvard Kennedy School stated the “risk of nuclear theft in Pakistan appears to be high”.
The authors wrote: “The trend seems to be toward increasing risk, as Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal expands and shifts toward tactical nuclear weapons, while adversary capabilities remain extremely high.
“Over the longer term, the possibilities of state collapse or extremist takeover cannot be entirely ruled out.”



George Friendman, the founder of geopolitical forecaster STRATFOR, has warned: “Be ready for war.”
Mr Friedman has written extensively about emerging trends and international affairs.
He recently told Business Insider that interstate war – such as that seen during World War I and II, is a recurring characteristic of politics.
“There has never been a century that has not had a systemic war — a systemic war, meaning when the entire system convulses.
“Do you want to bet this will be the only century that doesn’t have one? I’ll take that bet.
“When you have the countries like Germany, China, and Russia decline, and be replaced by others, that’s when systemic wars start.
“That’s when it gets dangerous, because they haven’t yet reached a balance. So Germany united in 1871 and all hell broke loose.
“Japan rose in the early 20th century, and then you had chaos.
“So we’re looking at a systemic shift. Be ready for war.”
Also See:
How Close is World War III?
05 December 2014
Will there be World War III?
(Part 1)
18 October 2009
(Part 2)
10 August 2013
Bankers and Wars!
14 March 2013
How a Revisionist Views Three World Wars!
30 December 2012