A startling claim that the west is on course for war with Russia has been delivered by the former deputy commander of Nato, the former British general Sir Alexander Richard Shirreff.

In a book published on Wednesday, 2017 War With Russia, Shirreff argues that the events in Crimea have destroyed the post-cold-war settlement and set the stage for conflict, beginning next year.

In a chilling scenario, he predicts that Russia, in order to escape what it believes to be encirclement by Nato, will seize territory in eastern Ukraine, open up a land corridor to Crimea and invade the Baltic states.

Shirreff, who was deputy supreme allied commander Europe from 2011 to 2014 and before that served in Northern Ireland, Iraq and the Balkans, is risking his reputation by making such a bold prediction. But he claims his narrative is closely modelled on his Nato experience of war-gaming future conflicts.

His scenario is specific, naming Latvia as the first of the Baltic countries to be invaded, in May next year. Such specifics open him to potential ridicule.

At the book launch at London’s Royal United Services Institute, he heavily caveated the scenario by saying it was still avoidable provided Nato took the necessary steps to pre-position forces in large enough numbers in the Baltic states. Nato is planning to make a start on just such a move at a Nato summit in Warsaw in July.

Faced with scepticism from journalists at the book launch – the Baltic states, unlike Ukraine, are members of Nato, and Russian action against any of them would in theory trigger a response – Shirreff said history was full of irrational decisions by leaders.

He said Putin could invade the Baltic states and then threaten nuclear action if Nato threatened to intervene.

Shirreff’s warning about the danger posed by Russia is echoed in the foreword by US admiral James Stavridis, former supreme allied commander Europe, who writes: “Under President Putin, Russia has charted a dangerous course that, if it is allowed to continue, may lead inexorably to a clash with Nato. And that will mean a war that could so easily go nuclear.”

Shirreff insists that retention of a nuclear deterrent is essential. “Be under no illusion whatsoever – Russian use of nuclear weapons is hardwired into Moscow’s military strategy,” he writes.

He describes Russia as now the west’s most dangerous adversary and says Putin’s course can only be stopped if the west wakes up to the real possibility of war and takes urgent action.

He also rounds on the UK for what he says is the emasculation of its conventional military capability on the assumption that the international scene will remain benign. He says Nato increasingly lacks the knowledge, capability and military hardware to match what he describes as Russia’s ever-improving conventional capability.

He is scathing about David Cameron and Philip Hammond, who was defence secretary before becoming foreign secretary, over cuts in the military. Speaking about Cameron, he writes that he has “made himself increasingly irrelevant on the international stage”.

Shirreff discloses a clash with Hammond, then defence secretary, in 2014 after the general wrote a piece in the Sunday Times saying that cutbacks were a big gamble. “The defence secretary was so infuriated at being questioned in public that I was summoned by General Sir Peter Wall, the chief of the general staff and head of the army, and told that the defence secretary wanted ‘formal action’ against me.

“However, formal action would have involved a court martial and, fortunately for the latter’s political reputation – it also seems he had not appreciated that I reported to Nato and not to him – wiser counsel had prevailed.”

Asked at the book launch about the incident, he said “I think it is the duty of senior soldiers engaged with politicians not to think like politicians, not to make life easy for politicians, but to lay out the military consequences of political decisions. And I sense that is something that has got blurred in recent years.”

The latter point appeared to be a reference to the failure of senior British military figures to stand up to Tony Blair over the invasion of Iraq. The Chilcot inquiry into Iraq is expected to criticise senior British commanders over this failure.

Asked about the consequences for British security of leaving the European Union, Shirreff said it would make the EU weaker and that a weaker EU would make Britain weaker.

Not really. Under the Ottomans it was fairly peaceful relative to the time.

It's a myth that the region has always been in conflict.

Not really. Under the Ottomans it was fairly peaceful relative to the time.

It's a myth that the region has always been in conflict.

No it wasn't.

Entire Christian Populations were repressed by 400 years. Lands were under occupation.

Those in Eastern Europe, Balkans know these Dark Ages very well.

Talking about the middle east chief. Do try and keep up! :lol:

This is massively oversimplified. But I reckon that the British giving Palestine to the Jewish screwed up the whole region (arguably the whole world) big time and is the source of the majority of problems the West has with Islam today.

After the war, the British and Americans were absolutely exhausted. They didn't want to fight anymore. There was, with good reason, lots of sympathy for the Jews after the world saw pictures of Birkenau.

The Jews, understandably, became resolved to ensure that never again would they be exterminated. They wanted a homeland. They went, en masse, to Palestine and agitated, through brutal terrorist means, for the British to relinquish control of that territory.

If the Second World War hadn't occurred, it's almost impossible that the British would have given up Palestine to the Jews only.

....

Edited by quickflick: 19/5/2016 10:23:14 PM

Edited by quickflick: 19/5/2016 10:24:07 PM

I think that is somewhat of an over-simplification, as I note you yourself stated.

I think the underlying issue is the inherent instability of the artificially created states. This led to "strongman" authoritarian rulers to hold the countries together.

Iraq under Saddam is the classic example.

The whole Israel-Palestine thing did not help, but I don't agree that is at the root of the problems in the middle east. I think it is actually an amplifier of the existing issues.

If you had surrounding arab nations that were democratic, with strong institutions, rule of law etc, you wouldn't have had the various wars against Israel in the 1960s, you would have likely had less terrorism, and more diplomatic pressure, economic embargoes etc.

The Palestine issue has been a convenient figleaf for brutal arab dictators to hide behind to justify their brutality to their own people.

Certainly I am not defending many of the things Israel has done. And I definitely agree that a modern state created on the basis of a religion is not what should be done.

However, it is far too convenient to use this conflict to justify all the dictatorships throughout the region.

I really think so much of it goes back to Sykes-Picot. And I think the middle east will continue to fragment, and countries split up, until a new equilibrium is reached.

There may not be a formal legal break up of countries. But, the Kurds in northern Iraq are a good example of a de facto state within a state.

This type of artificial creation of borders also explains a lot about the conflicts in many African countries that were former colonies.

Israel is actually supposed to be a nation-state, not a theocracy.

Israel is actually supposed to be a nation-state, not a theocracy.

Sorry I should have chosen my words better. Yes, of course it is structured as a democratic nation-state, not a theocracy.

However, it is clearly a jewish homeland, with jewish right-of-return, star of david on the flag etc.

So it was definitely designed as a "jewish homeland", but not a theocracy of course.

The problem I think is that it should have from the start been a 2-state solution - a Palestine for the arabs, and an Israel for the jews.

But there are a lot of reasons historically for the way things evolved.

I am not anti-Israel by any means. But I think across the board people would likely agree that, with hindsight, things could have been done differently/better.

But, going back to my original point - I am arguing that the whole Israel-Palestine issue has only amplified the already existing structural problems in the middle east. It is not the cause.

You correctly point out that there was a long history of interaction between jewish people and arabs prior to Israel being created.

The problem I think is that it should have from the start been a 2-state solution - a Palestine for the arabs, and an Israel for the jews.

Trust you to pipe up, where's JP when he's needed to white knight also?

There's no denying their culpability for many of the ills of this world.

I'll probably be banned for this post. Even though there is no call for violence or vulgarity. JP and mcjules will call me a Nazi, and the idea presented will be dismissed as anti-semitism by the casual observer, thanks to the conditioning you have experienced.

Our task is to call this filthy thing, this plague, this—this pest, by its right name; to make unceasing resistance to it, knowing all the time that it's probably ultimately ineradicable, and bearing in mind that its hatred towards us is a compliment, and resolving (some of the time, at any rate) to do a bit more to deserve it. Thank you.

But I'm not anti-semitic, you are proving my point. I'm saying the Jews, like everybody in the world has their faults. Some faults are more easily exposed (White privilege, Islamic extremism) than others (Jewish dominance of media and war crimes in Palestine).

I'm not proving your point. These are Christopher Hitchen's words, not mine. You know...the guy in your signature.

Your table is a compliment to the Jewish people denoting how much they have achieved over the last number of decades.

I'm surprised you also didn't throw in the statistic that approximately 193 of the 855 Nobel laureates have been Jewish (22%) and that Jews make up less than 0.2% of the global population.

Also I acknowledge the strong evidence connected to Israeli committed war crimes. What's your point?

Also the difference between you and me is you're the only one who thinks I'm "simple", while numerous users have called your political views abhorrent.

Lol you're not simple but sometimes you act your age.

MVFC has views that aren't in line with the socialist-hipster fuckwuitism of this day and age :lol:

11.mvfc.11 views can be confronting yes, but he has become a parody . Like davide82 has stated 11 does it either to troll but he has gone too far at times and needs to cool it

Stopped reading after this...not sure if you are just getting all of this information anecdotally, but you need to dig a little deeper and look at the historical facts.

1882 - 1939 - Mass immigration of Jews to Palestine, firstly due to a rise in anti-Semitism in Russia and then following the rise of Hitler and the Nazi party in Germany.

1897 - World Zionist Organisation is created to advocate for a Jewish Homeland in Palestine, which at that time was under the Ottoman Empire and following the First World War, The British Mandate of Palestine.

1917 - Balfour Declaration - British Foreign Secretary Sir James Balfour approves the creation of a national homeland for the Jews in Palestine stating: "His Majesty's government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people..."

These three significant events happened long before WWII and set in motion the establishment of a nation-state for the Jews in The British Mandate of Palestine.

So yes, a massive oversimplification of the history.

Sixteen year old occasionally behaves like a sixteen year old.

Is that supposed to be a bad thing?

The good old "The Jews are responsible for everything." Where have I heard that before?

"1. A negation of Democracy, and an attempt to revert to the Church-State of bygone ages.
2. Provocative anti-Semitism.
3. Unwarranted by the Balfour Declaration, the Mandate, or any other right; contrary to Zionist assurances to Britain and to the Arabs and in present conditions unjust to other Palestinians politically and to other religions.
4. As regards unrestricted immigration, a discriminatory and an undemocratic camouflage for a Jewish State.
5. An obstruction to the consent of the Arabs to the peaceful and prosperous settlement in Palestine of hundreds of thousands of suffering European Jews, the victims of Nazi atrocities; and provocative of Moslem antagonism within and beyond the Empire, and consequently a danger to its integrity and safety.
6. Inconsistent in demanding on one hand, on a basis of a separate Jewish nationality everywhere Jews are found, Jewish domination in Palestine, and at the same time claiming complete Jewish equality elsewhere than in Palestine, on the basis of a nationality common to the citizens of every faith."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaac_Isaacs