How Trump Could Start a War With Russia

[Purveyor]

By Mark Buchanan

Donald Trump has expressed some radical thoughts about foreign policy -- including that the U.S., as a member of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, can choose whether or not to come to the aid of an ally under attack. To better understand how alarmingly wrong such thinking is, it's worth reading a new novel by a former high-ranking NATO official.

The book -- called "War With Russia, 2017" -- describes a terrifying series of events. NATO members become embroiled in squabbles over funding and how to deal with Russia, leaving inadequate forces in the Baltic region. Emboldened by the perceived weakness, Russian President Vladimir Putin launches a surprise attack, taking Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia in a matter of days. By the time Western leaders find the resolve to fight back, they face entrenched Russian troops protected by sophisticated air defenses -- and by Putin's pledge to respond to any attack with tactical nuclear weapons. Outright nuclear war becomes a distinct possibility.

This is no crackpot's fantasy. The author, British General Sir Richard Shirreff, considers the scenario all too plausible. Having served as NATO's Deputy Supreme Allied Commander for Europe from 2011 to 2014, he has deep knowledge of Russian, European and U.S. military capabilities. He says he wrote the book as an "urgent warning" about the increasing risk of military conflict with Russia -- and the folly of allowing Putin to believe that an invasion of the Baltics could succeed with relative ease.

"There is no such thing as Fortress America," Shirreff said in an interview. "Any European conflict is potentially a global conflict. The defense of America begins on the forest frontiers of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania."

more...

http://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2016-07-27/how-donald-trump-could-start-a-war-with-russia

[chelsea0011]

1. Step 1. By becoming President

[geek tragedy]

2. Trump would offer Poland up as a door prize.

And he'd build his damn casinos there.

[awoke_in_2003]

3. None of the Baltic states

should have been brought into NATO. It is only going to, eventually, cause problems.

[Bucky]

5. That's certainly Russia's view.

They didn't have to take it as a threat. Had Putin decided to ally with NATO (and diversify his economy instead of going for the energy export quick fix), he'd be in a much stronger position now.

The door was open when he joined the G7-G8. He's shown his true autocratic colors ever since.

I don't think a straight up blitz like invasion is realistic. If Trump its elected Putin will have a few years to ramp up economic pressure on the Baltic States to bring then into his sphere.

[awoke_in_2003]

6. And if Russia

started building bases on the Mexican border?

[Bucky]

8. Not exactly parallel situation.

There hasn't been a war there in 160+ years

Russia was occupying the Baltics just 25 yrs ago. And they're a threat to them now.

Also bear in mind the Baltics want NATO there. Mexico has no desire for Russia to occupy her. There is a little matter of democracy to consider along with our Realpolitik

[world wide wally]

4. A second success of NATO has been keeping European nations from warring with each other!

Remember WWI and WWII?

[awoke_in_2003]

7. and the American taxpayer

has been footing the bill, while Europe has used their money on education and health care

[world wide wally]

9. It's cheaper than war

[awoke_in_2003]

10. Yes, it is

and we pay for it