Putin issues chilling new threat as Nato chief says tensions with Russia could end in 'all out conflict'



* Putin unveiled ambitious military modernization program with new combat jets, missiles and other weapons
* General Sir Adrian Bradshaw said Vladimir Putin could use 'hybrid-warfare 'to seize former Baltic states
* He backed plans to set up Nato force integration units in eastern Europe to 'send a strong signal' to the Kremlin
* Comments echo those by Defence Secretary who claimed Russian aggression poses as great a threat as Isis
* Ukraine secret services accuse political aide to Vladimir Putin of directing the snipers in Kiev prior to the revolution
* RAF jets this week scrambled to intercept two Russian bombers capable of carrying nuclear missiles off Cornwall
* Tupolev Tu95 Bear aircraft streaked along fringes of UK airspace, prompting the deployment of two Typhoons
* Russian TV later screens footage of mid-air contact thought to have been filmed on previous interception
* Country 'could not cope' if Russia attacked because our defences have been 'decimated', say military chiefs
* David Cameron defiantly dismissed the incident, saying the Russians 'are trying to make some sort of a point'
* But former air chiefs say number of British fighter squadrons has fallen from 26 at Cold War end to just seven

More at: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2961643/Russia-tensions-trigger-war-Britain-s-NATO-commander-warns-Soviet-style-tactics-pose-existential-threat-being.html

From: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/russia/11423416/How-do-we-protect-the-Baltic-States.html

How do we protect the Baltic States?

Vladimir Putin has dismembered Ukraine with a masterly use of 'hybrid warfare' – any repetition along the Baltic must be stamped on immediately by Nato, writes David Blair, Graphic by Sam Dodge



The trap was laid with meticulous precision. The target was a senior officer in Estonia’s version of MI5 and the bait was supposedly vital information about organised crime. Eston Kohver was lured to a meeting in a lonely woodland at 9am on a Friday. Lest the spy be thought foolish or naive, he went to the assignation with a posse of bodyguards. Yet his erstwhile contact was accompanied by an armed snatch squad from Russia’s FSB intelligence service. Mr Kohver’s escort was swiftly neutralised with stun grenades; for good measure, their communications were also jammed. Then the spy was spirited at gunpoint across the Russian border five miles away.

This brazen abduction of an intelligence officer from his homeland took place on September 5 last year, only two days after President Barack Obama had visited Estonia to offer reassurance about America’s commitment to its security. Mr Kohver was later paraded on Russian television and charged with subverting the very state that had carried out his kidnapping.

This incident passed largely unnoticed in the West, but Estonia and its Baltic neighbours, Latvia and Lithuania, drew a stark conclusion. Instead of observing the normal rules, Russia was prepared to do exactly what it wished on their territory. All three countries fall into the uniquely sensitive category of being former Soviet republics that are now members of Nato and the European Union. For over a decade, the Baltic states have been paid-up members of the Atlantic Alliance, but they take incidents like Mr Kohver’s kidnapping as proof that, deep down, Russia still views them as vassals.

And the fate of Ukraine makes them feel acutely vulnerable. Day by day, President Vladimir Putin is dismembering his neighbour. If he concludes that his adventure in Ukraine has served Russia’s interests, then he will turn on new targets – and the trio of countries along the Baltic coast would probably be next. Michael Fallon, the Defence Secretary, describes a “real and present danger”.

If Russia were to threaten Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, there is one simple reason why the ensuing crisis would dwarf everything in Ukraine.

As members of Nato, all three countries are protected by the North Atlantic Treaty. Article V of this agreement states that “an armed attack” against any signatory “shall be considered an attack against them all”, requiring any counter-measures “including the use of armed force”.

Put bluntly, Britain is legally obliged to defend Estonia’s 203-mile border with Russia just as surely as we would fight for the White Cliffs of Dover. In case this needs to be spelt out any further, this would entail going to war with a country that possesses the world’s biggest arsenal of nuclear weapons. So conflict that begins on the shores of the Baltic could, in extremis, escalate into one that threatens the survival of humanity.

For this reason, a Russian invasion remains highly unlikely. The greatest danger is that Mr Putin would use methods that fall short of classic invasion. Look no further than Ukraine, which provides vivid proof of Russia’s mastery of “hybrid warfare”, namely the use of every method of force and coercion except full-scale conflict.
The crisis in eastern Ukraine began with the occupation of public buildings by people who proclaimed their loyalty to Russia. At first, these masked men were armed with sticks and baseball bats. When they took over City Hall in Donetsk, everything continued around them, with officials holding a meeting on the municipal drains as the first barricade went up. But these occupations spread like wildfire, leading to the birth of the “Donetsk People’s Republic”. From the beginning, Russian special forces and military intelligence were providing the planning, muscle and logistics. Soon, Russia was supplying the weapons and volunteers that allowed the “People’s Republic” to wage war on Ukraine.

And all the while, the Kremlin’s media mounted a furious propaganda campaign, absurdly labelling the government in Kiev a “fascist junta” bent on murdering Russians and creating a “Western colony for gays and paedophiles”.

This artful combination of propaganda, street unrest, subversion and brutal guerrilla warfare wrested a large slice of eastern Ukraine from Kiev. Mr Putin and his allies are de facto masters of a region holding about three million people and Ukraine’s industrial heartland. True, thousands of Russian troops did enter Ukraine, but they came in carefully managed trickles rather than a flood. This invasion-in-the-shadows achieved the goals of a classic invasion – but without ever looking like one.

If Mr Putin turns on the Baltic states, he will probably use the same model. The aim will be to mount a creeping assault in a way that falls below the threshold for Nato’s security guarantee to be invoked. In particular, Mr Putin would try to conceal Russia’s involvement.

How should Nato respond to any such challenge? The best answer would be to stamp on the first sparks from the first embers, says Jonathan Eyal, the head of security studies at the Royal United Services Institute. “If you have the first indication of self-proclaimed groups beginning to ask for autonomy or independence within one of the three countries, then you have to be involved immediately,” he says. “The key is to maintain an element of ambiguity: to say to Putin 'if you try it, then you might get a response which you never bargained for’. If you play some games in Latvia, then you might find 20,000 Nato troops arriving in the country.”

Ukraine lacked the will or the means to suppress the first occupations in Donetsk. With Nato’s help, the Baltic states could, in theory, bring them to an end immediately. In other words, the first challenge should be met with a disproportionately tough response.

But there is also no substitute for old-style deployments to demonstrate resolve. Between them, Nato’s Baltic members do not possess a single jet fighter. They are entirely reliant on the alliance’s “Baltic Air Policing Mission” to guard their airspace. The strength of this force was quadrupled last year – but only from four to 16 Nato fighters. Russia’s air force, meanwhile, has 1,201 combat-capable aircraft.

Nato has created a rapid reaction force of 4,000 troops that could arrive in the Baltic states at short notice, but the alliance is still observing a treaty signed with Russia in 1997 that forbids the permanent deployment of foreign troops in any member east of Germany.

General Jonathan Shaw, a former assistant chief of the defence staff, believes this commitment should now be dropped to allow a “forward deployment” of Nato soldiers in the Baltic states. “The agreement not to do that was part and parcel of the agreement to respect the sovereignty of Ukraine,” he says. “It’s had its time.”
But that still leaves Mr Putin with options. The internet opens up new vistas. In 2007, Estonia suffered a series of cyber attacks on its banks, media and government ministries. Russia could try this form of assault with the aim of inflicting damage both remotely and anonymously.

Yet such an event would still leave fingerprints, warns Sir David Omand, formerly the head of GCHQ, Britain’s biggest intelligence agency. “The Russians would have to be very careful,” he says. “They’re very good at cyber – they’ve invested a lot in cyber – but they must know that there’s a very good chance that the Americans would be able to pin something on them.”

If Russia was found to have carried out a damaging cyber attack on a Nato member, this would demand a “very robust” diplomatic response, adds Sir David.

And responding to everything is the key. If Mr Putin ever feels that he can act without consequence, then he will ratchet up his aggression. When it comes to defending the Baltic states, the safest option would be to pour cold water on the first sparks of unrest. The abduction of an Estonian official from his homeland should never again pass unremarked.

But I think we should let Mainland Europe get on with it.


We are not Europeans and don't need an united Europe with accepted common international policies and should not get drawn into anything which won't benefit our trade.

Besides, the Russians will stop at Calais.

Our army of part timers will defend the White Cliffs, especially with Dodgy Dave in charge.

I wonder if he has already planned for a safe haven in USA.

What is your solution Fred?

Call a Strike Meeting!

I thought the solution above would appeal to you.

Max,

In the image above which one represents you?

Max,

C+P from Nowt!

Just listen to Rory Stewart on Sky News Murnaghan intervie on Putin and Ukraine.

Interesting summary.

I have always found him as very thoughtful and sensible.

Worth a look.

"Russia. After Ukraine, should we be quaking in our boots?" No.