IF WAR BETWEEN NATO AND RUSSIA   DETONATE WHO WOULD LOSE NATO’s secretary general warns that a ‘full blown war’ with Russia is ‘a real possibility.’

“If things go wrong, they can go horribly wrong,” Jens Stoltenberg said in an interview published on Friday. Jens Stoltenberg, NATO’s secretary general, speaking in Oslo on Thursday. NATO’s secretary general warned on Friday that Russia’s war in Ukraine could expand into a wider war with the Atlantic alliance. The official, Jens Stoltenberg, repeatedly cautioned in news media interviews this week against underestimating the situation in Ukraine and emphasized the wider threat President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia could pose to Europe. “If things go wrong, they can go horribly wrong,” Mr. Stoltenberg said in an interview released on Friday with the Norwegian journalist Anne Lindmo, in which he added that there was “no doubt” a full-blown war against NATO was a “real possibility.” “I understand everyone who is tired of supporting Ukraine. I understand everyone who thinks that food prices and the electricity bills are far too high,” he said. “But we have to pay a much higher price if our freedom and peace are threatened through Putin winning in Ukraine.” Mr. Stoltenberg’s comments came two days after he said that Russia was intentionally stalling the war in order to prepare a renewed onslaught against Ukrainian forces next year. “What we see now is that Russia is actually attempting to have some kind of ‘freeze’ of this war, at least for a short period of time, so they can regroup, repair, recover, and then try to launch a bigger offensive next spring,” he told The Financial Times on Wednesday. The NATO chief emphasized the importance of continued military support for Ukraine, saying that Russia had shown no sign of willingness to engage in peace talks that would respect Ukraine’s sovereignty. But he declined to answer when pressed on whether NATO’s member nations should agree to provide more advanced, long-range offensive weaponry — something NATO allies, including the United States, have avoided to keep from inviting a direct confrontation with Russia. The U.S. State Department reiterated after drone strikes hit Russian military bases this week that it was neither enabling nor encouraging Ukraine to strike beyond its borders. The Pentagon has continued providing other forms of security assistance to Kyiv, and on Friday announced a new aid package valued at up to $275 million that includes additional HIMARS ammunition, air defense equipment and approximately 150 generators for Ukraine’s worsening winter. A war between Vladimir Putin's Russia and NATO would end with Moscow's “inevitable defeat,” Poland’s Foreign Minister Radosław Sikorski said Thursday. "It is not we, the West, who should fear a clash with Putin, but the other way around,” Sikorski said during a speech to the Sejm, the lower house of Poland's parliament. “It is worth reminding about this, not to increase the sense of threat in the Russians, because NATO is a defensive pact, but to show that an attack by Russia on any of the members of the Alliance would end in its [Russia's] inevitable defeat.” Sikorski, who was laying out Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk’s vision for the new government's foreign policy, said Russia’s military and economic potential “pales in comparison to that of the West,” as NATO has three times as many military personnel, three times the aerial resources and four times as many ships as Russia. "Putin's only hope is our lack of determination," he warned. Western allies and top military officials have become increasingly worried about a potential spillover of violence from Putin’s ongoing full-scale invasion of Ukraine — as the Russian leader continues to issue veiled nuclear threats toward the West and stashes atomic weapons in Belarus, which borders NATO members Poland, Lithuania and Latvia. Sikorski returned to his post as foreign minister after Tusk's success in last October's election, booting out Poland's nationalist Law and Justice (PiS) party after eight years in power. Since then, Tusk’s center-right administration has been trying to undo years of PiS policy, vowing to restore democratic standards in the country and improve relations with Brussels. Vladimir Putin continues to issue veiled nuclear threats toward the West and stashes atomic weapons in Belarus. | Loic Venance/AFP via Getty Images Tusk recently warned that Europe is in a “pre-war era” but still has a “long way to go” before it's ready to face the threat ahead. And recently, Polish President Andrzej Duda said Poland is “ready” to host nuclear weapons on its territory if NATO decides to reinforce its eastern flank. On Thursday, Sikorski criticized the former government’s foreign policy, calling it "a series of misguided ideological assumptions, bad ideas, wrong decisions and omissions.” It led to financial losses, a “loss of credibility and prestige,” the deterioration of foreign relations and pushed Poland “to the margins of the most important debates in the European Union, as well as in NATO." While the previous government chose a “path of confrontation,” the new one will have different priorities, Sikorski said, looking ahead to Poland taking over the rotating presidency of the EU in the first half of 2025. “Poland's development and security must be based on two pillars: transatlantic cooperation — maintained independently of the decisions of American voters — and European integration,” he said, alluding to the possibility of Republican contender and NATO-skeptic Donald Trump returning to the White House and the potential impact on the transatlantic military alliance. Poland is fast turning into a defense heavyweight, and the world's 14th largest military spender, after raising its expenditure a whopping 75 percent between 2022 and 2023 to $31.6 billion, according to data released this week by the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute. On the morning of September 25, at 8:44 AM, the CCP’s Rocket Force launched an intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) capable of carrying a nuclear warhead into the Pacific Ocean. Later, China’s Ministry of National Defense announced the successful launch of an ICBM carrying a training dummy warhead, which accurately landed in a designated area. They emphasized that this launch was part of annual military training and was not aimed at any specific country or target. Japan's military quickly assessed the situation, stating that after the missile launch, it split into two parts in the waters around Luzon Island, with the warhead eventually falling in the open sea near Hawaii. We are three weeks into World War III. China's invasion of Taiwan has been met with American planes and submarines. About 3,200 U.S. troops have died and two American aircraft carriers have sunk in the Pacific. China has also taken a big hit, losing 10,000 troops and hundreds of combat aircraft and ships. Taiwan maintains its democratic autonomy, but the war has left the island devastated, losing basic services such as electricity. Japan and South Korea come to aid their American ally, facing attacks from China. This is how a new global war would play out according to a war game simulation conducted by a Washington think tank. But are we really that close to another major war? Well, some experts think we can't rule it out. Today we'll explore how we got to this point, how this war would be fought, and which nation would survive in the end.

As Russia opens a new front in its war on Ukraine and the 75th NATO Summit approaches in early July, national security analysts debated whether the military alliance should widen its role in the conflict during a talk Friday at Harvard Kennedy School. The war is at “a really critical moment,” said the event’s moderator, David E. Sanger ’82, the White House and national security correspondent for The New York Times. Ukraine suffered damage over the last several months as it waited for Congress to approve a $60.8 billion aid package in late April. The Russians have regained territory in Eastern Ukraine, he continued, and while they’ve endured significant casualties, their fighting force remains large and strong and has gotten better at using drones and other forms of electronic warfare. “This is not a war about territory, it’s a war about the future of Ukraine,” said Ivo Daalder, former U.S. Ambassador to NATO and now president of the Chicago Council on Global Affairs. “The way to defeat Russia is for Russia to be denied the opportunity to determine Ukraine’s future.” Even as the U.S. announces a $400 million military aid package to deliver weapons, artillery, and other munitions to Ukraine, Daalder said he is “deeply worried about where we are.” He fears the stalemate on the battlefield that began in November 2022 could give way to an advantage for Russia because U.S. weapons and aid are arriving “too late,” and Ukraine’s military mobilization has been “woefully inadequate.”  Ukraine's President Zelenskyy has said that every European country that borders Russia and wants to be safe must be a member of both the EU and Nato. One nation that now has what Ukraine wants is Finland, the most recent addition to the western alliance. The war in Ukraine, and Nato membership, has shifted the mindset in Finland which has an 800-mile border with Russia. The once neutral country is now fortifying its territory with miles and miles of barbed wire. We joined military drills on Nato’s newest frontier.The average age of Ukraine’s fighting force is 43 years old, a “stunning” figure, he said, and Ukraine is being outpaced by Russia in its efforts to conscript fresh, younger fighters to relieve troops that have been fighting for more than two years. “This is not a war about territory, it’s a war about the future of Ukraine.” Ivo Daalder Many European Union countries continue to provide support to Ukraine, and some, like Lithuania, are considering sending their own troops to fight. Whether other NATO allies and the U.S. ought to do the same, given the stakes, will be a topic of serious debate at the upcoming summit in Washington, D.C. French President Emmanuel Macrón, the leadership of the Baltic states, and possibly Polish President Andrzej Duda are expected to address the wisdom of direct military support. How Would The United States Fight A Nuclear War? Why might a nuclear war start? What could push someone to make the unimaginable decision to launch such devastating weapons? In this video, we'll explore how the United States might respond if faced with a nuclear conflict. The U.S. nuclear defense is based on the "Nuclear Triad." This means there are three ways to launch nuclear weapons: land-based missiles, submarines, and strategic bombers. This setup ensures that if one or two methods are compromised, the U.S. can still retaliate. First, there are 400 Minuteman III intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) in silos across states like Montana and North Dakota. These missiles can be launched within minutes and have a range of over 13,000 kilometers. Interestingly, there are also 50 empty silos used as decoys to confuse enemies. Second, the U.S. has 14 Ohio-class submarines armed with Trident II missiles. These submarines are stealthy and can stay underwater for up to 90 days. Each carries up to 20 missiles with incredible accuracy, capable of hitting targets within 100 meters even from thousands of kilometers away. Third, strategic bombers like the B-2 Spirit and B-52 Stratofortress can deliver nuclear bombs stored at various military bases. If a rogue leader ordered a nuclear strike against the U.S., early warning systems would detect it. Satellites like the Space-Based Infrared System (SBIRS) can spot missile launches almost instantly by detecting the heat from their engines. Ground-based radars confirm the threat to reduce false alarms. The President would have about 10 to 15 minutes to decide on a response. The decision is communicated through secure channels using the "football," a briefcase containing strike options and authentication codes. If the President is unable to act, the chain of command passes to the Vice President or another designated leader. Historical plans like the Single Integrated Operational Plan (SIOP) showed the devastating potential of nuclear war during the Cold War. Simulations suggest that a full-scale nuclear conflict could result in millions of deaths within hours and long-term catastrophic effects like nuclear winter. Still, the U.S. remains a “hugely important actor” in the direction this conflict will take in the coming months, according to Karen Donfried, former assistant secretary of state for European and Eurasian Affairs in the Biden administration and a Belfer Center fellow. The EU can’t replace the role that the U.S. is playing in Ukraine, she said. “Were it not for the weapons we’re providing Ukraine, they would not still be in this fight.” The question NATO allies need to be asking themselves right now, said Daalder, is how important is Ukraine “not failing” to future European security? “And so far, we have said, it’s not important enough” to do everything we possibly can, like committing troops and more air defense. Though still supportive of the war, the Ukrainian people have been worn down by it. Stephen Hadley Stephen Hadley. Ukraine needs to do several things to turn the tide, said Stephen Hadley, a former assistant to President George W. Bush on national security affairs and deputy national security adviser under Condoleezza Rice. First, Ukraine must increase its capacity to defend territory and “dig in” to defend areas it still controls; improve its air defense to better protect the country’s energy infrastructure and people; build up a defense industry so it’s not as reliant on the West; continue to go after Russian logistics; and challenge Russian control of Crimea, like Ukraine did with control of the Black Sea, in a bid to prompt Russian President Vladimir Putin to come to the negotiating table. Though still supportive of the war, the Ukrainian people have been worn down by it, said Hadley. President Volodymyr Zelensky faces “some very difficult decisions” about if, or how, to wind down the war if there’s an opportunity to strike a deal while Russia still controls large areas of Ukraine. NATO allies can offer help with that quandary, Hadley said. Meanwhile, a newly re-elected Putin feels very confident right now and Russia will do “everything in its power” to ensure that it has the upper hand by the time the NATO summit begins, said Donfried. “He thinks he’s winning.” Estonia is preparing for conflict with Russia, because if Putin wins in Ukraine, they could be next. [Every school student in the country is learning about defence and every man aged between 18 and 29 is conscripted to serve for up to a year in the military. Estonia is urging Nato to do more - because Russia's standing army is bigger than the country’s entire population, and war could be coming.None of the panelists expect Ukraine and Russia to enter into a negotiated settlement in the next 12 to 18 months. “Most wars don’t actually end in negotiation. Most wars end in victory, exhaustion, or stalemate,” said Daalder. “And so, we’re much better off not focusing on how do we get them to the table … and talk about, how do you stabilize the situation for long enough to alter what is, in fact, happening and needs to happen to alter the political situation between Russia and Ukraine?”