NATO Ex-General Says Nuclear War Possible Within a Year

Andrew Anglin
Daily Stormer
May 18, 2016


Asked why he was promoting a nuclear war over former soviet poverty-holes, Sir Richard Shirreff replied “idk LOL.”

Is this just more fear-mongering?


But: is NATO really insane enough to start a nuclear war with Russia over “democracy” in some former communist state?

Also probably.


NATO’s former deputy military chief in Europe says his book, a fictional story which describes a nuclear war with Russia over the Baltic nations taking place in 2017, is based on an “entirely plausible” scenario.

General Sir Richard Shirreff, from Britain, served at the second-highest NATO military office in Europe between 2011 and 2014. He says his experience acquired in the alliance of war-gaming future conflicts helped him model the narrative for the book.

According to his scenario, starting next year Russia would first occupy Ukraine to secure a land route to Crimea and then invade the three Baltic nations, all of which are members of NATO. The move, Shirreff argued, would be driven by the perception of NATO’s weakness and Russia’s opposition to what it sees as the alliance’s attempts to encircle it.

“We need to judge President [Vladimir] Putin by his deeds not his words,” the retired general told BBC Radio 4’s Today program. “He has invaded Georgia, he has invaded the Crimea, he has invaded Ukraine. He has used force and got away with it.”

Of course, none of these interventions were “invasions.”

Because this article is from RT, a Russian state propaganda outlet, I can just let them explain the facts to you.

The supposed invasion of Georgia in 2008 was Russia’s response to a Georgian attack on its breakaway region of South Ossetia, which started with the killings of Russian peacekeepers stationed there to prevent such hostilities. Russia responded by defeating the NATO-trained Georgian Army and withdrew. Moscow later recognized South Ossetia as a sovereign state, formalizing its de facto independence from Georgia that had been in place since the 1990s.

The supposed invasion of Ukraine in 2014 was Russia’s use of its troops, which were legally deployed in Crimea under a treaty with Ukraine, to prevent hostilities after an armed coup in Kiev. The Crimean people, who overwhelmingly opposed the new Ukrainian government and its nationalistic leanings, voted in a referendum to part ways with Ukraine and rejoin Russia.

And those are the facts.

In both Crimea and Georgia, Putin entered at the behest of local people. And neither of these countries were involved in NATO, which would create a whole other sort of situation.


96.77% of the Crimean people voted to rejoin Russia.

Invading the Baltic countries would effectively be declaring war on the United States, which would be totally insane and not something Russia is going to do.

If Russia used military force against any NATO members, the entire alliance would be obliged to declare war on Russia. The US is the most powerful member of NATO and has the world’s biggest military force. According to Shirreff, Russia would use its nuclear arsenal to counter NATO’s response.

Be under no illusion whatsoever – Russian use of nuclear weapons is hardwired into Moscow’s military strategy,” he said, omitting the fact that NATO’s nuclear nations – the US, Britain and France – have always kept a pre-emptive nuclear strike as a possible option. Russia dropped its pledge not to use nuclear weapons first in 1993.

That part is actually partly true – just not the “pre-emptive” part.

If Russia does get into a conflict with NATO, there is a good chance they would use nuclear weapons. But there is no way they would initiate such a conflict.

Russia has continually pushed for peace, as NATO continues its military build-up on Russia’s borders. NATO recently finished installing a missile launching apparatus in Romania – violating a post-Cold War treaty – under the ridiculous guise that it is meant to protect against an Iranian nuclear attack on Europe.

They are also building-up massive forces in the Baltics.


Basically, the West is attempting to provoke a nuclear war. I don’t know why they are doing this or if they are even conscious of the fact they are doing this. Their goal may simply be to try and bully Russia into backing down, accepting conquest.

But it is clear that isn’t going to happen. And yet they keep on pushing, apparently willing to accept the fact that there is going to be war as a result.

If there is a war, NATO will be the one who starts it. A former NATO top official releasing this kind of scenario seems to be designed to program the public into believing that if/when war happens, it will be Russia’s fault.

But Why Though?

The West needs to ask itself: what is it fighting for?

For feminism?


For gay anal sex lessons and transsexualism to be taught to little children?


For millions of Islamic immigrants to overrun every European nation and establish Islamic rule?


A war with Russia wouldn’t even be economic in nature. Or rather, that would be a very small part of it. It would mainly be an ideological war, one of nationalism vs. globalism.

Yes, (((international finance))) is the driving force behind globalism, but it is an ideological position, as we can plainly see by observing the dichotomy between Russian and Western values. These are conflicting images of mankind, at odds with one another.

The future of the world is presently dependent on one man.

trump victory