Culmination of democrats/liberals

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 05, 2016 8:00 PM GMT



    so this is democrats wet dream
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 05, 2016 8:02 PM GMT
    This video reminds of so many people around here
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 05, 2016 8:08 PM GMT
    They're likely actors...hired by Hillary Super PACS or Democrat-Republican establishment.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 05, 2016 8:30 PM GMT
    Am I supposed to be impressed and persuaded by gutter mouths?
  • roadbikeRob

    Posts: 14395

    Feb 07, 2016 1:52 PM GMT
    It is just all the stupid, brainless fools who think that the Mary Queen of Goldman Sachs is reasonably qualified to be our next President when in reality, the total opposite is the absolute truth. Bunch of fucking idiotsicon_mad.gif
  • tj85016

    Posts: 4123

    Feb 07, 2016 2:32 PM GMT
    typical Hillary, assume your audience are morons (she may be right though)
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 07, 2016 7:39 PM GMT
    Boni, now that you are in Uruguay, do you hang out with David3k?
  • Unnamed6

    Posts: 1149

    Feb 07, 2016 8:49 PM GMT
    Bonifacius said


    so this is democrats wet dream



    Argh, that one book thread got moved to the Arts and Entertainment section, anyways, the Latvian and Lithuanian president have more or less stated that Syria is the training ground for a Russian military invasion of the Baltics. Lithuania has reintroduced the draft and Estonians are trying to ban speaking Russian. NATO and Russian forces in that region have been on high alert for the last two years. There have been numerous military exercises and wargames in the Baltics. Air and naval intercepts between the two forces in the region far surpasses Syria or any other place in the world. A hypothetical 19 year old operating a gun turret could make the world go to war if he's gun happy or makes a mistake. The US and Russia are at war nonetheless, but this war is being waged as a proxy war in the Middle East. Both sides are trying to force one side to concede something to the other. In the case of Russia, it wants the US to let go of any areas that Russia feels it always had an influence over, especially the Baltics. The consequence of this proxy war is Islamic terrorism and the Syrian refugee crisis, but the Pentagon has put Russia, not Islamic terrorism as our number one priority. In a nutshell, these tensions between the US and Russia could become nuclear, and ISIS only has a capacity to kill a handful of people, as opposed to the millions or billions that can die if things become nuclear. During our presidential contest, most candidates have mentioned a position on the Baltics, and it's essentially anti-Russian, with Donald Trump as the only candidate that is pro-Putin to the extent that most Baltic politicians fear a Donald Trump presidency.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 07, 2016 8:50 PM GMT
    HikerSkier saidBoni, now that you are in Uruguay, do you hang out with David3k?


  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 07, 2016 9:15 PM GMT
    ^^^^^^

    Balts consider Russia a threat since ancient times, BUT, Balts don't give a shit about Russia, Russia is overrated anyway, fact that Russia can actually invade Baltics is close to zero since Baltics are too westernized now, they have strong ties with EU and NATO and pretty much any world organization, what Russia is doing actively is informative war in post soviet countries with some success mostly in russian speaking minorities in EU, but most Balts don't buy into Russian propaganda

    And this tension in Baltics is mostly blown out of proportion, there is hardly any real tension between russians and balts, about that forbidding russian in Estonia, that is BS, technically Russian is forbidden since Estonia got independent, because there is only one national language in all Baltic states - latvian, lithuanian, estonian and russian is foreign language, purely out of protection to small baltic languages, that are unique and have protection, but nobody is forbidding to talk in russian in Baltics, that is nonsense, Baltics still have Russian investors and tourists and they are not going anywhere, of course Russian economy went down since they occupied Krimea and Russians are not as many as they used to be, but Baltics, specifically Riga is main destination for Russian tourists and they are welcomed like for Tallin main tourists are Finns

    But all your comparission to Syria is ridiculous and laughable, Baltics are peaceful, advanced, stable countries while Syria, is fucking Syria

    And about the military, that is purely out of precaution from Russian aggression, but if Russia decides to invade Baltics ( which is completely insane ) they might as well start the world war 3 and since Russia got mostly owned in Ukraine and did not really achieve much except for Krimea and sanctions and stagnating economy that is very unlikely

    even after 50 years of occupation and pure russian propganada all that time and oppression, Balts did not lose faith and power, joined hands and defeated soviet union completely peacefully

  • Unnamed6

    Posts: 1149

    Feb 07, 2016 9:17 PM GMT
    Jeb and Hilary, the two presidential candidates seen as apart of the establishment, are on file with being blatantly anti-Russian and having a pro-Baltic stance. These are our allies after all... But should Americans incur terrorism, support a military machine that Europeans don't even pay for (let alone the Baltic states), or should Americans start agreeing with the Donald, like what you're suggesting us to do, and let go of our commitments to other countries, or at least have you guys start paying us for your protection. Let's stop being nice and make America great again and let's start by turning our backs to people like you... But so much as Americans are involved in international conflicts, terrorism is the price we need to pay and just have to live with.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 07, 2016 9:27 PM GMT
    ^^^^

    Baltics are in NATO, dummy, they are paying fees already


    ''Within the principle of common funding, all 28 members contribute according to an agreed cost-share formula, based on Gross National Income, which represents a small percentage of each member’s defence budget.''
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 07, 2016 9:29 PM GMT
    The U.S. is fucked. On one hand we have the bleeding heart liberals who want to blindly give away our country to savages and on the other hand we have Republicans who want to execute gay people. What's the use in even voting anymore?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 07, 2016 9:32 PM GMT
    Radd saidThe U.S. is fucked. On one hand we have the bleeding heart liberals who want to blindly give away our country to savages and on the other hand we have Republicans who want to execute gay people. What's the use in even voting anymore?


    Yup ... this is the worst slate of candidates in my lifetime.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 07, 2016 10:16 PM GMT
    None of the Republicans running for President have actually called for gay people to be executed. I definitely have plenty of grievances with the Republican field, but it's silly to claim they want anyone executed. Give me a break.
  • Unnamed6

    Posts: 1149

    Feb 08, 2016 12:10 AM GMT
    Bonifacius said^^^^

    Baltics are in NATO, dummy, they are paying fees already


    ''Within the principle of common funding, all 28 members contribute according to an agreed cost-share formula, based on Gross National Income, which represents a small percentage of each member’s defence budget.''


    I believe that the total NATO budget never exceeds 1.5 Billion dollars for both their administrative and military budgets, and Estonia, and whoever, are certainly paying their share of this budget but that still amounts to barely anything. The actual cost to protect Europe exceeds this budget by a magnitude of 300 or some number. We spend over 1 trillion dollars a year in military spending and to have hundreds of military bases around the world. Some of that money is borrowed, and at the end of it all, the US tax-payer is the one that pays for all of this. More than half of that spending is likely on Europe.

    So you paid your "union dues", but this is surely not enough to defend the Baltics. Your union dues at best buys you a place at the kiddie table and the benevolence of US hegemony, but you should understand that you are never partners in this arrangement since American lives and money will always far exceed your own. (Estonians allowed the Russians to invade during WW2, right? No resistance at all. Maybe in another Russian act of aggression, they'll do the same?). In a provocative overture, Putin even sent unarmed nuclear bombers along the Californian coast during the 4th of July as a response to the Baltic situation. Sunny Southern California or Los Angeles, of all places, where Disneyland, the "happiest place on Earth" exists (but that's really debatable...), is in Putin's crosshairs, and to have it be this way now may just not be worth it. All of what's happening in Syria, the Baltics, the Ukraine, terrorism, and Russian provocative overtures along the Californian coast are all unfortunately connected. But surely we could lessen our risk if we lessen our commitments to people like you, and that's the Donald speaking.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 08, 2016 12:56 AM GMT
    Radd saidThe U.S. is fucked. On one hand we have the bleeding heart liberals who want to blindly give away our country to savages and on the other hand we have Republicans who want to execute gay people. What's the use in even voting anymore?


    "The best thing about this group of candidates is that only one of them can win." —Will Rogers
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 08, 2016 6:33 AM GMT
    Unnamed6 said
    Bonifacius said^^^^

    Baltics are in NATO, dummy, they are paying fees already


    ''Within the principle of common funding, all 28 members contribute according to an agreed cost-share formula, based on Gross National Income, which represents a small percentage of each member’s defence budget.''


    I believe that the total NATO budget never exceeds 1.5 Billion dollars for both their administrative and military budgets, and Estonia, and whoever, are certainly paying their share of this budget but that still amounts to barely anything. The actual cost to protect Europe exceeds this budget by a magnitude of 300 or some number. We spend over 1 trillion dollars a year in military spending and to have hundreds of military bases around the world. Some of that money is borrowed, and at the end of it all, the US tax-payer is the one that pays for all of this. More than half of that spending is likely on Europe.

    So you paid your "union dues", but this is surely not enough to defend the Baltics. Your union dues at best buys you a place at the kiddie table and the benevolence of US hegemony, but you should understand that you are never partners in this arrangement since American lives and money will always far exceed your own. (Estonians allowed the Russians to invade during WW2, right? No resistance at all. Maybe in another Russian act of aggression, they'll do the same?). In a provocative overture, Putin even sent unarmed nuclear bombers along the Californian coast during the 4th of July as a response to the Baltic situation. Sunny Southern California or Los Angeles, of all places, where Disneyland, the "happiest place on Earth" exists (but that's really debatable...), is in Putin's crosshairs, and to have it be this way now may just not be worth it. All of what's happening in Syria, the Baltics, the Ukraine, terrorism, and Russian provocative overtures along the Californian coast are all unfortunately connected. But surely we could lessen our risk if we lessen our commitments to people like you, and that's the Donald speaking.



    all your dumb speculations lies on a assumption that Russia will start a war with Baltics which is not happening and the whole purpose of NATO is protect one another if there is military threat, THERE is NONE, so why the fuck anyone has to pay USA or you? you stupid? About Russia, only reason Russia went to Ukraine is because they lost influence in there and the country was in chaos and they were not protected in any way whatsoever, but even with that Russia got mostly owned. Russia has no reason to go into Baltics.

    All your argument lies on a dumb speculation and not really understanding the politics in that region and about that I have to pay you or whatever, you don't even know where I come from and you are nothing, you don't decide anything.

    And you don't have any commitment to me, because you don't decide anything, and people like me can show you a middle finger, you fail to realize Baltics don't want to be a part of Russia like Krimea wanted to be , is part of NATO and EU and has absolutely no reason to pay USA anything, USA is just a part of organization, which main purpose in not to act like world police but protect each others members in case of a THREAT, USA has it's own policies and can do whatever they fuck want with them and Baltics have done their contribution to NATO as well just like any other NATO member country and also outside NATO

    You are just some dumb internet noob that wants to stir up some dumb controversy and nonsense that is not there, and anyway Baltics are doing everything they can to stay independent and if Russia wanted to start a war, they would occupy countries that are more easy like Georgia, Belarus and Ukraine, Armenia, Azerbajan etc. You seriously fail to realize what would happen if Russia attacked members of EU as well, Baltics are tied economically with rest of the Europe. Baltics are not some isolated island politically were anyone can do whatever they want.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 08, 2016 4:09 PM GMT
    theantijock%20engage%20stalker%20reducti

    southbeach1500 saidAnother political thread in the All Things Gay forum, put there just to get more exposure by the OP for his topic.

    Noted.


    Did you miss that the OP is on your side?

    Seems you've got fewer and fewer. Hold onto what you've got, like that mini penis in your hand, for instance.

    5azgvxr0dumyypjuddtcqw.png
  • Unnamed6

    Posts: 1149

    Feb 09, 2016 5:45 AM GMT
    From The TIMES:
    inline_c229a4ae-d8a_881329a.jpg

    Putin: try to take Crimea away and I will give you a nuclear war
    Ben Hoyle - The Times - April 02, 2015
    http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/world/europe/article4399514.ece

    The Ukraine crisis has brought the world closer to nuclear war than at any point for a generation, according to an account of a secret meeting between Russian and American military and intelligence figures.

    As President Putin celebrated the anniversary of the annexation of Crimea on March 18 with an appearance at a concert outside the Kremlin, a group of retired Russian generals sat down in Torgau, Germany, with a group of their American counterparts. The assembled Russians once ran the interior ministry, the military directorate in charge of nuclear weapons, the GRU (Russian military intelligence) and the FSB (the main successor agency to the KGB). The American individuals present had similar backgrounds in the military, CIA and Defence Intelligence Agency.

    Behind closed doors, over two days, the Russians delivered a series of blunt warnings from Moscow that reveal just how precarious Europe’s security has become over the past year, and how broad the gulf between the Kremlin and the West now is.

    The US party at the Elbe Group talks appears to have been surprised to discover that Russian security experts believe that the US is bent on destroying their country — and that Russia is both entitled and fully prepared to use nuclear force to defend itself. That point of view reflects both Mr Putin’s assessment of Russia’s vulnerability and the KGB background shared by him and his closest advisers, according to Kremlin insiders.

    Swaggering nuclear rhetoric has increasingly permeated Russian life. In a recent documentary, Mr Putin said that when he gave the instruction to annex Crimea, he also ordered that Russia’s nuclear forces be placed on full alert.

    He has referred to Russia’s nuclear might many times since the Ukraine crisis began, including in remarks to a group of schoolchildren in August, when he reminded them that “Russia is one of the leading nuclear powers”, and “it’s best not to mess with us”.

    Notes of the Elbe Group meeting indicate some areas where the Kremlin is open to dialogue, namely on the “future nature and composition” of the contested territory in eastern Ukraine which, the generals say, Russia wants to see become “an autonomous entity in a confederated Ukraine”.

    However, they also show the detailed thinking behind the nuclear bluster. Among the “key messages delivered by Russian participants” was a warning that any military move by the West on Crimea would trigger a Russian response, possibly involving nuclear force. “The United States should also understand it would also be at risk.”

    The Russian delegation said that any NATO build-up in the Baltics would prompt an increase in Russia’s “nuclear posture”, according to notes drawn up by a US participant. The warning is baldly recounted: “Russia will use its nuclear weapons against NATO.”

    When discussing possible Russian action in the Baltics, it reported: “Russian members mentioned a spectrum of responses from nuclear to non-military.”

    The most trenchant Russian remarks on eastern Europe were delivered by the former military intelligence chief Valentin Korabelnikov, who remains a senior adviser to the defence ministry. Since the GRU masterminded the annexation of Crimea, he is likely to have been involved in the planning. He said that the biggest threat to Russia was US activity along its borders, according to notes taken by Kevin Ryan, a retired US brigadier-general who served as defence attaché in Moscow.

    Russia regards the US as an ailing superpower which is trying to create crisis situations to preserve its position of strategic superiority around the world. NATO expansion to the borders of Russia, including “NATO troop deployments in eastern Europe and the Balkans” could lead to unpredictable situations. “For nuclear powers, this is particularly dangerous.”

    Russia also believes that “Ukraine could be a launching point” for unleashing fascist and Islamic extremist groups against Moscow. The “fight for resources in the Arctic” was another Russian security concern.

    The Elbe Group forum was set up to improve mutual understanding between the two countries’ military and intelligence agencies, and has met six times in five years.

    The Russian delegation was briefed by Sergei Lavrov, the Russian foreign minister, about what messages to deliver to the Americans, according to its leader, Anatoly Kulikov, the former minister of the interior. Mr Kulikov said that Mr Putin had been briefed.

    Both delegations agreed that there was a growing risk of an accidental clash between Russian and US or NATO troops in eastern Europe which could lead to “unintended escalation” and devastating consequences for the world at large.

    In language that recalled the darkest days of the Cold War, they urged their respective administrations to set up a military hotline to defuse such escalations by allowing “both sides to quickly and accurately establish the facts surrounding an accident” so that commanders on the ground could “communicate with each other in a manner that avoids combat”.

    The report’s conclusions, written from a US perspective, emphasise Russia’s interest in trying to involve the US in legitimising the new status quo in Ukraine. The American conclusions play down the threat of nuclear attack, suggesting that the Russians “threaten nuclear war in an effort to shock the US back to the table”.

    More than 6,000 people have been killed since a Russian-backed uprising began in east Ukraine a year ago. The fighting is in a lull at the moment, with a ceasefire largely holding, but there are widespread concerns that violence will flare again with the arrival of summer.

    President Obama has so far resisted a growing clamour in Washington to provide Kiev with lethal military aid to defend itself against the rebels.
  • Unnamed6

    Posts: 1149

    Feb 09, 2016 5:54 AM GMT
    And The TIMES again:

    Putin threat of nuclear showdown over Baltics
    http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/world/europe/article4399758.ece
    Ben Hoyle and Michael Evans - The Times - April 2, 2015

    President Putin is using the threat of a nuclear showdown over the Baltic states to force Nato to back away from Russia’s border, according to notes of a secret meeting between intelligence figures from Moscow and Washington.

    Western security chiefs are braced for the Kremlin to begin a series of “destabilising actions” in Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania that would directly challenge Nato’s mutual defence pledge.

    These could involve civil disturbances involving local ethnic Russians, or a cyberattack that could not be definitively traced back to Moscow.

    Russian security figures warned last month that Mr Putin was ready to respond forcefully to any further Nato build-up in the Baltics. They delivered “a spectrum of responses from nuclear to non-military”, according to American notes of a high-level meeting between Russian and US former security chiefs seen by The Times.

    The Russian generals present at the meeting in Germany had been briefed by Sergei Lavrov, the Russian foreign minister, about what messages to deliver. They spoke with the approval of Mr Putin, the Americans attending the meeting were told.

    The Russians flagged up at least three flashpoints that could lead to a direct, and possibly even nuclear, confrontation between the two nations:

    - Crimea, where any attempt to return the annexed peninsula to Ukraine would be met “forcefully including through the use of nuclear force”;
    - East Ukraine, where the supply of weapons by Nato to Kiev would be read as “further encroachment by Nato to the Russian border”, to which “the Russian people would demand a forceful response”;
    - The Baltic States, where the Russian security figures said they saw “the same conditions that existed in Ukraine and caused Russia to take action there”.

    Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, all Nato members, have been warning the West of Moscow’s resurgent ambitions in its former Soviet territories since long before the Ukraine crisis began at the end of 2013. Western intelligence chiefs believe a Russian move on the Baltics to be imminent. In February Lithuania reintroduced conscription. Nato is reinforcing all three member states with rotating rapid reaction forces and extra military hardware.

    Russian forces in the region dwarf those of the alliance. Moscow’s military exercises there have included one in which Russian troops break out of their militarised enclave of Kaliningrad, between Lithuania and Poland, and seize the land corridor to Russia’s close ally Belarus, cutting the Baltic states’ land access to the rest of Europe.

    The two sides met under the auspices of the Elbe group, a gathering of retired senior security and defence officials, which has convened six times in the past five years. The Americans at the most recent talks, last month in Germany, said that despite the partial international isolation and sanctions that have followed Russia’s actions in Ukraine, Moscow “is still considering a “Baltics option”, most likely “destabilising actions that would be even harder to trace back to Russia than those of eastern Ukraine”.

    They think that in a Baltic operation Russia would avoid “injections of troops and heavy weapons in favour of other tools; Russia would hope slowly to entice those Russian populations towards Russia without giving Nato a pretext to deploy troops”.

    Any Nato response would then “make Nato a potential co-aggressor against Russian-speaking minorities in Baltic states”. The situation would be “potentially more dangerous than that in Ukraine to the United States”.

    Others have deeper fears. Andrius Kubilius, the leader of the opposition in Lithuania, told The Times in February that if Mr Putin felt western weakness on Ukraine then, “he could try not a global war but perhaps a small nuclear war” in the Baltic.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 09, 2016 7:09 PM GMT
    ^^^ we just have to live and see, Russia uses harsh threatening language to create fear and respect, many times just bluff, at the same time they did blitzkrieg in Ukraine without warning anyone, Russia cannot be trusted at the same time cannot be taken seriously either


    At the same time you cannot just not see Russia as a joke laughing stock in some aspects, especially zombied Russian people, who will rather constrain themselves and get poorer than betray Putin, products of government controlled media

    But with all of this Russia is a loser, not only economically, but they lost one of the biggest alies and a nation closely related to them - Ukrainians, which is a big loss at the same time Ukrainians are only starting to wake up now, they have their independence only now, soviets starved to deat millions of Ukrainians - event known as holodmor, yet they are only trying to ahve their independence only now, national movement woke up and that is a good sign for them, but Russia made itself as aggressor once again, this clash can potentially last decades if not longer


    At the same time Russia has ZERO saying what happens in Baltics, Russia imposes sanctions and tries to control Baltics, but Baltics does what needs to be done, so why do rest of the world cannot do the same ? Baltics were threatened countless times for every step they took to get closer to westernised world, so I thinks Balts are immune to Russian threats
  • Unnamed6

    Posts: 1149

    Feb 14, 2016 9:37 AM GMT
    I'm procrastinating and should have more to say on this matter...but I'll just say what I can for now. Anyways, when The TIMES has a scoop on something, it should be taken very seriously. The two above articles may be the most important articles posted on RJ for the last couple of months, but whether The TIMES cover the renewed Cold War or not, it's always been hinted at if people simply didn't distract themselves.

    I'm still of the idea that it would be the Baltics where Americans have the highest probability of getting nuked. The Baltics will be the test of NATO's solidarity and it's willingness to follow Article 5. As the Syrian Civil War is concerned, Russia's and NATO's involvement in it is essentially a proxy war so that conventional armies, or even nuclear weapons, are not deployed closer to home and yet have the power of one side making concessions to the other (like embarrassing NATO, possibly relinquishing the Baltics to Russia, etc). Should be able to say more on this later, but time...procrastinating...
  • Unnamed6

    Posts: 1149

    Feb 14, 2016 9:38 AM GMT
    Probably better to actually share what information that I base my thinking on... Not exactly sources, as my thinking on possible nuclear war predates some of the sources I'm going to bring up. Have to get to that right?
  • Unnamed6

    Posts: 1149

    Feb 14, 2016 10:00 AM GMT
    On January 31st I believe, or just two weeks ago, the BBC premiered an unscripted but semi-drama and documentary programme called "World War Three: Inside the War Room" and Latvia is featured as the country in which NATO's Article 5 is tested. It has former top heads of the British government like Lord West that had commanded the British Navy, NATO Deputy Supreme Allied Commander Europe Richard Shirreff, a former Ambassador Tony Brenton, etc, who convene in a war cabinet. Their decisions (it's supposed to be unscripted) ends up leading to nuclear armageddon (well it's really Obama's fault though he's never seen in it), and over a country with only 2 million people.

    So a review of this from the Telegraph:

    What happens if cold war turns to World War Three?
    By Neil Armstrong
    3 FEBRUARY 2016 - 11:47AM

    Should we really be concerned about the possibility of nuclear war? Just last week, the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists affirmed that its Doomsday Clock, a symbolic countdown to global cataclysm, remains at three minutes to midnight, meaning we are the closest to apocalypse that we have been since the height of the Cold War.

    Nato has long been worried about Russian interference in the Baltic States and senior personnel regularly take part in war games to test how Western leaders would respond to conflict there. These exercises are top secret but now the BBC has run its own such war game and a new film shows what might happen in real life. World War Three: Inside the War Room convenes a war cabinet of former military and diplomatic figures to react to a hypothetical but all too plausible confrontation in Eastern Europe, given Russia’s 2014 annexation of Crimea.

    A group of 10 experts are asked to respond to an evolving crisis in which every decision made can lead the world away from or closer to nuclear annihilation. Their increasingly tense deliberations, filmed over several hours in a single setting, are unscripted and the outcome was not known at the beginning. Updates from the Americans and Russians are, however, fictional and the programme also includes archive footage and dramatic recreations.

    The scenario, designed by serving military and political analysts, is that tensions between Latvians and ethnic Russians have exploded into violence, leading to a build-up of Russian troops in the area. There are military exchanges, innocents are killed and the situation rapidly escalates into a global confrontation.

    The war cabinet includes General Sir Richard Shirreff, former Deputy Supreme Allied Commander of Nato; First Sea Lord Admiral Lord West; former Joint Intelligence Committee Chair, Baroness Neville-Jones; and the former British Ambassador to Moscow, Sir Tony Brenton. Some of the members of this war group are considerably more hawkish than others, but the whole cabinet argues vigorously as they thrash out Britain’s response to each development.

    wwiii-cabinet_1-large_trans++NJjoeBT78QI
    War cabinet: Lord Arbuthnot, General Richard Shirreff, Oona Muirhead, Sir Tony Brenton, Sir Christopher Meyer, Ian Kearns, Baroness Neville-Jones, and Lord Admiral West CREDIT: GABRIEL RANGE/BBC

    Nato has to take a stand to protect Latvia – a member state – and the programme’s war cabinet must decide what Britain should do. “The Russians will certainly watch this,” says Sir Richard. “What I hope they get from it is a message that Nato – the West – is prepared to step up to the mark and defend the Baltic states. And that we will hold up a very large Stop sign saying, ‘Don’t think about crossing this border’. What the programme highlights is that we must never get ourselves into a position where the only response to aggression is a nuclear response.”

    Sir Richard says: “Everybody around that table had experience of high-level decision-making at the centre of either government or the council chambers of the Nato alliance. We mirrored the sort of questions that our leaders will need to ask if such a situation came to pass. “The atmosphere in the war room was really powerful and people found themselves thinking very hard very quickly about some fundamental issues – the ghastly issue of the deployment and committal of nuclear weapons.”

    The film moves to a sombre conclusion. Sir Tony says: “When we got to the very end, suddenly we’re beyond all conventional calculations. At that point it became less a question of how to deal with the Russians and more a question of what’s best for the future of the human race.” Viewers will be surprised by the response of some participants when the possibility of “mutual assured destruction”, a doctrine of total annihilation much discussed during the Sixties and Seventies, rears its ugly head. The terrifying dilemma that became increasingly apparent, according to Sir Tony was this: “On the assumption that millions of Britons are about to die, the choice that faces the British government is, do we pointlessly kill millions of Russians?” The answer is in the programme.