Is Russia-Ukraine Crisis A Prelude To World War III?


  • In a recent poll, asked: “Do you think the UK should go to war if Putin invades a NATOcountry?”
  • A total of 6,274 people responded, and dozens left comments below the poll sharing their thoughts on the matter.
  • Overall, the vast majority of voters said “yes”, the UK should go to war if Putin invades a NATO country, with 75 percent of voters (4,720) choosing this option.
  • A further 22 percent of voters (1,398) said “no”, while just three percent (156) said they didn’t know.

A recent news article published in the Express speaks about World War 3 fears as UK has ‘no choice’ but to go to war if Putin invades NATO country.

UK has a duty

In the comments left in the discussion below the poll, it is clear that readers feel the UK has a duty to go to war if Putin invades a NATO country.

Username Einar Skinnarland wrote – As a NATO member, no choice, it’s a must.

And username Aces high wrote:

“We are committed to NATO as a founding member and one of the most generous countries to support it, of course we should step in if any NATO country is attacked by Putin.”

“However, we should only commit to war when other NATO states have formed a cohesive plan/s of attack and which countries will be participating and under whose control. 

“We must not allow another half-hearted shambles where only the UK takes the brunt and is left on its own to face Russia.”

Others also questioned the purpose of NATO if the UK chose not to go to war.

Username TarquinFarquar said: “What’s the point of being in NATO if we are not prepared to go to war to defend one of our allies if it is attacked?

“If we are not prepared to stand by our promises any potential enemy will see this as a sign of weakness and attack us anyway expecting to conquer us with ease.”

Meanwhile, username Soppy Steve said: “The purpose of NATO is solidarity in the face of attack. You can’t pick and choose which member is left to the wolves.”

UK’s actions should be consistent

Some thought the UK’s actions should be consistent with the contributions of other NATO members.

Username Bandersnatch said: “We must fulfil our obligations to NATO, that goes without saying, but the other NATO countries in Europe who have not met the conditions of membership must now step up to the plate and do their bit as well. 

“That may not suit some member countries who have enjoyed the protection and benefits of NATO membership without fulfilling their obligations thus far.” 

And username JohnJ said: “We should come to the aid of all NATO members however, ours must be proportionate to the aid provided by the other NATO members. 

“The UK should stop rushing in in the future and actually watch what others are doing first. 

“I am also a believer that NATO must be reviewed to ensure that it’s membership actually want the same goals and not just the assurance that another country’s military will protect them.”

Concern is growing over Baltic nations

Concern is growing over Baltic nations and NATO members bordering Russia and Belarus amid Russian President Vladimir Putin’s invasion of Ukraine.

Speaking to the Sunday Express in Brussels after crunch meetings with European nations over the crisis in Ukraine, the UK’s Foreign Secretary Liz Truss said the UK was committed to the core principles of NATO.

Ms Truss said: “We have an iron-clad Article 5 commitment to the Baltic states.

“They are part of NATO. It is one for all and all for one. That is iron clad. This is why we are supplying extra [weapons and support].”

Article 5 on collective defence forms the “very heart” of NATO’s treaty, which NATO says “remains a unique and enduring principle that binds its members together, committing them to protect each other and setting a spirit of solidarity within the Alliance”.

Did you subscribe to our daily Newsletter?

It’s Free! Click here to Subscribe

Source: Express


This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.