World War 3: Is Russia preparing to attack NATO? Latvia issues warning
Latvia
's intelligence service has ignited fresh concerns over escalating global tensions, revealing a major build-up of Russian military power and an alarming intensification of its surveillance operations on
NATO
in the Baltic Sea. With Russia's war against Ukraine entering its fourth year and a peace deal or ceasefire nowhere in sight, the US-led NATO fears that Moscow could soon turn its military might on the western military alliance. A conflict between NATO and Russia will surely lead to
World War 3
.
#Operation Sindoor
From crossfire to calm: What India, Pakistan Army chiefs said on the hotline
Did China send a cargo plane with military supplies to Pakistan?
India-Pakistan tension: Exodus of migrant workers takes a toll on industry
Latvia's intelligence service (MIDD) in its latest assessment says that Russia is boosting its military reforms and expanding surveillance activities around NATO military operations in the Baltic Sea.
These actions are creating tensions in the region, with
NATO member states
, especially Latvia, increasingly concerned about potential security risks.
5
5
Next
Stay
Playback speed
1x Normal
Back
0.25x
0.5x
1x Normal
1.5x
2x
5
5
/
Skip
Ads by
by Taboola
by Taboola
Sponsored Links
Sponsored Links
Promoted Links
Promoted Links
You May Like
Trade Bitcoin & Ethereum – No Wallet Needed!
IC Markets
Start Now
What does MIDD say?
The MIDD's latest report observes a major shift that can have a direct impact on the Baltic region and warns that Russia's military ambitions include increasing its armed forces from one to 1.5 million soldiers. Russia has been reorganizing its military units and bases near Latvia's border.
Live Events
But the full effects of these reforms are expected to take years, even a decade.
Russia's Western Military District, which is directly adjacent to Latvia, has undergone significant restructuring, creating two new strategic military axes: the Leningrad and Moscow Military Districts.
This restructuring comes in response to Finland and Sweden joining NATO, stirring further unease in Moscow.
The MIDD also stresses that the immediate threat to Latvia is still relatively low, as Russia's military resources are still being diverted to the war in Ukraine. While the prospects of
World War
3 are not near, Russia's belligerence could soon turn the tide.
The intelligence report highlights incidents involving unauthorized airspace violations and aggressive maneuvers near NATO ships and aircraft, and Latvia's defense officials are closely monitoring these developments.
In the past year, Latvia has seen a rise in sabotage, diversions, and other malicious activities aimed at destabilizing the region.
Latvia's President, Edgars Rinkēvičs, has called for stronger defense spending across Europe, stressing the need for NATO to remain vigilant against Russia's actions.
World War 3: Who holds the military edge, NATO or Russia?
Russia is rapidly reforming its armed forces and has launched its largest conscription (compulsory military service) drive in over a decade. But military experts say Moscow remains significantly outmatched by NATO's collective firepower.
Russia's defense budget is estimated to rise to an estimated €120 billion in 2025, over 6% of its GDP, quadrupling since 2021. President
Putin
aims to raise active troop numbers to 1.5 million, but NATO, now 32 members strong with Finland and Sweden onboard, fields a combined 3.4 million active soldiers.
In almost every category, tanks, aircraft, warships, and armored vehicles, NATO holds a clear numerical and technological edge.
But some analysts still warn that the danger lies not in Russia winning a conventional war, but in how it might react if it starts losing one.
Germany's intelligence services have cautioned that Putin could try to test NATO's unity, possibly challenging the credibility of Article 5, the alliance's mutual defense clause.
The threat of nuclear escalation looms over any confrontation: both sides are nearly matched, with NATO's three nuclear powers—the US, UK, and France—holding a combined 5,559 warheads to Russia's 5,580.
Russia's invasion of Ukraine grinds into its fourth year, with neither side showing signs of backing down. Coupled with President Trump's aggressive rhetoric and willingness to consider force in dealings with allies, the world simply cannot afford a global war
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
37 minutes ago
- Time of India
Why the Fulbright scholarship program is facing a crisis under Trump's oversight
Fulbright board resigns over blocked awards and unauthorized reviews under Trump. (AI Image) The prestigious Fulbright scholarship program, a cornerstone of US diplomatic and academic exchange for nearly 80 years, is facing a deepening crisis under President Donald Trump's administration. Designed to promote international understanding and academic excellence, the program is now caught in a storm of political interference and resignations that threaten its integrity and global reputation. A wave of resignations has shaken the Fulbright Foreign Scholarship Board, with nearly all members stepping down in protest. In a public statement, the board members accused the Trump administration of unlawfully meddling in the selection process by denying scholarships to recipients who had already been approved to study and teach in the US and abroad. As reported by the Associated Press, the board declared that continuing to serve "would risk legitimizing actions we believe are unlawful and damage the integrity of this storied program and America's credibility abroad. " Board accuses administration of overreach According to the Associated Press, board members stated that the administration overrode their authority by blocking a substantial number of already-selected candidates, and launching an unauthorized review of an additional 1,200 foreign awardees. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Buy Brass Idols - Handmade Brass Statues for Home & Gifting Luxeartisanship Buy Now Undo These scholars, previously approved to travel to the US, are now subject to a secondary evaluation process that could lead to their rejection. The board emphasized that these actions contradict both the letter and spirit of the Fulbright-Hays Act, which established the program with protections from political influence. The Fulbright program, which awards approximately 9,000 scholarships annually in over 160 countries, is known for supporting a wide range of academic fields. The canceled scholarships affected students and scholars in disciplines such as biology, engineering, agriculture, music, medical sciences, and history. Selection has traditionally been managed by nonpartisan staff at the State Department and foreign embassies, with the board providing final approvals. Administration calls board members 'political appointees' The State Department, which oversees the program, dismissed the board's claims, describing the resignations as a political stunt. As quoted by the Associated Press, the department stated, "It's ridiculous to believe that these members would continue to have final say over the application process, especially when it comes to determining academic suitability and alignment with President Trump's Executive Orders. " The department added that the board members were partisan appointees of former President Joe Biden. One remaining board member, Estrada-Schaye, told the Associated Press, "I was appointed by the president of the United States and I intend to fill out my term." Broader scrutiny of international students intensifies The controversy surrounding the Fulbright program is part of a broader pattern of increased scrutiny of international students under the Trump administration. According to the Associated Press, the government has expanded grounds for revoking foreign students' legal status, paused new visa interviews, increased social media vetting, and pressured institutions like Harvard University to implement reforms. Former board members expressed hope that Congress, the courts, and future boards will defend the Fulbright program from what they called attempts to "degrade, dismantle, or even eliminate" a pillar of American diplomacy, as reported by the Associated Press. Is your child ready for the careers of tomorrow? Enroll now and take advantage of our early bird offer! Spaces are limited.
Time of India
37 minutes ago
- Time of India
Gujarat plane crash: PM Modi expresses shock; calls accident 'heartbreaking beyond words'
Photo/Agencies NEW DELHI: Prime Minister Narendra Modi on Thursday expressed grief over the Ahmedabad plane crash, saying that the incident is "heartbreaking beyond words." "The tragedy in Ahmedabad has stunned and saddened us. It is heartbreaking beyond words," PM Modi said in a post on X. PM Modi added, "In this sad hour, my thoughts are with everyone affected by it. Have been in touch with ministers and authorities who are working to assist those affected." Moreover, President Droupadi Murmu also expressed her thoughts on the accident. "I am deeply distressed to learn about the tragic plane crash in Ahmedabad. It is a heart-rending disaster. My thoughts and prayers are with the affected people. The nation stands with them in this hour of indescribable grief," the President of India's official handle said in a post on X. Earlier, UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer also issued the statement on the tragic incident and called the crash of Air India flight, which had 53 British nationals on "devastating", adding "my thoughts are with the passengers and their families". by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Giao dịch vàng CFDs với sàn môi giới tin cậy IC Markets Tìm hiểu thêm Undo "The scenes emerging of a London-bound plane carrying many British nationals crashing in the Indian city of Ahmedabad are devastating. My thoughts are with the passengers and their families at this deeply distressing time," Starmer said in a statement issued by his Downing Street office. An Air India plane from Ahmedabad to London with 242 passengers crashed in the Meghaninagar area near Ahmedabad airport on Thursday. The Directorate General of Civil Aviation said that a team has been rushed to the spot for investigation. "Air India confirms that flight AI171, from Ahmedabad to London Gatwick, was involved in an accident today after take-off. The flight, which departed from Ahmedabad at 1338 hours, was carrying 242 passengers and crew members on board the Boeing 787-8 aircraft. Of these, 169 are Indian nationals, 53 are British nationals, 1 Canadian national and 7 Portuguese nationals. The injured are being taken to the nearest hospitals. We have also set up a dedicated passenger hotline number, 1800 5691 444, to provide more information. Air India is giving its full cooperation to the authorities investigating this incident," Air India said in a statement.
Hindustan Times
40 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
China and the US at the upcoming G7 summit
If the G7 once stood as the West's economic command centre, today it is a stage for the world's most consequential rivalry: The US and China. The 2025 Kananaskis summit arrives not as a celebration of unity, but as a crucible, testing both the G7's cohesion and its capacity to respond to a world reordered by Beijing's rise and Washington's anxieties. In this context, the G7 is forced to grapple with the reality that its own cohesion is increasingly defined by how it manages the China question. The summit's agenda, though broad, is inevitably shaped by the undercurrents of this strategic contest. Every policy proposal, from digital standards to global health, is now filtered through the lens of US-China competition. The G7's ability to adapt, innovate, and present a credible alternative to China's growing influence will be scrutinised more closely than ever before. Let's acknowledge the elephant in the room: The G7 was created in the 1970s to manage western economic crises, with the US as its undisputed conductor. Fast-forward to 2025, and the G7's very relevance is under scrutiny not least because of the US's own internal divisions and the relentless ascent of China. The G20 was once hailed as the premier forum for global economic coordination, precisely because the G7's old formula could no longer contain the ambitions of China, India, and the wider Global South. Yet, as the G20 has stumbled, mired in geopolitical paralysis, Russian aggression, and China's assertiveness, the G7 has tried to reassert itself as the last redoubt of liberal democracy and economic order. But with the US now led by a president openly sceptical of alliances, tariffs weaponized as policy, and unity fraying, the G7 faces an existential crisis at its own doorstep. The irony is thick: the very institutions designed to manage western dominance now find themselves wrestling with the limits of that dominance. The G7's attempts to reassert itself are both a response to and a symptom of a shifting global order, where old alliances are tested and new alignments are uncertain. The summit thus becomes not just a meeting of leaders, but a barometer of the West's willingness to reinvent itself in the face of profound change. The US enters Kananaskis less as the first among equals and more as the unpredictable uncle at the family reunion. President Trump's return to the summit table brings a familiar playbook: Scepticism of multilateralism, open disdain for the EU, and a willingness to use tariffs as both carrot and cudgel. The US's stance on the climate crisis has reversed course yet again, leaving Europe and Japan to pick up the slack. Intelligence-sharing, once a pillar of trust, is now a source of European anxiety. Trade, too, is a battlefield. Trump's on-again, off-again tariffs have injected uncertainty into global markets, and while G7 finance ministers might dance around the issue in public, the reality is that America's economic statecraft is now as much about managing allies as it is about confronting adversaries. The question for Kananaskis: Can the US still lead a coalition it seems intent on destabilising? The American approach to the summit is further complicated by domestic political pressures. With an eye on the upcoming election cycle, the administration is keenly aware that foreign policy gestures must resonate with domestic audiences. This dynamic risks turning the G7 into a stage for political signalling rather than substantive cooperation, with allies left to interpret shifting signals from Washington. The US's ability to balance domestic imperatives with global leadership will be a key subplot at Kananaskis. China, of course, is not at the table but it is everywhere in the conversation. The G7's agenda is saturated with China's presence: From concerns over the East and South China Seas, to the militarisation of the Taiwan Strait, to the ever-present anxiety over supply chains and critical technologies. The phrase 'free, open, prosperous, and secure Indo-Pacific' is now G7 code for containing China's influence. Yet, the G7's China policy is riven by contradictions. Europe's economic entanglement with Beijing tempers its hawkishness, while Japan and the US push for a harder line. The group will likely issue hortatory statements on peace, stability, and the rules-based order, but the real contest is about who sets the standards for Artificial Intelligence (AI), digital trade, and green technology. China's growing economic footprint in Africa, Latin America, and Southeast Asia also complicates the G7's calculus. As Beijing deepens its Belt and Road investments and forges new trade alliances, the G7 faces the challenge of offering compelling alternatives. The summit's deliberations on infrastructure, debt relief, and technology standards will be shaped by the need to counter China's expanding influence, even as member States weigh the risks of economic decoupling. Here lies the G7's central paradox: It is united in its concern over China's rise but divided on the means and ends of responses. The US wants to de-risk supply chains and decouple where possible; Europe wants to hedge; Japan wants security guarantees without sacrificing economic ties. Meanwhile, China's absence from the summit is itself a statement: The world's second-largest economy is both the target and the test of the G7's continued relevance. This dilemma is compounded by the reality that no member can afford a full rupture with China. The interdependence of global supply chains, the need for cooperation on climate and health, and the risks of escalation in the Indo-Pacific all constrain the G7's options. The summit will thus be a study in ambiguity, with leaders seeking to project resolve while quietly managing risk. The outcome may be less about grand strategy and more about the art of muddling through. If the G7 is to avoid becoming a relic, it must do more than issue communiqués about shared values. It must reconcile its internal divisions, offer credible alternatives to China's Belt and Road, and set enforceable standards for technology, trade, and climate. The US, for its part, must decide whether it wants to lead a coalition or simply bully a bloc. The G7's future indeed, the future of western leadership may hinge on whether this summit is remembered as a turning point or a missed opportunity. The stakes could not be higher. The choices made at Kananaskis will reverberate far beyond the summit, shaping not only the trajectory of US-China relations but the architecture of global governance itself. If the G7 can rise above its divisions and articulate a compelling vision for the future, it may yet reclaim its role as a steward of stability and progress. If not, the world may look elsewhere for leadership perhaps to new coalitions, or to the very rivals it once sought to contain. Finally, the 2025 G7 summit is not just another diplomatic gathering; it is a stress test for the post-war order. The US and China may not sit at the same table, but their rivalry shapes every conversation, every alliance, every policy. The question for Kananaskis is not whether the G7 can contain China, but whether it can contain its own centrifugal forces long enough to matter. In the end, the G7's fate may rest less on who is in the room, and more on whether those present can agree on what kind of world they want to defend. In this pivotal moment, the G7's ability to adapt, innovate, and demonstrate unity will be watched not only by its adversaries but by a world searching for credible leadership. The summit's legacy will be determined by its willingness to face uncomfortable truths and make hard choices that will define the contours of global power for years to come. This article is authored by Maj Gen Dilawar Singh, senior vice president, Global Economist Forum, AO, ECOSOC, United Nations.
