This topic has not ceased to excite people's minds since the end of World War II and the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki with atomic bombs.
The Cold War that had begun then seemed about to escalate into the Third World War, as a result of which entire continents could be covered in radioactive ash. But this did not happen, and the main participants in the Cold War signed an agreement on arms reduction. This was followed by the collapse of the socialist camp and the Soviet Union. In fact, the peoples of the USSR lost this war.
Today, against the background of the worsening situation in Europe (Ukrainian), Syria is increasingly aware of the threat of armed forces.
In its recently published White Paper, the People's Republic of China declares that a new military conflict is inevitable. The strategy does not talk about specific dates or participants, but directly states the inevitability of the Third World War. In this regard, the Chinese authorities intend to strengthen their armed forces, increase the production of weapons, and strengthen forces for possible defense. Thus, the largest country in the world (both in terms of numbers and numbers) recognizes that the world could be interrupted any day by a new global conflict, which will seem like a dummy compared to the First and Second World Wars.
This cannot alarm the average person who is used to living in peace and tranquility, to whom carpet bombing of neighborhoods, nights in basements, and daily human losses are alien. Our average person is used to plugging into gadgets and TVs every day, watching news and TV series, while getting ready for work and drinking another portion of coffee. The average person does not want to notice that a global collision has already begun. Already today we are witnesses of a certain quiet, when, under the curtains of diplomatic conversations and slogans, the extermination of entire nations occurs.
Fact: Since the end of World War II, there has been no peace on our planet. Wars happen everywhere and all the time. Wars in Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria, Ukraine - this is just a small list of those countries on whose territory heinous crimes are committed, covered up by certain slogans and ideas. We do not take into account that the economic wars launched against us, which include not only sanctions and blockades, but also lending, as a result of which we become dependent on individual financial institutions, information wars, in which human consciousness is rewritten to what is necessary for those who ordered the war okay, political, when, against the backdrop of public opinion formed by the information influence, individual political forces come to power, representing not the general population, but the business elite - all this is included in the concept of a global Third World War.
We do not understand that our enemy is not the people, not the people zombified by the masses, not the people poisoned by an idea, but the oligarchs - the real customers of the mass slaughter. Just imagine how today the Soros, Rothschilds and Rockefellers who started the war in Ukraine and Syria are rubbing their hands with pleasure. In fact, they crossed all borders a long time ago. With globalization, they have embraced everything and everyone. Our enterprises, resources, our culture and education, our countries and peoples - all this is under the control of a handful of billionaires (both national and international). And here their nationality is not important, their place of residence is not important, but what is important is that with the help of our own media we are being pushed into a global massacre called the Third World War. And this happens in all countries of the world.
We are being drawn into credit bondage, when countries and peoples are doomed to long-term obligations at interest rates. Our lands, resources, enterprises are being bought for green candy wrappers printed by the Federal Reserve System, which is completely under the control of the oligarchs, dictating their terms to the whole world. Any IMF, European or Asian banks are nothing more than a gang of oligarchs whose goal is to establish control over countries and peoples, hiding behind beautiful words about help. It’s a paradox, but we are even accustomed to the idea that gratitude is needed for help, although this very concept implies a selfless action in favor of another subject.
Given the current situation, different conclusions can be drawn. One thing is clear: our capitalist world, so praised by all politicians and the media, has long been rotten. Neither the monarch, nor the aristocracy or elite, nor all sorts of liberal democrats can preserve it. It will not collapse on its own as long as we believe in the bright future of the market economy, as long as we believe that the market will sort everything out. Yes, it will regulate the population, i.e. the time of our birth and death will settle everything as the customers need it, but not us. We still remain naive people who believe that the division of the world into empires and civilizations is natural, who blindly swallow the idea of “divide and conquer” that is instilled in us.
That is why, perhaps, the Third World War is inevitable. As well as the fourth, fifth and sixth. We will fight until we wipe everything off the face of the Earth or until we are left with stones and sticks in our hands, hungry stomachs and a completely destroyed infrastructure. If we come to our senses and deploy our weapons against the warmongers, we begin a world crusade not against peoples and nations, but against the system, against the oligarchs and pseudo-politicians representing their interests, then we will be able to talk about peace throughout the world. Well, for now it’s too early to talk about it.
I love electronic media. I love the opportunity to quickly get readers’ reactions to an article. Among the comments there are often ones that not only expand knowledge, but also provide topics for thought. And sometimes, as it happened yesterday, such thoughts appear that, whether you want it or not, a philosophical essay is written in your head. The reader is a great stimulant for such thoughts. Even a roughly structured head, not very prone to romance, begins to produce logically correct, but at the same time philosophical ideas.
In an article about NATO, which “covered up” Poland and the Baltic states, I expressed the idea that there would be no global war. The modern world is structured in such a way that, in principle, does not allow global war. The simplest thing that comes to mind about military globalization can often be heard or read in your comments. Remember: " Why do we need to capture them (hereinafter the name of the country)? To get another 40 (30, 20, 10...) million parasites? We haven't solved a lot of our problems yet.«.
So why won't the world go to war globally today? Why do the main geopolitical players avoid direct military conflicts in every possible way? Why are small states destroyed, but the confrontation between the “great” ones persists? Ultimately, why didn’t the United States “finish off” Russia after the bacchanalia of the 90s? Why is a huge country with a population of 40 million killing itself today? And methodically, using any methods. Kills in such a way that there is no possibility of quick recovery.
To begin with, I will give a figure that will amaze most readers. More precisely, a fact based on this figure. The 21st century to date is the most peaceful time in human history! Now our readers from the LDNR are urgently writing angry comments about my not being entirely adequate. They talk about the dead. They give examples of destruction... Another part writes about the horrors of Syria... Alas, you are right from the point of view of human morality, but not statistics. Arithmetic has no morality. She is rather committed to formal logic.
And the logic of the development of the modern world is such that while there is a clear increase in the number of casualties and material losses in modern wars, in percentage terms this is much less than in the very recent past. Today, for example, cars cause much more harm to humanity than wars. The death toll in accidents is disproportionately higher. Today, a hot dog, which makes many earthlings obese, is worse than an artillery shell. He kills more people... Even suicides claim more lives than human cruelty in war.
I’ll give you the numbers I read in one smart economic publication. Even in the era of the formation of modern society, the loss of humanity from wars was approximately 15%! So, our ancestors very often died in war. But the 20th century showed a much “better” result. Even with two of the most destructive world wars. “Only” 5% of deaths. And the numbers of the 21st century are quite “good”. About 1%! Of course, it is blasphemous to talk about death in the dry language of numbers, but I initially set myself the goal of not getting into the jungle of emotions. Logic, logic and more logic...
But let's return to the original thesis. On the impossibility of a global war. Let's remember what we were told about in history lessons at school. In the name of what did wars begin in ancient times? In the name of what did Napoleon set out on a campaign against Russia? Why did Hitler need part of the USSR?
Victory in a big war always brought (!) enormous material benefits. They did not fight in order to “destroy the regime”, they fought for living space, for resources, for wealth... In extreme cases, for the redistribution of the world economy in their favor. Memories of the great victories of our ancestors are probably in the memory of all peoples of the world.
We have the Battle of the Ice, the Battle of Kulikovo, the expulsion of Napoleon, and the Great Patriotic War... The Americans are proud of the victory over Mexico. After all, it was this victory that “brought” California, Nevada, Utah, Arizona, New Mexico, part of Colorado, Kansas, Wyoming, Oklahoma to the country’s flag... The Japanese still talk with trepidation about their victories over China and Russia... The Germans talk about victories over France... The list is endless.
The last victory of this plan was probably the victory over Nazi Germany. It has really benefited some of the winners. Precisely material benefit. Human losses were compensated by new territories, technologies and other things. And the Americans created a global banking system “for themselves”...
True, there is a “war”, which is often mentioned in the Western press and in the speeches of Western politicians. A war that did not happen in reality, but which brought real results for Russia. I mean the annexation of Crimea. But it’s not worth talking about a fictitious war. It is enough to know the opinion of Crimeans about this. And they are the most interested and “suffered” in this “war”.
Even a state like Israel is not at war today... A paradox? Remember the last time the Israelis actually won a major military victory? Exactly 50 years ago! So what is next? There are conflicts, but Israel's prosperity for half a century has been based not on military victories, but in spite of them. Even the conquered territories, it seems to me, are not so much to the benefit of the Israelis as to their detriment. This is a heaviest burden for the country’s economy...
Iran, Iraq and the United States fell into exactly the same trap in the Middle East. Remember the Iran-Iraq war. What has Iran achieved by trying to achieve hegemony in the region through military means? What have the Americans achieved by getting involved in this conflict? Absolutely nothing. More precisely, the opposite result. The region “heated up”, and the war began to “spread” to other countries... Moreover, today there is no solution to this issue. The situation is stuck. The war is on. The end of this massacre is not in sight. All talk about some kind of “democratic” transformations runs up against the reluctance of any of the parties...
What about those countries that were quite successful economically, but today are turned into ruins? Where is successful Libya? She simply doesn't exist. And the opportunities for other countries to “take advantage” of Libya’s riches have melted away like morning fog...
Some readers will now reasonably ask about Daesh (banned in Russia). After all, again, from a purely economic, material, if you like, point of view, the project is successful. Remember the $500 million in Iranian money seized from banks in 2014. Remember the $500 million from oil sales in 2015... A whole billion “produced in the war”...
Now let's think about whether Russia, and especially the United States or China, should start a war for the sake of a billion dollars? Estimate the cost of military expenditures for such a war. How much does a Tomahawk or Caliber cost there? How much does an air raid cost? How much does a fleet cost in a combat area?.. But there are many more “how much does it cost”. And compare the possible “income” with the export income of these countries. Here's your answer...
One successful campaign in these countries is “worth” much more than all the possible gains from, again, a possible victory in the war. Our Gazprom is much more valuable. What about American Apple, Facebook and Google? What about the German automobile giants?
It seems to me that today there is no point in fighting globally, primarily for this reason. As I wrote in the article already mentioned above, today’s wars will be regional. And “great” countries will participate in them indirectly. How this happens in Ukraine. How it happened in Georgia in 2008.
Now about the use of nuclear weapons. Many are frightening the world with the possibility of a global missile strike by the Americans or Russians... Let's consider this option in the light of the thoughts I have already expressed. Just based on the results of such a strike.
Let us assume that one of the parties manages to strike and successfully repel the counterattack of the “dead hand”. And what? The territories have been “cleared” from…the possibility of their use for many hundreds of years. But local nuclear strikes will not solve the problem of a response to your state. Dead end. What smart people have talked about many times has come true. There is a scarecrow. But this scarecrow no longer really “scares” the hawks...
Much more terrible, again, in my opinion, is what “Petya” recently showed us. Petya is not the same person. And the one that is a computer virus. A perfect example of how modern technology can be used to plunge a country into chaos. Imagine such a “Petya”, “Vasya”, “John”, “Mahmud” or any other “guy” who overnight destroyed the entire system of government. Naturally, including military control. Imagine a virus that is now “sleeping” in missile control units. In other military “secrets”. But he will “wake up” when necessary. And how is the picture? It’s just that your TV is “snoring”... There is no connection, no information, no water, no light, control of the vehicle is lost... And so on.
Now let me remind you of the statements of some politicians. The leading countries of the world have long understood the futility of modern weapons in a global war. Beat the weaker ones? Yes. Throw punches knowing that they won't answer you? Yes. Destroy competitors in other countries? Yes. But don't fight each other.
Vladimir Putin has repeatedly warned particularly zealous “hawks” in the United States and Europe about Russia’s response to direct aggression. Note that he did not talk about the use of nuclear weapons. He spoke about completely new principles of the impact of weapons. About new weapons that can neutralize modern ones. Some American politicians and generals also say the same. Europeans are hinting at this. The presence of such weapons is often written about in the press. “From sources that are close to...”
And here lies the most disgusting conclusion of all my thoughts. Before the First World War, most people were confident in the impossibility of starting hostilities... We know what came of it. The stupidity of humanity is so great that even the word “logic” often disappears from the human lexicon. Once upon a time (by historical standards, yesterday) we managed to avoid the outbreak of World War III thanks to a timely detonated hydrogen bomb. Then because there were adequate people in power in the USSR and the USA who withdrew their missiles from the borders of a potential enemy. What will happen if one of the countries can find a truly revolutionary type of weapon? What will happen if, having these weapons, another powerful fool wants to change the world?
That is why we, I mean all of humanity, do not have a 100% guarantee of world peace.
That is why we are forced to spend huge amounts of money on defense. We are exactly like humanity. After all, there are still those who hope to return to the “good old days”, when it was possible, like William the Conqueror in 1066 at the Battle of Hastings, to lose several thousand people, but gain an entire country... Like Alexander Nevsky or Dmitry Donskoy, drive out hordes of invaders from your own country.
Global War
What could be the role of the Chelyabinsk region in the situation of the unfolding of the global conflict...
Let's not engage in self-deception. Let's call a spade a spade.
Today there is a global redistribution of the world, which will influence the development of humanity in the coming centuries.
World leaders understand this very well, and the Third World War has actually already begun, which, in order to avoid panic among the population, is masked by certain “habitual” words and actions.
It is no secret that America has long been nurturing plans to create the United States of the Planet under the protectorate of, naturally, America itself. These plans were implemented gradually, stepbystep. The United States did not force events so as not to “scare off” the peoples of other countries, while clear agreements were reached with the leaders of these countries.
An example and confirmation of this: the unification of Europe. This action, which seems to create a counterweight to the United States, actually plays into the hands of globalist plans. Europeans are taught to live in... a common house, or more precisely: in a common barracks. They were robbed of their currency, their laws, their identity. All that remains is to distribute striped robes with numbers, convincing everyone, of course, that these are comfortable pajamas for a carefree life.
To make sure that “the States think for you” and care about your safety, occupation troops have already been introduced into most European countries. “Uncle Sam’s” military bases control almost the majority of any significant countries in the world community.
Yes, during the period of Gorbachev and Yeltsin, a lot of money and effort was invested in Russia. A corrupt elite of businessmen and officials was created, the economy and legislative framework were destroyed, the energy system was practically destroyed, finances were devalued and the population was demoralized. Formally: the country fell and the pro-American sentiments cultivated in it should have contributed to the smooth passage of the process.
In addition, it seemed to someone that Putin, having accepted power from Yeltsin, accepted both his submission and his agreements. Which, of course, was not the case.
They demanded stupid, martinet submission from Putin. It’s like, well, your bosses and I have already agreed on everything, you’ve been given a puppet chair, be happy and do what you’re told!
Putin was not satisfied with this situation (for many objective and subjective reasons).
So, due to the inadequacy and inflexibility of the United States in relation to Russia and its leader, the world has turned from a comfortably unipolar one into a bipolar one.
The States began direct military action by, firstly, activating the “fifth column” in Russia. Secondly, they introduced a broad blockade of goods, called “sanctions”.
In response, Russia harshly suppressed the “white ribbon movement” and agreed with the proposal of the Republic of Crimea to join the Russian Federation, supported similar aspirations of the residents of Donbass, who historically and mentally gravitated towards Russia.
The States were infuriated by this and in retaliation they... captured almost all of Europe, especially putting pressure (just in case) on the countries of the Slavic world. Today the occupation forces at home are fed (in alphabetical order): Australia; Afghanistan; Bahrain; Bulgaria; Belgium; Brazil; Great Britain; Germany; Honduras; Denmark; Greece; Djibouti; Israel; Spain; Italy; Qatar; Kosovo; Cuba; Kuwait; Netherlands; Norway; United Arab Emirates; Oman; Portugal; The Republic of Korea; Romania; Saudi Arabia; Singapore; Türkiye; Japan. Under the guise of strategic exercises, NATO troops are deployed in the Baltic countries.
In total, the United States has prepared about 1,500 strategic bases in what has actually begun as a world war.
It is clear that this situation cannot but worry other countries that are not included in the Pan-American Global War Alliance. Filled with fair self-respect, China, India, the CIS countries and other countries are certainly not interested in being participants in this conflict, but they have no choice but to unite with Russia, for example, within the framework of the SCO and BRICS. Everyone understands: it will not be possible to sit on the sidelines. But Russia, unlike the United States, does not demand unconditional submission or complete surrender from its allies.
Russia's current economic weakness confuses Russia's hesitant potential allies.
Opposition to sanctions and the global blockade have shown, of course, that a self-sufficient country can easily do without any special food products and technologies. Russia’s serious military potential, its combat readiness and ability to adequately respond to any aggression were also clearly demonstrated.
By and large, two things hinder the normal development and growth of Russia’s economic potential: 1- insufficient legislative protection of property; 2- insufficient development of the richest natural resources.
The first factor restrains the entrepreneurial initiative of Russian business itself, does not allow the investment process to unfold, and contributes to the withdrawal of money from the country.
The second factor not only hinders the process of development of import substitution in industry, but also, frankly speaking, angers neighbors who do not have similar resources, who consider Russia a dog in the manger, which itself does not eat it and does not give it to others.
But these same factors could become the basis for uniting the anti-globalist opposition.
Today, a number of regions of Russia, including the Chelyabinsk region, have entered the competitive process to host the SCO-BRICS summit. This promises the territories certain material and political dividends.
It is noticeable that the leadership of the Chelyabinsk region was concerned with the formal side of organizing the visit: hotels, congress halls, etc. This is, of course, good, but I think this is not the main thing.
Probably, the winner will be the territory to which the member countries of these organizations would be interested in coming. And this interest does not lie in the theatrical sphere.
To be specific, today the Chelyabinsk region can initiate the improvement of legislation regarding the protection of property. Deputies of the regional parliament and representatives of the region in the State Duma of the Russian Federation need to develop new mechanisms that will cut off the claims of third parties to the property of citizens and enterprises. It is necessary to look at what can be done within the framework of the current legislation, and what needs to be supplemented by improving it. For example, it is possible to provide for the principle of inheritance of debts to legal entities for private entrepreneurs (individuals) in exchange for the seizure of means of production. Thus, a mechanism for the development of production by subsequent generations will be created. This will give confidence to business and give a feeling of reliability in the development of industry in this territory.
The same mechanism, extended to foreign investors, will make it possible to attract enterprises from the SCO and BRICS member countries to this area. The presence of an enterprise from one's own country in this region will be an additional argument when choosing a venue for the summit for the participating countries.
But the most important thing is to create a common topic of conversation. Cursing the “American military” is not productive, but discussing the conditions for developing the richest natural resources of the Urals and Siberia is of unconditional interest.
The Chelyabinsk region is able to again initiate a project similar to the Ural Industrial - Ural Polar project, but on a larger scale and in a new context. For example, as geological exploration of deposits by an international alliance with their subsequent development. Of course, such a pie can attract many guests with good appetites. In any case, everyone is ready to talk about this topic.
There is no doubt that the regional initiative of the South Urals will be supported by Moscow. After all, Russia is the third Rome. And there will never be a fourth Rome.
There is a Global War going on, here we need decisive, offensive actions, powerful reasons for allies, powerful countermeasures against opponents.
The USA has dollars, green bills, belligerence and the closed Bilderberg Club.
Russia has natural resources, natural products and complete openness and friendliness.
Whose scales tip the scales will win.
It is necessary that ours...
Could World War III break out in 2018?
If so, here are five risk areas where this could happen, as identified by Aftonbladet.
“There is an increased risk,” says Isak Svensson, professor of peace and conflict studies at Uppsala University.
Republican Senator Bob Corker has warned that Donald Trump could lead the US "on the path to World War III."
There is a risk that he is not entirely wrong.
According to Isak Svensson, professor of peace and conflict studies, three factors are more likely to prevent war than others.
All of them are now collapsing, largely due to Trump and growing nationalism.
1. International organizations
“One of the goals of the UN, OSCE (Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe), the EU and similar organizations is to reduce the risk of armed conflict. But with Trump continually trying to dismantle international cooperation, these organizations may be weakened. This will affect the risk of war,” says Isak Svensson.
2. International trade
During his election campaign, Trump accused China of “raping” the American economy. Therefore, many experts expected that he would introduce customs duties on Chinese goods, which would result in a full-fledged trade war.
“That hasn't happened yet, but at least he has signaled that he is not particularly interested in promoting free trade,” said Isak Svensson.
3. Democracy
The two democracies have never fought each other. But the wave of nationalism that is sweeping the world could rock democracies.
“Populist nationalism targets democratic institutions: universities, courts, media, electoral bodies and so on. This is noticeable in the US under Trump, in Hungary, Poland and Russia, for example,” says Isak Svensson.
The threat from nationalism
Svensson sees how nationalism threatens all three factors that prevent war.
“Nationalism is not only present in peripheral countries, it is now spreading among the main players in the international arena: in the USA, in the UK in the form of Brexit, in the EU with its Poland and Hungary, which can weaken European cooperation. India and China are very much influenced by nationalist ideologies, as are Türkiye and Russia. All this, together with Trump, negatively affects these three factors. There is a considerable risk of interstate conflicts,” says Isak Svensson.
However, he does not believe that a major global war is likely.
“The likelihood of this is low. In general, interstate conflicts are very unusual, and they are becoming less common over time. But if this happens, then events unfold very intensely,” says Isak Svensson.
Here are the hottest spots of tension.
North Korea
States: North Korea, USA, Japan, China.
North Korea conducts test explosions of nuclear weapons and is constantly developing new missiles. One of the newest missiles tested this summer is capable of striking the United States, but it is unclear whether North Korea could equip it with a nuclear warhead.
North Korean dictator Kim Jong Un and US President Donald Trump exchanged hateful verbal provocations, including Trump promising to meet North Korea with “fire and fury.”
The US is allied with South Korea and Japan, which also feel threatened by North Korea. And this closed dictatorship, in turn, receives support from China.
“In the short term, the most problematic area is the Korean Peninsula,” says Niklas Swanström, head of the Institute for Security and Development Policy.
“At the same time, the likelihood that China will defend North Korea is very low. This will only happen if there is a threat to China's direct interests, that is, if the US sends troops to the Chinese borders or something like that."
Isak Svensson agrees that Korea is the most worrying place because the situation there is unpredictable.
“It’s not very likely, but it’s possible that something will happen there. Everyone is on edge, there are various exercises and demonstrations of strength to each other, there is a high risk that something will go wrong. This can start the process even if no one actually wants it. No one is interested in bringing things to a full-scale war, but there is still a risk of this,” says Isak Svensson.
The biggest problem is poor communication, says Niklas Svanström.
“There are no security structures in Northeast Asia. Military confrontation can escalate very sharply.”
South China Sea
Countries: USA, China, Taiwan, Vietnam, Philippines, Malaysia, Brunei.
Here is one of the most serious areas of tension, according to Isak Svensson.
“There is incredibly great military potential there. The likelihood of something happening is small, but if it does, the consequences will be catastrophic. There are nuclear weapons, and there are alliances between different countries, so they can drag each other into all sorts of complications in relations.”
At first glance, the conflict is centered around hundreds of small islands and cays near China, Vietnam, Malaysia and the Philippines. About half of the islands are under the control of one of the four countries.
China, Taiwan and Vietnam all lay claim to the entire Spratly archipelago, and the Philippines, Malaysia and Brunei also have their own claims.
In early 2014, China began clearing seven reefs between the islands under its control and establishing bases on them.
The situation is marked by ever-increasing tensions between China and the US, as a rising Chinese power increasingly challenges the US as the world's sole superpower.
“This century will be marked by the relationship between the US and China,” says Niklas Granholm, research director at the Total Defense Institute, FOI.
“There is a shift in power and influence in the international system. In relative terms, China's power is growing and the US's is declining. It is the conflicts that may arise around this division of power that will become most important. We can talk about China's position in relation to Taiwan, China in relation to Japan, relations with North Korea. There are a lot of things that can make a difference,” adds Niklas Granholm.
Niklas Svanström also believes that the relationship between China and the United States is the most dangerous in the long term.
“The only option for a third world war that can be imagined obviously involves China and the United States. I can’t say that this worries me, in my opinion, indirect conflicts may arise, that is, the war will be fought in a third country,” says Niklas Svanström.
India - Pakistan
States: India, Pakistan, USA, China, Russia.
The disputed northern province of Kashmir is effectively divided between India and Pakistan. There have been several wars between countries over the rights to this area, and new conflicts are constantly breaking out.
After 18 Indian soldiers were killed in a terrorist attack on a military base in September 2016, India's Home Minister tweeted:
“Pakistan is a terrorist state that should be labeled as such and isolated.”
Pakistan vehemently denied any involvement in the incident.
“Relations between India and Pakistan are always turbulent. Right now it doesn’t look like there will be a strong escalation, but nothing points to any big moves towards their rapprochement in the future,” says Isak Svensson.
Both countries are nuclear powers, and each is believed to have more than 100 nuclear warheads.
“It’s easy to imagine an unintended escalation to a full-fledged nuclear war, which no one wants but could be provoked by terrorism,” Matthew Bunn, a nuclear weapons analyst at Harvard’s Belfer Center, told the Huffington Post.
India has a policy of not being the first to use nuclear weapons. Instead, an attempt was made to increase the ability to respond to provocations by rapidly sending armored columns deep into Pakistani territory.
Militarily weaker Pakistan responded by introducing short-range Nasr missiles that can be equipped with nuclear warheads.
Many experts fear that such a development, in which Pakistan feels forced to use tactical nuclear weapons to defend itself, could quickly turn a small conflict into a full-scale nuclear war.
Niklas Svanström, however, believes that the likelihood of a world war is low.
“Other countries there have no interests related to security policy. Pakistan has close relations with China, and India has close relations with Russia. But neither Russia nor China will risk starting a large-scale military confrontation. I also find it difficult to imagine that the United States would intervene in such a conflict.”
India - China
Indian Army General Bipin Rawat said in early September that the country must prepare for a two-front war against Pakistan and China.
Shortly before this, a ten-week confrontation between China and India over the definition of the border ended in the Himalayas. Chinese road construction workers, accompanied by military personnel, were stopped by Indian troops. The Chinese claimed that they were in China, the Indians claimed that they were in Bhutan, an ally of India.
According to Bipin Rawat, such a situation could easily escalate into a conflict, and Pakistan could then take advantage of this situation to its advantage.
“We must be prepared. In the context of our situation, war is very real,” Rawat said, as reported by the Press Trust of India.
The border between China and India has long been a point of contention, but the atmosphere is now quite relaxed. But even as China and Pakistan have moved closer economically, aggressive nationalism suggests that may be changing.
“It is difficult to see any hints as to why conflict might break out there, but there is an increased risk of this happening. Both countries' economies are growing rapidly, and both countries are fueled by rather aggressive nationalism. The unresolved territorial issue is of course a clear risk factor,” says Isak Svensson.
Niklas Svanström does not think that China will gain much from this conflict, and India simply cannot win a war against China. Conflicts will continue, but on a limited scale.
“The only situation that could lead to a full-scale war is if India recognizes Tibet as an independent country and starts supporting the Tibetan military movement that is fighting against China. I regard this as extremely unlikely,” says Niklas Svanström.
Baltics
States: Russia, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, NATO military alliance.
One of the biggest risks that could now lead to conflict is Russia's growing ambitions against Europe, believes Niklas Granholm, director of research at the Total Defense Institute, FOI.
“Russia has thrown out the rulebook that has been in place since the early 1990s to define European security,” says Niklas Granholm. — The main milestone in this matter was the war against Ukraine, when in 2014 there was an invasion of this country and Crimea was annexed, which marked the beginning of the conflict in eastern Ukraine. Russia has demonstrated great faith in military means. The Baltic region once again found itself on the line of confrontation between East and West, which seemed completely implausible to many just a few years ago.”
The cause of the conflict may be ethnic Russian minorities in the Baltic countries, says Isak Svensson.
“In Ukraine, Russia has shown that it is willing to use military force to, in its view, protect Russian-speaking minorities. Thus, there is a hidden risk of Russian intervention in the Baltics if an internal crisis begins in any of the countries. Such a scenario is quite imaginable. It’s quite unlikely today, but possible in the future.”
Follow us
From the book Crusade in Europe author Eisenhower Dwight David
Chapter 2. Global War Wartime Washington was characterized in various ways by numerous caustic epigrams, but they all emphasized one thing - chaos. What they had in common was that the government, including the ministries in charge of the armed forces, as well as
Chapter 5 Global War on Religion
From the author's bookChapter 5 The Global War on Religion In January 1951, three years after the arrest of Cardinal Mindszenty, Stalin was able to achieve a lot. After the end of World War II, he significantly expanded his empire, skillfully resorting either to the striking sword or to the veiled
Global rocket
From the book Star Wars. American Republic vs. Soviet Empire author Pervushin Anton IvanovichGlobal Rocket On October 17, 1963, the UN General Assembly adopted Resolution 1884, calling on all nations to refrain from placing nuclear weapons or any other weapons of mass destruction in orbit around the Earth or in space.
Joint exercise “Global War on Terror”. Invasion of Afghanistan
From the book "Zero" author Chiesa GiuliettoJoint exercise “Global War on Terror”. Invasion of Afghanistan Exercises "Unified Vision-2001" Joint Experimental Directorate under the Joint Command of Headquarters, the High Command, as well as 40 organizations and 350 personnel of all army
§9. Global diversification
From the book Game on the Stock Exchange author Daragan Vladimir Alexandrovich§9. Global diversification We have said many times that in order to reduce risk when investing in stocks, it is necessary to include shares of different companies, preferably from different industries, in your investment portfolio. Here we will discuss an issue related to global
Global Finlandization
From the book Reconfiguration. Russia vs America author Lavrovsky IgorGlobal Finlandization America ideologically defeated the USSR, appealing to “universal human values,” to what unites and does not divide. Left alone, the “common people” began to quickly degenerate like their communist predecessors. Fast
Global advertising
From the book Marketing Management by Dixon Peter R.My Global Catastrophe
From the book What awaits us when oil runs out, climate changes and other catastrophes of the 21st century break out author Kunstler James HowardMy Global Catastrophe I do not at all consider myself an impartial observer of the events that I wrote about here, although many things are even scary to think about. I know that I will witness the beginning of these epochal changes and, perhaps, will also suffer from them. Unfortunately I don't become
CHAPTER THREE General state of affairs: Gnaeus Pompey. - War in Spain. - Slave war. - War with sea robbers. - War in the East. - Third war with Mithridates. - Conspiracy of Catiline. - Return of Pompey and the first triumvirate. (78–60 BC)
From the book World History. Volume 1. The Ancient World by Yeager OscarCHAPTER THREE General state of affairs: Gnaeus Pompey. - War in Spain. - Slave war. - War with sea robbers. - War in the East. - Third war with Mithridates. - Conspiracy of Catiline. - Return of Pompey and the first triumvirate. (78–60 BC) General
Global War
From the book World War II author Utkin Anatoly IvanovichGlobal War The feeling of losing basic positions, an irreversible turn of fortune began to weaken in the ranks of the Wehrmacht, the German military machine began to return to the orderly course of daily painstaking activity. In mid-January, Hitler agreed to a series of
CHAPTER 2 GLOBAL WAR: SPIES AND SABOTEISTS
From the book Spies of the 20th Century: from the Tsarist secret police to the CIA and the KGB author Richelson Jeffrey T.CHAPTER 2 GLOBAL WAR: SPIES AND SABOTEISTS Although international relations became increasingly tense, until 1914 Europe managed to avoid war. However, the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand, heir to the Austro-Hungarian throne, and his wife Sophia, Duchess of Hohenberg, during
Global War
From the book World War I by Collie RupertGlobal War The British turned to the Dominions with a request to seize nearby German colonies, and they happily agreed. By October 1914, the Samoan Islands submitted to New Zealand, and German New Guinea and the Bismarck Archipelago (now Papua New Guinea) -
The global war has begun
From the book Oil, PR, war by Collon MichelGlobal War Has Begun "War on Terrorism"? If this were a film, its script would have been rejected as deliberately false and worthless. The first lie: In 1999, and then in 2001, the Taliban came to the conclusion that Bin Laden’s presence on their territory was an obstacle
From the book Newspaper Tomorrow 44 (1093 2014) author Zavtra NewspaperGlobal war or world revolution? Shamil Sultanov October 30, 2014 4 Politics Economics of memories of the future Within the framework of the general theory of systems, the Cold War can be interpreted as a specific mechanism for managing a fairly long and stable
Global war or world revolution?
From the book Newspaper Tomorrow 45 (1094 2014) author Zavtra NewspaperGlobal war or world revolution? Shamil Sultanov November 6, 2014 2 Politics Economics memories of the future End. Beginning - in No. 44 (1093) Inter-clade contradictions The sixth technological structure is fundamentally different from all previous ones in that there is radically
Loading...
