Gone

[Feologild]

Gone

[Werthead]

A 94-year-old RAF veteran wrote this, which says much the same thing.

I would say that the world has a lot more interconnections and checks and balances which makes a world war relatively unlikely. But a major, region-shattering conflict with global ramifications is quite possible (most obviously in North Korea, but Iran/Saudi Arabia and Kashmir are other potential flashpoints).

A world war would require a confrontation between the United States and either China or Russia. With China seems extremely unlikely: China is very aware of this danger and has been doing enough dancing to avoid that possibility in the short term (what they do in the result of North Korea heating up has also been made clear: they will leave North Korea to its fate if it starts the war, but it may occupy North Korea, or at least the border regions, if the US invades). A conflict with Russia is more likely because Russia may well overstep a mark by trying something in the Baltic States which they the US or EU will ignore, and then be proven wrong. However, the Russians seem to have woken up to the fact that Trump is unpredictable and have rolled back some of their provocations in that area.

[Stalker]

History can be an interesting topic. I suggest you read about the political situation in prewar Europe. Not similar to today, but interesting in its own way.

 

[Feologild]

21 minutes ago, Stalker said:

History can be an interesting topic. I suggest you read about the political situation in prewar Europe. Not similar to today, but interesting in its own way.

 

I know that

 

[GAROVORKIN]

In 1914 when the first world war started, the participants and the media of the day  erroneously assumed that the war would be over in matter of weeks. What no one really took into account was  the fact that military strategy and doctrine  had not kept pace with advancing military technology. 

[TheKitttenGuard]

3 hours ago, GAROVORKIN said:

In 1914 when the first world war started, the participants and the media of the day  erroneously assumed that the war would be over in matter of weeks. What no one really took into account was  the fact that military strategy and doctrine  had not kept pace with advancing military technology. 

A quick war is a very common fallacy throughout history.

It is not only technology that get misjudged. It is also the Political Landscape and the psychology once people start to die.

[James Arryn]

5 hours ago, GAROVORKIN said:

In 1914 when the first world war started, the participants and the media of the day  erroneously assumed that the war would be over in matter of weeks. What no one really took into account was  the fact that military strategy and doctrine  had not kept pace with advancing military technology. 

Partially true, partially myth. The war actually opened in very dynamic fashion, and the Germans basically overextended and one French general made his career by catching them in a flank, sending them reeling back to what more or less became the battleground for the next several years, after the race to the sea. By the time the war was bogged down in the horror of what we think of WWI being about, everyone had an understanding of the technology. The problem was that knowing it didn't change the facts; defensive advantage was almost unbeatably significant. And until new technology arrived to account for that, there wasn't much more to do, except sitting there, but that's not the military's job, and besides you were at extreme risk through disease, etc. So they experimented with rolling fire, with night attacks, with scattershot attacks, etc. Then technology brought chlorine gas, etc. 

Now, Big Picture, was it insane to keep sending men into the maws of machines? Absolutely. But it's honestly hard to figure out where and how much the blame should be attributed, because there's no real way, absent other technology they didn't have yet to overcome the advantage of depth deployed entrenched hmg and artillery fire. Tanks and aircraft later came on...to a degree flamethrower and similar, but once they got bogged down, with the tools they had, it's hard to know what a Hannibal or Napoleon would do all that differently.

[The Marquis de Leech]

The First World War did not come out of nowhere. If Archduke Ferdinand hadn't been assassinated, it is entirely possible (likely, even) that some sort of general European War was going to come along regardless - the competing interests of the Great Powers saw to that. Even if you avoid the assassination AND have Willy fall down the stairs at some point, you run into the fundamental problems:

• France/Germany hate each other
• Russia and Austria-Hungary are not going to play nicely because of the Balkans
• Russia is rapidly industrialising, which puts the fear of god into British India.
• Political systems everywhere are starting to creak

Good luck resolving those without something going wrong..

Today? The sort of multi-polar power dynamic that marked the pre-1914 world doesn't exist. Politically, and militarily (but not economically), the United States is simply too powerful. China isn't at the stage yet where it can challenge, though on current trends, it will some point this century.

[The Marquis de Leech]

15 hours ago, Werthead said:

A conflict with Russia is more likely because Russia may well overstep a mark by trying something in the Baltic States which they the US or EU will ignore, and then be proven wrong.

This is the inherent problem with NATO's Eastern Expansion: are the US, UK, et al, willing to start a war with Russia (with all that entails) over Estonia?

If Russia has invaded The Netherlands, then you know that it really is a Third World War, or a reasonable approximation thereof. But the Baltics?

[Werthead]

3 hours ago, Roose Boltons Pet Leech said:

This is the inherent problem with NATO's Eastern Expansion: are the US, UK, et al, willing to start a war with Russia (with all that entails) over Estonia?

Effectively, they have to, otherwise NATO collapses and Russia will then think it can press further forward without being stopped (shades of Germany after Czechoslovakia).

More practically, there are tens of thousands of NATO troops in Estonia right now: if Russia invades, NATO troops will die and that will trigger a war regardless. A war that Russia cannot possibly win conventionally, so will be forced to fall back on nukes very quickly.

[The Marquis de Leech]

1 minute ago, Werthead said:

Effectively, they have to, otherwise NATO collapses and Russia will then think it can press further forward without being stopped (shades of Germany after Czechoslovakia).

Which is why NATO should never have expanded in the first place.

[Werthead]

2 hours ago, Roose Boltons Pet Leech said:

Which is why NATO should never have expanded in the first place.

Why? Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania wanted to join and they were independent, democratic nations under the rule of law.

In an age of realpolitik and spheres of influence (which 1989-91 was not), maybe it was not wise. Maybe NATO should have been renamed to something less historically juxtaposed against Russia. But the suggestion that sovereign states should not be allowed to follow a path of national self-determination in case it pisses off Russia is unworkable. Russia has to man up and deal with it. Or maybe not occupied those countries for decades and ruled with an iron fist and killed millions of innocent people, and perhaps they would have not felt the need for a massive defence treaty?

Suggesting that NATO and the EU are morally responsible for the latest round of tensions and not a semi-impotent Russia trying to convince everyone they're as powerful as they were in 1980 is really not sustainable.

[The Marquis de Leech]

29 minutes ago, Werthead said:

Why? Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania wanted to join and they were independent, democratic nations under the rule of law.

In an age of realpolitik and spheres of influence (which 1989-91 was not), maybe it was not wise. Maybe NATO should have been renamed to something less historically juxtaposed against Russia. But the suggestion that sovereign states should not be allowed to follow a path of national self-determination in case it pisses off Russia is unworkable. Russia has to man up and deal with it. Or maybe not occupied those countries for decades and ruled with an iron fist and killed millions of innocent people, and perhaps they would have not felt the need for a massive defence treaty?

Suggesting that NATO and the EU are morally responsible for the latest round of tensions and not a semi-impotent Russia trying to convince everyone they're as powerful as they were in 1980 is really not sustainable.

You're trying to have it both ways.

If we are applying realpolitik (i.e. we aren't just considering what the Baltic States want, but what is best for NATO) then NATO should have declined - on the basis that it undermined the existing alliance (i.e. forcing NATO to basically start a Third World War in a situation that shouldn't warrant it).

If we are applying a more liberal worldview - any country can join what it wants - then why wasn't Russia itself invited to join? You know, seeing as the Cold War was now over, and NATO no longer actually had any real reason to exist? If we're saying that Russia can't because of history, what on earth is Germany doing in there? If being in NATO requires being democratic under the rule of law, what on earth were Salazar's Portugal (a founding member) and the Greek military junta doing there? What on earth are Hungary and Turkey currently doing there?  

[Werthead]

45 minutes ago, Roose Boltons Pet Leech said:

If we are applying a more liberal worldview - any country can join what it wants - then why wasn't Russia itself invited to join? You know, seeing as the Cold War was now over, and NATO no longer actually had any real reason to exist? If we're saying that Russia can't because of history, what on earth is Germany doing in there? If being in NATO requires being democratic under the rule of law, what on earth were Salazar's Portugal (a founding member) and the Greek military junta doing there? What on earth are Hungary and Turkey currently doing there?  

Russia was effectively invited to join in. Russia-NATO exercises and communications were set up and employed quite successfully through the North Atlantic Cooperation Council and Partnership for Peace programme. NATO-Russia relations remained reasonable (despite the Georgia situation) until 2014, when they were suspended due to the Ukraine situation.

So yes, NATO and Russia did have a lot of cooperation and success after the Cold War. The issues with Russia are based on its current behaviour, not historical issues.

[SeanF]

I have considerable sympathy for Russia's claim to the Crimea, given that it was part of Russia till 1957, and the vast majority of its inhabitants wish to be part of Russia, but Russia has no claim to the Baltic States.  Maybe it was unwise to let them join NATO, but it's now a done deal, they're economically integrated with the West, so the rest of NATO has no option but to fight if they come under attack. Given the presence of NATO forces in the region, I don't think that a fight is likely.

[GAROVORKIN]

20 hours ago, TheKitttenGuard said:

A quick war is a very common fallacy throughout history.

It is not only technology that get misjudged. It is also the Political Landscape and the psychology once people start to die.

4 bloody years and millions dead and larges area of the European continent devastated .  The old political  of The Hohenzollern, Hapsburg, Romanov and Ottomans dynasties all gone along with the old map of Europe. The worst part Is that was the so called big Four Wilson ,Lloyd George , Clemenceau, Orlando and their choices and decisions (some to which were medicated by personal and political self interest )  laid some of the groundwork for a more destructive second World. War. 

 

 

 

 

[The Marquis de Leech]

9 hours ago, Werthead said:

Russia was effectively invited to join in. Russia-NATO exercises and communications were set up and employed quite successfully through the North Atlantic Cooperation Council and Partnership for Peace programme. NATO-Russia relations remained reasonable (despite the Georgia situation) until 2014, when they were suspended due to the Ukraine situation.

So yes, NATO and Russia did have a lot of cooperation and success after the Cold War. The issues with Russia are based on its current behaviour, not historical issues.

Co-operation or not, no, they weren't. Russia has floated joining NATO multiple times since the end of the Cold War, only to meet with rejection.

(To be fair, they tended to get favourable responses from the actual politicians - it was the diplomatic and military staffers who threw the hissy fits. Because NATO was, and is, the We Hate Russia Club).

[GrimTuesday]

I think it is possible, but unlikely. In 1914, the world was basically tetering on the edge of war even before the assasination of Franz Ferdinand. France were already weary of a progressively more aggressive and powerful Germany which was starting to dip it's toes into the waters of a more global imperialism, in an attempt to put themselves on par with the other major imperial powers. They were starting to make inroads into that chessboard of human suffering known as Africa, as well as starting to build a powerful Navy, which, as Britainia rules the waves, put them into conflict with Great Britain. It didn't help that basically everyone in the foreign office were aligned closely with France (notably Grey and Crowe, as well as Lloyd George), and were distinctly opposed to Germany's rising power. One need only look at the Agadir Crisis to see how close we had already come to a major World War.

Really the reason why I would say that we are not at risk of a full fledged world war is because we live in either a bi-polar (with two major powers balancing each other) or if you buy into the works of Kindelberger and Gilpin, a state of Hegemonic stability, where the hegemon (The US) is so powerful that it stabilizes the international system  in such a way that they are able to use their influence to both keep peace, and impose their will. Back in 1914, the world was in a multi-polar system, where there was no one truly powerful alliance or state to balance against the others. Multi-polar systems are considered unstable, and as we saw, when they are disrupted, it causes a massive cascade making major wars basically inevitable.

If anything, what we will see is two major powers (likely the US and one of China or Russia) going directly at each other, because it would take another powerful country to take a swing at the Hegemon and still be able to be standing when it gets hit back. This kind of war would be devastating, because it would change the international system what has been the status quo since the USSR fell and we finally saw a true global Hegemon, which came about when the world suddenly became more interconnected with the rise of the internet and the increase in global trade. If the US fell, I'm not sure that whoever we were fighting would have enough gas in the tank to take our place as the Hegemon, so it would bring us back to a multi polar system, and that would be bad.

This is all assuming that no one is stupid enough to kick off with nukes, because then it won't matter what kind of international system we are left with.

Feels good to flex the old political science muscles from back in undergrad.

[House Balstroko]

22 hours ago, SeanF said:

I have considerable sympathy for Russia's claim to the Crimea, given that it was part of Russia till 1957, and the vast majority of its inhabitants wish to be part of Russia, but Russia has no claim to the Baltic States.  Maybe it was unwise to let them join NATO, but it's now a done deal, they're economically integrated with the West, so the rest of NATO has no option but to fight if they come under attack. Given the presence of NATO forces in the region, I don't think that a fight is likely.

By that token logic, Israel has a right to reclaim the entire Holy Land, Greece had the right to reclaim Turkey, since it lost those territories to the Ottoman Empire. We also don't really know if the people of Crimea really wanted to join Russia or not as there are a lot of conflicting reports.

[Werthead]

On 16/08/2017 at 5:12 PM, SeanF said:

I have considerable sympathy for Russia's claim to the Crimea, given that it was part of Russia till 1957, and the vast majority of its inhabitants wish to be part of Russia, but Russia has no claim to the Baltic States.  Maybe it was unwise to let them join NATO, but it's now a done deal, they're economically integrated with the West, so the rest of NATO has no option but to fight if they come under attack. Given the presence of NATO forces in the region, I don't think that a fight is likely.

I think a closely-monitored UN election in Crimea would probably show the same thing: Crimea wanting to stay part of Russia. It's probably why the West has really not pushed Putin much on Crimea, because they know that would be the ultimate result. Given that Ukraine did not do enough to cement Crimea's loyalty when it had 25 years to do so, it may be that the Ukrainian crisis ends with Russia ceasing activities in Eastern Ukraine in return for international recognition of its seizure of Crimea. Ukraine might feel sold down the river by that, but that might be the only realistic way out of the mess.

But yeah, the Baltic States have 0 wish to be Russian. I was just in Tallinn and that's a city which is absolutely thriving from its success as part of the EU.