Do you feel threatened that Russia and Iran will succeed in conquering all of Europe and the Middle East? I see it more like a couple of misbehaving misfits. That's very different than say, WWII.
But they don't have to succeed, invasion of Baltic countries could potentially be enough to start WW3, even if russia does not have capacity to win it.
> Do you feel threatened that Russia and Iran will succeed in conquering all of Europe and the Middle East?
Iran has a strong stance to significantly increase influence in the Middle East if not restrained: they have many way (not just Hormuz) to project power on oil countries, and essentially force them to switch sides.
The main threat to Europe is if Trump ever makes good on his threats to take Canada and Greenland. If the US turns truly hostile, then Europe has a serious problem. Especially if Putin and Trump decide they want to split Europe between the two of them.
It's a very extreme case, but it would get extremely messy. Putin on his own is something Europe should easily be able to handle as long as they've got Ukraine on their side. Trump's erratic disruptive attacks will hopefully end at some point. I'm not worried about Iran at all, except internally.
People keep bringing WW3 up but I disagree. There's such a huge aversion in EU countries against any kind of war against Russia and the governments know it. They will let a LOT slide on Russia's side before any kind of retaliation (and I mean by force) is coming. Russia could probably kill several service members with a drone, claim it was an accident and the only thing coming from Europe would be a stern letter, some more sanctions and telling off the ambassador (and the Kremlin knows this too).
I mostly agree but there has been a lot more coming from Europe than stern letters. They've sent a lot of weapons to Ukraine, funded more, and intercepted Russia's fleet. That could and likely will get stepped up.
My read on the situation is that Putin knows that he's stuck, and baiting nato into some (likely tepid) response gives him an excuse to expand the next call up / draft.
A "World War" probably isn't characterized by its "size" (whatever that means) but rather by the fact that the combat theatre extends over much of "the world", or that much of "the world" are active belligerents. Ukraine is right now a localized conflict; I don't think it counts.
FWIW, as one potential size metric: casualties in Ukraine (so far) are comparable to the Korean or Vietnam War, and an order of magnitude less than the World Wars (even though the world has roughly 4x the population now than in 1939). It's much more comparable to those conflicts than either of the World Wars.
All major (and some minor) world powers are invested in this war in some way. China, Iran, India, the US, Russia of course, Europe. By population that's a lot. By power or influence that's also a lot. I think the main difference is the overt-ness. War has changed a lot since WWII, was have a lot "safer" and longer distance tools, including financing. Financing is way different now, it's instant for starters.
No, there has not. One state is using a substantial amount of resources, US and others are donating EOL equipment and pocket change and Ukraine is managing to hold back the country expending a lot of resources. WWII had multiple global powers shift their entire economic output to war machines.
Don't we already have that? It's just a smoulder instead of a conflagration.
Do you feel threatened that Russia and Iran will succeed in conquering all of Europe and the Middle East? I see it more like a couple of misbehaving misfits. That's very different than say, WWII.
But they don't have to succeed, invasion of Baltic countries could potentially be enough to start WW3, even if russia does not have capacity to win it.
How about WWI? This feels more like the start of that - blundering toward catastrophe.
3 replies →
> I see it more like a couple of misbehaving misfits.
Those zany kids!
> Do you feel threatened that Russia and Iran will succeed in conquering all of Europe and the Middle East?
Iran has a strong stance to significantly increase influence in the Middle East if not restrained: they have many way (not just Hormuz) to project power on oil countries, and essentially force them to switch sides.
The main threat to Europe is if Trump ever makes good on his threats to take Canada and Greenland. If the US turns truly hostile, then Europe has a serious problem. Especially if Putin and Trump decide they want to split Europe between the two of them.
It's a very extreme case, but it would get extremely messy. Putin on his own is something Europe should easily be able to handle as long as they've got Ukraine on their side. Trump's erratic disruptive attacks will hopefully end at some point. I'm not worried about Iran at all, except internally.
6 replies →
Well, not even the Nazis managed to permanently conquer Europe, but the destruction they still wrought on the continent was enormous.
Even a victorious war is destructive. I'd like to do without, but I am just a random hobbit in this regard.
Where the misbehaving misfits are the aggressors, i.e Russia, the USA, and Israel?
People keep bringing WW3 up but I disagree. There's such a huge aversion in EU countries against any kind of war against Russia and the governments know it. They will let a LOT slide on Russia's side before any kind of retaliation (and I mean by force) is coming. Russia could probably kill several service members with a drone, claim it was an accident and the only thing coming from Europe would be a stern letter, some more sanctions and telling off the ambassador (and the Kremlin knows this too).
I mostly agree but there has been a lot more coming from Europe than stern letters. They've sent a lot of weapons to Ukraine, funded more, and intercepted Russia's fleet. That could and likely will get stepped up.
That is the point of these "one offs".
My read on the situation is that Putin knows that he's stuck, and baiting nato into some (likely tepid) response gives him an excuse to expand the next call up / draft.
Hawe you been in coma? There has been a ww2 sized war in eastern europe for 4 years
A "World War" probably isn't characterized by its "size" (whatever that means) but rather by the fact that the combat theatre extends over much of "the world", or that much of "the world" are active belligerents. Ukraine is right now a localized conflict; I don't think it counts.
FWIW, as one potential size metric: casualties in Ukraine (so far) are comparable to the Korean or Vietnam War, and an order of magnitude less than the World Wars (even though the world has roughly 4x the population now than in 1939). It's much more comparable to those conflicts than either of the World Wars.
All major (and some minor) world powers are invested in this war in some way. China, Iran, India, the US, Russia of course, Europe. By population that's a lot. By power or influence that's also a lot. I think the main difference is the overt-ness. War has changed a lot since WWII, was have a lot "safer" and longer distance tools, including financing. Financing is way different now, it's instant for starters.
Russia has had more casualties than the UK/US/France combined in WW2
1 reply →
No, there has not. One state is using a substantial amount of resources, US and others are donating EOL equipment and pocket change and Ukraine is managing to hold back the country expending a lot of resources. WWII had multiple global powers shift their entire economic output to war machines.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total_war