WW3 watch

[steakbake]

Interesting times as the US (and naturally by extension, the U.K.) are drawn into a difficult face-off with Russia in Syria.

To his credit, the comment about protesting outside embassies to one side, Boris Johnson reacted well about the no fly zone idea - how on earth would that work, without accelerating a dangerous situation with Russia.

More widely, Russia (rightly) point to our role in allowing Saudi to starve a million Yemenis and the use of British and US weapons in the brutal war there.

I hope in a few years time we can all look back at these turbulent times behind us. However, there just seems to be this drumbeat of war and confrontation with some commenting that we are only a stand-off away from a war with Russia.

So where are we headed? Will Clinton be a hawk? Would Trump winning mean that Russia gains the upper hand as a superpower? Interested in folks views.

[Hibrandenburg]

Interesting times as the US (and naturally by extension, the U.K.) are drawn into a difficult face-off with Russia in Syria.

To his credit, the comment about protesting outside embassies to one side, Boris Johnson reacted well about the no fly zone idea - how on earth would that work, without accelerating a dangerous situation with Russia.

More widely, Russia (rightly) point to our role in allowing Saudi to starve a million Yemenis and the use of British and US weapons in the brutal war there.

I hope in a few years time we can all look back at these turbulent times behind us. However, there just seems to be this drumbeat of war and confrontation with some commenting that we are only a stand-off away from a war with Russia.

So where are we headed? Will Clinton be a hawk? Would Trump winning mean that Russia gains the upper hand as a superpower? Interested in folks views.

The danger is not in the present, it's in the future. The time is coming soon when an increasingly right wing electorate will vote in a right wing leader. That's when the clock starts ticking.

[barcahibs]

Global nuclear powers don't go to war with each other, that's what has kept the Western world safe for the past 70 years. I believe in MAD and am pretty happy that my generation never had to go to war.

The only problem with the theory is that it only holds as long as neither side thinks it can "win" the war.

Unfortunately we're in a situation now where in a conventional conflict between NATO/The West and Russia, the Western Powers would win handily. The danger is that that superiority makes politicians overconfident and they forget that conventional military superiority can quickly become irrelevant against a peer nuclear power.

On the other side I think there may also be an impression forming that the Western nuclear powers wouldn't push the button if it came to it and that idea is just as dangerous.

We might actually be heading for a pretty unprecedented situation where both sides think they can "win" a conflict.

That's pretty terrifying.

[Hibrandenburg]

Global nuclear powers don't go to war with each other, that's what has kept the Western world safe for the past 70 years. I believe in MAD and am pretty happy that my generation never had to go to war.

The only problem with the theory is that it only holds as long as neither side thinks it can "win" the war.

Unfortunately we're in a situation now where in a conventional conflict between NATO/The West and Russia, the Western Powers would win handily. The danger is that that superiority makes politicians overconfident and they forget that conventional military superiority can quickly become irrelevant against a peer nuclear power.

On the other side I think there may also be an impression forming that the Western nuclear powers wouldn't push the button if it came to it and that idea is just as dangerous.

We might actually be heading for a pretty unprecedented situation where both sides think they can "win" a conflict.

That's pretty terrifying.

All sense of perspective flies out the window as soon as supremist ideology enters the building.

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

Interesting times as the US (and naturally by extension, the U.K.) are drawn into a difficult face-off with Russia in Syria.

To his credit, the comment about protesting outside embassies to one side, Boris Johnson reacted well about the no fly zone idea - how on earth would that work, without accelerating a dangerous situation with Russia.

More widely, Russia (rightly) point to our role in allowing Saudi to starve a million Yemenis and the use of British and US weapons in the brutal war there.

I hope in a few years time we can all look back at these turbulent times behind us. However, there just seems to be this drumbeat of war and confrontation with some commenting that we are only a stand-off away from a war with Russia.

So where are we headed? Will Clinton be a hawk? Would Trump winning mean that Russia gains the upper hand as a superpower? Interested in folks views.

I dont see there being a war because russia could not win a real, hot war. I think its more likely that we just see proxy wars like this.

Does the more russia intervenes make previous western interventions now seem more benign in hindsight? Discuss...

[steakbake]

I dont see there being a war because russia could not win a real, hot war. I think its more likely that we just see proxy wars like this.

Does the more russia intervenes make previous western interventions now seem more benign in hindsight? Discuss...

Ive watched a few interviews online with Putin. As much as I don't like the man, he asks the question whether Russia has bases dotted around the world in more than 100 locations, who first moved missiles to within striking distance of major cities, who cancelled the agreement not to build new missiles and who continues to supply arms and ammunitions to perpetuate a variety of conflicts around the world. The answer is not Russia.

I wouldn't say he's benign but he is reacting to an escalation he did not initiate.

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

Ive watched a few interviews online with Putin. As much as I don't like the man, he asks the question whether Russia has bases dotted around the world in more than 100 locations, who first moved missiles to within striking distance of major cities, who cancelled the agreement not to build new missiles and who continues to supply arms and ammunitions to perpetuate a variety of conflicts around the world. The answer is not Russia.

I wouldn't say he's benign but he is reacting to an escalation he did not initiate.

I think russia does sell a lot of arms around the world, they are just not as good anymore.

I would say he abaolutely has escalated - in ukraine, in syria.

Bit of coursr if i said this in russia, id probably get a visit from his FSB rent-a-mob.

The point remains though that they are relatively weak. When they could afford it, they did have bases aroind the world and they did arm their allies. Dont mistake his inability to still do that for some sort of benevolence.

[RyeSloan]

I think russia does sell a lot of arms around the world, they are just not as good anymore.

I would say he abaolutely has escalated - in ukraine, in syria.

Bit of coursr if i said this in russia, id probably get a visit from his FSB rent-a-mob.

The point remains though that they are relatively weak. When they could afford it, they did have bases aroind the world and they did arm their allies. Dont mistake his inability to still do that for some sort of benevolence.

A reasonable summation of where Russia is compared to the US and the rest...

http://nationalinterest.org/feature/just-how-dangerous-russias-military-16981?page=2

Add in China's continued development of its armed forces and maybe the reason the US has bases around the world becomes clear...they are the de facto global policeman against Russian and China using their projected force for their own ends.

That's not to say the US does not do the same but as ever it's the balancing of these powers that's important and without the US then Russia and China would have significantly more influence. Considering Russia's actions in the Crimea and China's in the South China Sea I doubt many people in the West would agree that would be a positive thing.

[steakbake]

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/oct/12/world-faces-cold-war-era-threat-levels-former-mi6-chief-sir-john-sawers

I thought this was interesting. Diplomacy is the only way to go, but I think that continuing with a US led alliance operating unilaterally without engaging meaningfully with Russia and China has future conflict written all over it.

[steakbake]

A reasonable summation of where Russia is compared to the US and the rest...

http://nationalinterest.org/feature/just-how-dangerous-russias-military-16981?page=2

Add in China's continued development of its armed forces and maybe the reason the US has bases around the world becomes clear...they are the de facto global policeman against Russian and China using their projected force for their own ends.

That's not to say the US does not do the same but as ever it's the balancing of these powers that's important and without the US then Russia and China would have significantly more influence. Considering Russia's actions in the Crimea and China's in the South China Sea I doubt many people in the West would agree that would be a positive thing.

PS - thanks - an interesting article.

[Colr]

Does the more russia intervenes make previous western interventions now seem more benign in hindsight? Discuss...

Will ISIS/Al Quieda target Russia? Doubt it.

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/oct/12/world-faces-cold-war-era-threat-levels-former-mi6-chief-sir-john-sawers

I thought this was interesting. Diplomacy is the only way to go, but I think that continuing with a US led alliance operating unilaterally without engaging meaningfully with Russia and China has future conflict written all over it.

I think the us and china do engage diplomatically. They butt-heads over the south china sea, and i would say there is potential for conflict there, but they will both try to avoid. China lacks power projection to realistically challenge us power, but the us would absolutely not want any sort of ground conflict, and would probably be wary of sending carrier groups close to china.

I would rather align with the usa than anyone else, but asia has beem the one place where we have managed to resist the urge to jump into conflict with the us.

I believe russia responds best to force - they do what they can gey away with, i.e. ukraine. I highly dount they would trybthat in the baltics, because they know they would probably lose.

The us does engage a lot, its foreign policy is very simple, and follows on from the british policy that preceded it - balancing. It will intervene to keep balance in the rest of the world. Other than the weird era of bush jnr, their foreign policy is very predictable and rational.

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

Will ISIS/Al Quieda target Russia? Doubt it.

Interesting point.

So are you saying that the radical islam hates the west NOT because of our military presence, but for some other reasons?

I think islamists have previously targeted russia, who of course habe their own sizeable muslim minority.

[steakbake]

Will ISIS/Al Quieda target Russia? Doubt it.

They have ISIS and AlQaida elements in Russia and they have experienced attacks, primarily as a result of Chechnya and a range of other insurgencies in the southern republics.

In terms of foreign fighters, ISIS recruits from Russia and the southern republics in large numbers - so they are also having to contain that threat.

[Betty Boop]

Of course Andrew Mitchell's comments comparing Russia to the Nazis is really helpful.

[NAE NOOKIE]

The whole bloody lot of them should be made to sit down and watch 'The World at War' TV series .... if that isn't enough to get them talking nothing will.

As for Putin, I don't know for sure, but even though younger Russians were probably happy to see the back of communism which enabled them to embrace all of the delights and miseries of a free market economy, I'm also pretty sure that along with older Russians they were probably more than miffed to watch the US and its allies crowing about how they 'won the cold war' in the end and freed the poor uneducated Russians from their own backward stupidity.

I'm willing to bet that in the years following the fall of the Iron Curtain the perception in Russia was that the west saw them as weak and insignificant, something that certainly wasn't the case before the 1990s. Anybody who could be seen to change that state of affairs would be seen as a hero by many Russians, step forward Mr Putin ...... The more sabre rattling he does and the more the west react badly to it the more support he gets from the general Russian population and that along with his more sinister approach to opponents keeps him just where he wants to be.

He will continue to sabre rattle and keep 'the west' on edge by infiltrating NATO airspace, but IMO he will stop short of anything that could lead to direct conflict ... NATO have made it absolutely clear that any move against the Baltic states for example is a step too far and I think he wouldn't take such the risk.

I could see him taking the risk of US / NATO forces clashing with his in Syria, but he would make sure that any fallout from it was localised to that region, he knows that NATO would not act first in Europe as a result of any conflict elsewhere.

[barcahibs]

I think russia does sell a lot of arms around the world, they are just not as good anymore.

I would say he abaolutely has escalated - in ukraine, in syria.

Bit of coursr if i said this in russia, id probably get a visit from his FSB rent-a-mob.

The point remains though that they are relatively weak. When they could afford it, they did have bases aroind the world and they did arm their allies. Dont mistake his inability to still do that for some sort of benevolence.

I think there might be something in this as well. The reputation of Soviet/Russian arms took a massive battering in the aftermath of the Iraq wars. An army equipped with (what looked like) top line Soviet/Russian equipment and organised according to Soviet/Russian doctrine was swept aside with almost contemptuous ease by the Coalition.

Rightly or wrongly - the Iraqi equipment wasn't really top of the line, and they certainly didn't fight the way the Russians would have -no-one wanted to buy MiGs and T-72 tanks after that.

Russia needs foreign exports, a quick campaign where modern Russian weapon systems can be shown to be successfully facing up to Western systems would be a marketers dream... It would also do a lot to restore Russian pride.

Certainly the reputation of (and commercial interest in) French Rafale jets went up after their intervention in Libya (and some cynics would say that the UK was very keen for it's Typhoon jets to be shown to be playing a prominent role afterwards).