10 ms·

In my opinion, the chances of any sort of war at this point remain pretty low. However, it's possible a Trump presidency and fractured EU might lead to a perfe

In my opinion, the chances of any sort of war at this point remain pretty low. However, it's possible a Trump presidency and fractured EU might lead to a perfect storm for some kind of global conflict in a few years. I think still a low chance, but it does almost sound like the beginning chapter of a history book.

jolux 10y ago
It's the beginning chapter of a history book we've all read several times. What a shame.
mablap 10y ago
Let's not forget this was the general sentiment pre WWI and WWII...
- voidz 10y ago
  There it is. You have all been listening to nonsense media way too much in my opinion.
  - mablap 10y ago
    What do you mean? I am not predicting a war, but pointing out its possibility is inherently volatile.
- Sacho 10y ago
  Is that a useful metric? How often is the general sentiment similar, without leading to a war? How often has there been a war, without such a general sentiment prior to it? It doesn't seem like being aware of this piece of data is very useful.
  - mablap 10y ago
    It is quite useful in the following sense: correctly predicting a war at the moment is not really possible. So I agree with you here. What is certain is that the (nationalistic) political class will use this situation to its advantage. Viewed through historical lenses, this is not exactly good news. But that does not lead de facto to war.
PhantomGremlin 10y ago
In my opinion, the chances of any sort of war at this point remain pretty low. You're right, there's little chance of a war between any of the EU (or soon to be former EU) countries. And, more importantly, there's no foreseeable reason for there to be a war. But, not to put too fine a point on it, there also can't be a war for one other reason: Nobody but Putin has much in the way of armed forces. Things could get really ugly if Putin decided to, e.g. invade the Baltics. I did some quick checking. Here's an example: Germany's current unified armed forces, the Bundeswehr, have 178,000 active soldiers.[1] In WW II, Germany's army (just the army) had 12,000,000 active soldiers in 1944.[2] For today's EU, war would be more of a dalliance than serious business. And that's a good thing. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bundeswehr https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bundeswehr [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_Army_(Wehrmacht) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_Army_(Wehrmacht)
- generj 10y ago
  Except for all the US troops stationed in Germany bolster that number dramatically, in the case of Putin invading. And we can rapidly move troops and supplies over to Germany as well, along with all the other NATO troops doing the same. Germany doesn't need an invasion force, just a defense aided by dozens of other countries by treaty. It is hardly a surprise it has a fraction of it's WW2 army.
  - PhantomGremlin 10y ago
    all the other NATO troops The mood in the USA is turning more inward. There is less appetite for NATO. The sentiment is moving more toward: if the Germans don't want to be learning to speak Russian, then they should be paying for more of their own defense. But they're not:[1] in terms of share of German GDP, military expenditures remain average at 1.2% and below the NATO recommendation of 2%. I'm personally astonished at how little of an Army Germany has today. Especially considering that just a few years earlier, Eastern Germany was studying Russian in school and was a large component of the Warsaw Pact. Poland is quite afraid of Putin. But Germany seems to have adopted a "meh" attitude toward the whole situation. They probably think that if they sell enough BMWs and Mercedes to Russia that everything will turn out OK. And probably it will. Edit: Germany doesn't need an invasion force, just a defense aided by dozens of other countries by treaty. Just want to add that I think you're wrong about this. There is a world of difference between large integrated forces, such as the US V Corps and VII Corps in Germany during the Cold War, and what exists in NATO today. Nowadays, some of those "dozens of other countries" would contribute what, perhaps a battalion or two of combat troops? Not the same as when VII Corps deployed from Germany to Iraq and defeated the Iraqis in the first Gulf War. Not the same as when V Corps deployed from Germany to Iraq and defeated the Iraqis in the second Gulf War. Both those Corps have been deactivated. Nothing took their place. Total US force in NATO was 67,000 in 2015. Not as big as one might think. Here's a "semi-official" NATO statement about force levels: Some 25 per cent of NATO members do not have an air force, 30 per cent have no naval force or maintain a navy with less than 600 sailors, and 50 per cent are fielding an active army of less than 20,000 soldiers. NATO is an Alliance of unequals [2] Finally, the other side is now run by an ambitious, intelligent, charismatic leader in Vladimir Putin. It's no longer led by Boris Yeltsin the drunken bum, and hasn't been since 1999. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bundeswehr https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bundeswehr [2] http://www.nato.int/docu/review/2015/Also-in-2015/europe-defense-budget-military-soldiers/EN/ http://www.nato.int/docu/review/2015/Also-in-2015/europe-def...
jbigelow76 10y ago
>However, it's possible a Trump presidency and fractured EU might lead to a perfect storm for some kind of global conflict in a few years. Despite the Brexit and its aftershocks I don't think the next non-Middle East related conflict will originate in Europe. But a Trump presidency coupled with some sort of "mishap" between the US and China in the South China Sea, that's the stuff of nightmares.
- pyre 10y ago
  I think that @foxylad's point about Russian opportunism with a weak / dissolving EU is a high possibility too.
  - duncanawoods 10y ago
    Military balance is really about NATO not the EU. If NATO began to dissolve... yeah problems.
    - guard-of-terra 10y ago
      I am Russian and nationalistic and I can tell you that there's enough low hanging fruits around Russia who are not in NATO. So weak EU might certainly lead to attemts at picking those fruit.
      - duncanawoods 10y ago
        Why? There is no EU based military coordination. Trade war EU, shooting war NATO. Balance of power games like missile shields in border states are in NATO's purview.
        guard-of-terra 10y ago
        I use "Weak EU" in the meaning of "dysfunctional states". If and when a large subset of NATO states are dysfunctional, it will definitely create opportunities. It's like with rot - rotten things don't stay put they spread rot around.
kinkdr 10y ago
> In my opinion, the chances of any sort of war at this point remain pretty low. At this point yes. But what about 10, 15, 50 years from now on? My opinion is that the chances of a war are far greater in a Europe of nations vs a Europian union vs a Europian nation. I really hope Germany, France, Italy and the rest take a notice on the wake up call and transform this to an opportunity for tighter integration. And Greece too. Get your shit together Greece!
gambiting 10y ago
I can easily see the stupid conservative government of Poland starting some motions to leave EU(despite the fact that Poland is one of the largest beneficiaries of the EU) and if it did,then Russia would be super happy. Not saying there would be war,but if Ukraine was in EU then the whole crimea business wouldn't have happened.
- cmdkeen 10y ago
  Really? In terms of security NATO is a far, far bigger player than the EU will ever be. The EU may have played a part in Ukraine in terms of encouraging it to look West which annoyed Russia - but the EU is not really offering much in the way of collective security. Look at its inability to agree further sanctions on Russia (vetoed by Greece etc).
  - gambiting 10y ago
    I feel like within the EU there is a certain feel of solidarity and if any EU country was attacked all other EU countries would defend it even without a military agreement. At the same time I feel that people generally have no sentiment to other Nato countries, if Ukraine was part of nato half of Europe would be asking why the hell they are paying to defend it.
foxylad 10y ago
Two things: - A blitzed economy coupled with increased nationalism... ring any bells? I'm obviously guessing about the economy, but it's not unlikely. - Russia. A dissolving Europe is going to look... let's say "interesting" to a certain Mr. Putin. I agree with you that the chances are low, but they are definitely higher than yesterday.
- arethuza 10y ago
  "A blitzed economy coupled with increased nationalism" That's my real fear - a lot of people voted for Brexit because of the situation with immigration and that's not really going to change. So next time around I see more extreme right wing government (I'm having waking nightmares of Farage in a BoJo cabinet) that will take "measures" to deal with immigrants...
- MichaelGG 10y ago
  Trump and AfD at least seem to look at Russia more favourably than the incumbent leaders. Is that an accurate assessment?
  - thesimpsons1022 10y ago
    That's a bad thing. Russia is an enemy that needs to be contained. they will take advantage of any "favorable" disposition. He doesn't seem to realize they are a threat.
    - mlvljr 10y ago
      You go, girl :)
    - makhmutov 10y ago
      What you talking about? Why Russia is an enemy for you? I'm pretty sure Russia don't want to be the enemy
- makhmutov 10y ago
  Putin did not say that.
dang 10y ago
We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11966653 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11966653 and marked it off-topic.
Fiahil 10y ago
I was thinking the same thing, Turmoil in Europe, Trump president, a few more natural disasters (earthquakes in California, maybe?), Russia eating another part of what is currently eastern Europe, and a few more large scale terrorism attacks. Tada, we're now in a post-apocalyptic world. That sound almost too easy. If we are lucky, we could eventually see this in a blockbuster Hollywood movie before it really happens.
konart 10y ago
As a Russian - the whole "Russia will take the chance and grab something else" amuses me. Why would we grab part of Baltics or Poland? Crimea has strategic importance. Most of the Baltics - does not. And Poland in the current state of affairs is more valuable as a partner, not as an emeny (despite our history of mutual distrust and wars)
- ionised 10y ago
  Intense propaganda on both sides, so nothing western media or Russian media says can really be trusted.

jolux 10y ago

It's the beginning chapter of a history book we've all read several times. What a shame.

mablap 10y ago

Let's not forget this was the general sentiment pre WWI and WWII...

voidz 10y ago
There it is. You have all been listening to nonsense media way too much in my opinion.
- mablap 10y ago
  What do you mean? I am not predicting a war, but pointing out its possibility is inherently volatile.
Sacho 10y ago
Is that a useful metric? How often is the general sentiment similar, without leading to a war? How often has there been a war, without such a general sentiment prior to it? It doesn't seem like being aware of this piece of data is very useful.
- mablap 10y ago
  It is quite useful in the following sense: correctly predicting a war at the moment is not really possible. So I agree with you here. What is certain is that the (nationalistic) political class will use this situation to its advantage. Viewed through historical lenses, this is not exactly good news. But that does not lead de facto to war.

PhantomGremlin 10y ago

In my opinion, the chances of any sort of war at this point remain pretty low. You're right, there's little chance of a war between any of the EU (or soon to be former EU) countries. And, more importantly, there's no foreseeable reason for there to be a war. But, not to put too fine a point on it, there also can't be a war for one other reason: Nobody but Putin has much in the way of armed forces. Things could get really ugly if Putin decided to, e.g. invade the Baltics. I did some quick checking. Here's an example: Germany's current unified armed forces, the Bundeswehr, have 178,000 active soldiers.[1] In WW II, Germany's army (just the army) had 12,000,000 active soldiers in 1944.[2] For today's EU, war would be more of a dalliance than serious business. And that's a good thing. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bundeswehr https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bundeswehr [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_Army_(Wehrmacht) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_Army_(Wehrmacht)

generj 10y ago
Except for all the US troops stationed in Germany bolster that number dramatically, in the case of Putin invading. And we can rapidly move troops and supplies over to Germany as well, along with all the other NATO troops doing the same. Germany doesn't need an invasion force, just a defense aided by dozens of other countries by treaty. It is hardly a surprise it has a fraction of it's WW2 army.
- PhantomGremlin 10y ago
  all the other NATO troops The mood in the USA is turning more inward. There is less appetite for NATO. The sentiment is moving more toward: if the Germans don't want to be learning to speak Russian, then they should be paying for more of their own defense. But they're not:[1] in terms of share of German GDP, military expenditures remain average at 1.2% and below the NATO recommendation of 2%. I'm personally astonished at how little of an Army Germany has today. Especially considering that just a few years earlier, Eastern Germany was studying Russian in school and was a large component of the Warsaw Pact. Poland is quite afraid of Putin. But Germany seems to have adopted a "meh" attitude toward the whole situation. They probably think that if they sell enough BMWs and Mercedes to Russia that everything will turn out OK. And probably it will. Edit: Germany doesn't need an invasion force, just a defense aided by dozens of other countries by treaty. Just want to add that I think you're wrong about this. There is a world of difference between large integrated forces, such as the US V Corps and VII Corps in Germany during the Cold War, and what exists in NATO today. Nowadays, some of those "dozens of other countries" would contribute what, perhaps a battalion or two of combat troops? Not the same as when VII Corps deployed from Germany to Iraq and defeated the Iraqis in the first Gulf War. Not the same as when V Corps deployed from Germany to Iraq and defeated the Iraqis in the second Gulf War. Both those Corps have been deactivated. Nothing took their place. Total US force in NATO was 67,000 in 2015. Not as big as one might think. Here's a "semi-official" NATO statement about force levels: Some 25 per cent of NATO members do not have an air force, 30 per cent have no naval force or maintain a navy with less than 600 sailors, and 50 per cent are fielding an active army of less than 20,000 soldiers. NATO is an Alliance of unequals [2] Finally, the other side is now run by an ambitious, intelligent, charismatic leader in Vladimir Putin. It's no longer led by Boris Yeltsin the drunken bum, and hasn't been since 1999. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bundeswehr https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bundeswehr [2] http://www.nato.int/docu/review/2015/Also-in-2015/europe-defense-budget-military-soldiers/EN/ http://www.nato.int/docu/review/2015/Also-in-2015/europe-def...

jbigelow76 10y ago

>However, it's possible a Trump presidency and fractured EU might lead to a perfect storm for some kind of global conflict in a few years. Despite the Brexit and its aftershocks I don't think the next non-Middle East related conflict will originate in Europe. But a Trump presidency coupled with some sort of "mishap" between the US and China in the South China Sea, that's the stuff of nightmares.

pyre 10y ago
I think that @foxylad's point about Russian opportunism with a weak / dissolving EU is a high possibility too.
- duncanawoods 10y ago
  Military balance is really about NATO not the EU. If NATO began to dissolve... yeah problems.
  - guard-of-terra 10y ago
    I am Russian and nationalistic and I can tell you that there's enough low hanging fruits around Russia who are not in NATO. So weak EU might certainly lead to attemts at picking those fruit.
    - duncanawoods 10y ago
      Why? There is no EU based military coordination. Trade war EU, shooting war NATO. Balance of power games like missile shields in border states are in NATO's purview.
      - guard-of-terra 10y ago
        I use "Weak EU" in the meaning of "dysfunctional states". If and when a large subset of NATO states are dysfunctional, it will definitely create opportunities. It's like with rot - rotten things don't stay put they spread rot around.

kinkdr 10y ago

> In my opinion, the chances of any sort of war at this point remain pretty low. At this point yes. But what about 10, 15, 50 years from now on? My opinion is that the chances of a war are far greater in a Europe of nations vs a Europian union vs a Europian nation. I really hope Germany, France, Italy and the rest take a notice on the wake up call and transform this to an opportunity for tighter integration. And Greece too. Get your shit together Greece!

gambiting 10y ago

I can easily see the stupid conservative government of Poland starting some motions to leave EU(despite the fact that Poland is one of the largest beneficiaries of the EU) and if it did,then Russia would be super happy. Not saying there would be war,but if Ukraine was in EU then the whole crimea business wouldn't have happened.

cmdkeen 10y ago
Really? In terms of security NATO is a far, far bigger player than the EU will ever be. The EU may have played a part in Ukraine in terms of encouraging it to look West which annoyed Russia - but the EU is not really offering much in the way of collective security. Look at its inability to agree further sanctions on Russia (vetoed by Greece etc).
- gambiting 10y ago
  I feel like within the EU there is a certain feel of solidarity and if any EU country was attacked all other EU countries would defend it even without a military agreement. At the same time I feel that people generally have no sentiment to other Nato countries, if Ukraine was part of nato half of Europe would be asking why the hell they are paying to defend it.

foxylad 10y ago

Two things: - A blitzed economy coupled with increased nationalism... ring any bells? I'm obviously guessing about the economy, but it's not unlikely. - Russia. A dissolving Europe is going to look... let's say "interesting" to a certain Mr. Putin. I agree with you that the chances are low, but they are definitely higher than yesterday.

arethuza 10y ago
"A blitzed economy coupled with increased nationalism" That's my real fear - a lot of people voted for Brexit because of the situation with immigration and that's not really going to change. So next time around I see more extreme right wing government (I'm having waking nightmares of Farage in a BoJo cabinet) that will take "measures" to deal with immigrants...
MichaelGG 10y ago
Trump and AfD at least seem to look at Russia more favourably than the incumbent leaders. Is that an accurate assessment?
- thesimpsons1022 10y ago
  That's a bad thing. Russia is an enemy that needs to be contained. they will take advantage of any "favorable" disposition. He doesn't seem to realize they are a threat.
  - mlvljr 10y ago
    You go, girl :)
  - makhmutov 10y ago
    What you talking about? Why Russia is an enemy for you? I'm pretty sure Russia don't want to be the enemy
makhmutov 10y ago
Putin did not say that.

dang 10y ago

We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11966653 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11966653 and marked it off-topic.

Fiahil 10y ago

I was thinking the same thing, Turmoil in Europe, Trump president, a few more natural disasters (earthquakes in California, maybe?), Russia eating another part of what is currently eastern Europe, and a few more large scale terrorism attacks. Tada, we're now in a post-apocalyptic world. That sound almost too easy. If we are lucky, we could eventually see this in a blockbuster Hollywood movie before it really happens.

konart 10y ago

As a Russian - the whole "Russia will take the chance and grab something else" amuses me. Why would we grab part of Baltics or Poland? Crimea has strategic importance. Most of the Baltics - does not. And Poland in the current state of affairs is more valuable as a partner, not as an emeny (despite our history of mutual distrust and wars)

ionised 10y ago
Intense propaganda on both sides, so nothing western media or Russian media says can really be trusted.