5 ms·

I have a quite different (and most likely biased) opinion than most people (here or in Western countries). WWIII is already happening. The US is closing up on

by csomar 4y ago

I have a quite different (and most likely biased) opinion than most people (here or in Western countries). WWIII is already happening. The US is closing up on Russia now for more than a decade. China is growing economically but they are still far away militarily and except for Russia there isn't really another contender for the US militarily speaking. Before 2010 the world was quite multi-polar with the US being the leader. Now, we are moving to a uni-polar world and this is of course triggering reactions both from China, Russia and countries that want to remain sovereign (ie: India, Brazil, ASEAN, etc...) Countries not in the western sphere are already aware of this. The EU is quite aware of this too and it's going to be a loser in this new order but it doesn't seem to be able to build a politically independent force to have its own policy. Russia is the main target and they know this, that's why they are freaking out. China probably doesn't like Russia much but certainly would prefer a multi-polar world (at least until they are able to become the leader); so they'll help the Russians to slow down the West. Major other countries like India do not like China or Russia but they are concerned about the accumulation of power and inflation in the West/US hands. Smaller countries are trying to survive in this environment and feed their people either by selling their young labor for pennies, or opening their borders for rich people from the West to sun bathe. That's the world for you, in a nutshell. If I am to predict the future: - Russia gets drawn in a long war with Ukraine. The US is playing the long game of starving them financially and technologically. - China will probably collapse in a spectacular fashion. They are far from being a united country. The outcome won't be easy to predict and China is huge. It is possible this will happen without much disruption to trading lines. - Europe/Euro/Schengen will end sometime in the next 10 years. Some European countries will be back to third-world status. - With the fall of the Euro, the US dollar will become the ultimate currency. The US will be able to yield enormous influence all over the world.

philwelch 4y ago
This is a very interesting and unusual take, pretty much the exact opposite of what I usually see.
- csomar 4y ago
  Most countries try to feed their population what makes them feel proud, calm and ready (got a war to fight? Time for nationalism and that BS). Of course, if you are living in a country where the war is happening, you tend to see things differently. Many people in the West haven't seen a war in a long time and would happily believe what the general media is telling them; or the other side of the media (the alternative media).
- mrtksn 4y ago
  It's just the Russian narrative. A popular take in the countries where the Russian influence is strong. AKA the sneaky West cornered Russia and was about to strike Moscow and that's why Putin had to start a special operation in Ukraine and push NATO away from its borders.
  - ryandrake 4y ago
    The thing I've never understood about that propaganda is: What does Russia have that the USA wants? More land? USA has plenty of land, much of it totally unused and unpopulated. Oil? USA now exports it. More rivers? Ports? Developed cities? No, no, and no. The USA has nothing to gain by invading and occupying Russia. Sorry to my Russian friends, but the country is kind of small-potatoes economically, as well. What does the propaganda say that the USA wants?
    - s1artibartfast 4y ago
      There are obviously misaligned goals. No the US does not want to invade Russia. No Russia does not want to invade the US. But that doesn't stop them from fighting over conflicting interest. It is all about who has the bigger knife at the other's throat and the ability to limit the others actions. What did the US and Russia want in Syria? The US wanted ot overthrow Assad and Russia wanted to keep Assad. The most credible Russian claim is that they didn't want the US and NATO in Ukraine. Why does that matter even if the US doesn't want to invade Russia? Because it gives the us more leverage in Russia less. It's easier to shut down airspace, ports, Pipelines, and obviously makes Russia less threatening to Europe then they would be with a Russian aligned Ukraine. Similarly, there is no credible scenario where China or Russia invades the US. However, the US would feel very strongly about either of them having a strong military presence in Cuba and the Caribbean.
actionfromafar 4y ago
Very thought provoking take. But I think Russia will splinter long before China. Specifically the eastern and some of the central asian parts of Russia have no upside to staying in the federation. They are being sucked dry and if Moscow loses its grip from the attrition of a war, things will crack. I don't have much knowledge of China, it just appears from the outside to me that the State is in much more control.
- csomar 4y ago
  Russia is way more advanced and united than China. Don't look at GDP figures, these are inflated and a bad measure of how advanced an economy is. Look at this last coronavirus crisis: Russia was able to procure a more advanced vaccine than China. You'd think the second most powerful and planned economy in the world should have done better but it didn't. Edit: Another measure to look at it. Look how many countries of the world were affected by this last war with Russia. (either for food, rockets, raw materials, etc...)
sph 4y ago
> Before 2010 the world was quite multi-polar with the US being the leader. Now, we are moving to a uni-polar world Don't you mean the opposite? It was unipolar since the end of WW2, with US being the top superpower. Now other countries want, and can get, a piece of the pie. To be fair that means pretty much only China.
- csomar 4y ago
  No. After the end of WW2, the US was the "obvious" leader but not the actual leader. European countries were still the leader of the colonized countries, China/Japan/SouthAmerica were figuring things on their own, the EU united, some arab countries wanted to influence/control oil, Russia was planting communism around the world, etc... In fact, the US was not much at that time. It had power but little influence. Think of someone who is very rich $$ wise, but can't influence the politicians, police, or the mayor and has no connections whatsoever.
  - sph 4y ago
    Sorry, I still don't get it. Forget WW2, you said the US became the leader in 2010. I argue it has been the only superpower with worldwide economic and military reach before that date, if not since the end of WW2. Also, why 2010? If you're referring to the economic crisis, I can't see the US position in the world stage being affected post-2008. You also say EU was another leader, but Europe is a superpower that has always been under the American wing since the end of the war. If US said "jump", Europe has been asking "how high" since 1945. They're best pals, but only one of them actually calls the shot. But the point isn't Europe. It's that US has been the big boss for the entire post-war era, Soviet Russia tried to establish itself but failed and declined, now China has been having much more success than USSR ever did, but they are not looking to play second fiddle, hence this talk about WW3.
    - csomar 4y ago
      Okay, I'll try to explain. Let's say you have 10 armadas with nuclear weapons and shit. Cool stuff and you do have power, at least on paper. Now country A is speaking French, they are trading with country B; and they are importing their shit from France. They use the Swiss banking System. And they rely on German for cars. Most importantly, if you ask them for passage they say "No". They don't seem keen to please you despite your military superiority. Worse, Country "C" just straight out hate you and will undermine your companies and efforts. They also don't seem to be afraid and willing to go on a losing war with you. See? The US had military power coming from WW2. But they didn't have the equivalent financial or political power. Other countries did. They have been working on establishing puppets all over the place with varying success. But it's not as easy as having the military; and some military interventions went really badly.
mrtksn 4y ago
This take is based on alternative realities. The western conspiracy over Russia is the Russian narrative and doesn't make any sense whatsoever because if you look closely won't be able to explain why Europe opted to depend on energy from Russia when conspiring to start a conflict with Russia. In reality, the west was simply naive to believe that what worked for EU would work with Russia too and that is the peace model through inter-dependence. Why would you start a conflict with your neighbours when you depend on their wellbeing? It turns out, when the neighbours leaders don't stay in power by providing prosperity for its people the model doesn't work. For the West, Russia is relevant as a petrol station. Russia has turned into a petrostate and unlike Norway they chose to live off it and not do much more. Russia is no contender to the west in any form. Some might blame this too on the west but it's not west that has chosen Putin. The EU is only weak in the Energy department(that's why they actually wanted this Russia thing to work). EU has a well educated and healthy society that is going through demographics crisis, which means there will be problems related to it but it's in much much better shape than China or any other place in the world with exception to the USA. EU/Schengen etc might end at its current form but this is not a video game and those who fail don't simply disappear. Whatever replaces EU will be like EU in different configuration because it doesn't make any sense whatsoever to have 30 smallish countries trying to do their thing without cooperating. EU might fail and become an EU sans social security and human rights. China, on the other hand, isn't going away and will be the primary contenders to the west because during the de-industrialisation of the west they build up huge production capacity and know how on industrial production and technology and west almost completely lost it. The main problem with China is that now they are actually very close to the west to catch up on science, technology and culture and design too which would mean complete Chinese dominence. Their primary disadvantage is that they have very serious demographics issues and they are poor on energy like EU.
- s1artibartfast 4y ago
  I think they have a really interesting point that is contrary to many scholars about relative power. The decline of Russia and strength of the US was a prerequisite to the Ukrainian situation. If there were more power parody like the US and USSR, I think the US would have been much more cautious about building relationship and influence in Ukraine. Knowing that the US would be free from reprisal enables it to take the route it did before and during the conflict

by csomar 4y ago

philwelch 4y ago

This is a very interesting and unusual take, pretty much the exact opposite of what I usually see.

csomar 4y ago
Most countries try to feed their population what makes them feel proud, calm and ready (got a war to fight? Time for nationalism and that BS). Of course, if you are living in a country where the war is happening, you tend to see things differently. Many people in the West haven't seen a war in a long time and would happily believe what the general media is telling them; or the other side of the media (the alternative media).
mrtksn 4y ago
It's just the Russian narrative. A popular take in the countries where the Russian influence is strong. AKA the sneaky West cornered Russia and was about to strike Moscow and that's why Putin had to start a special operation in Ukraine and push NATO away from its borders.
- ryandrake 4y ago
  The thing I've never understood about that propaganda is: What does Russia have that the USA wants? More land? USA has plenty of land, much of it totally unused and unpopulated. Oil? USA now exports it. More rivers? Ports? Developed cities? No, no, and no. The USA has nothing to gain by invading and occupying Russia. Sorry to my Russian friends, but the country is kind of small-potatoes economically, as well. What does the propaganda say that the USA wants?
  - s1artibartfast 4y ago
    There are obviously misaligned goals. No the US does not want to invade Russia. No Russia does not want to invade the US. But that doesn't stop them from fighting over conflicting interest. It is all about who has the bigger knife at the other's throat and the ability to limit the others actions. What did the US and Russia want in Syria? The US wanted ot overthrow Assad and Russia wanted to keep Assad. The most credible Russian claim is that they didn't want the US and NATO in Ukraine. Why does that matter even if the US doesn't want to invade Russia? Because it gives the us more leverage in Russia less. It's easier to shut down airspace, ports, Pipelines, and obviously makes Russia less threatening to Europe then they would be with a Russian aligned Ukraine. Similarly, there is no credible scenario where China or Russia invades the US. However, the US would feel very strongly about either of them having a strong military presence in Cuba and the Caribbean.

actionfromafar 4y ago

Very thought provoking take. But I think Russia will splinter long before China. Specifically the eastern and some of the central asian parts of Russia have no upside to staying in the federation. They are being sucked dry and if Moscow loses its grip from the attrition of a war, things will crack. I don't have much knowledge of China, it just appears from the outside to me that the State is in much more control.

csomar 4y ago
Russia is way more advanced and united than China. Don't look at GDP figures, these are inflated and a bad measure of how advanced an economy is. Look at this last coronavirus crisis: Russia was able to procure a more advanced vaccine than China. You'd think the second most powerful and planned economy in the world should have done better but it didn't. Edit: Another measure to look at it. Look how many countries of the world were affected by this last war with Russia. (either for food, rockets, raw materials, etc...)

sph 4y ago

> Before 2010 the world was quite multi-polar with the US being the leader. Now, we are moving to a uni-polar world Don't you mean the opposite? It was unipolar since the end of WW2, with US being the top superpower. Now other countries want, and can get, a piece of the pie. To be fair that means pretty much only China.

csomar 4y ago
No. After the end of WW2, the US was the "obvious" leader but not the actual leader. European countries were still the leader of the colonized countries, China/Japan/SouthAmerica were figuring things on their own, the EU united, some arab countries wanted to influence/control oil, Russia was planting communism around the world, etc... In fact, the US was not much at that time. It had power but little influence. Think of someone who is very rich $$ wise, but can't influence the politicians, police, or the mayor and has no connections whatsoever.
- sph 4y ago
  Sorry, I still don't get it. Forget WW2, you said the US became the leader in 2010. I argue it has been the only superpower with worldwide economic and military reach before that date, if not since the end of WW2. Also, why 2010? If you're referring to the economic crisis, I can't see the US position in the world stage being affected post-2008. You also say EU was another leader, but Europe is a superpower that has always been under the American wing since the end of the war. If US said "jump", Europe has been asking "how high" since 1945. They're best pals, but only one of them actually calls the shot. But the point isn't Europe. It's that US has been the big boss for the entire post-war era, Soviet Russia tried to establish itself but failed and declined, now China has been having much more success than USSR ever did, but they are not looking to play second fiddle, hence this talk about WW3.
  - csomar 4y ago
    Okay, I'll try to explain. Let's say you have 10 armadas with nuclear weapons and shit. Cool stuff and you do have power, at least on paper. Now country A is speaking French, they are trading with country B; and they are importing their shit from France. They use the Swiss banking System. And they rely on German for cars. Most importantly, if you ask them for passage they say "No". They don't seem keen to please you despite your military superiority. Worse, Country "C" just straight out hate you and will undermine your companies and efforts. They also don't seem to be afraid and willing to go on a losing war with you. See? The US had military power coming from WW2. But they didn't have the equivalent financial or political power. Other countries did. They have been working on establishing puppets all over the place with varying success. But it's not as easy as having the military; and some military interventions went really badly.

mrtksn 4y ago

This take is based on alternative realities. The western conspiracy over Russia is the Russian narrative and doesn't make any sense whatsoever because if you look closely won't be able to explain why Europe opted to depend on energy from Russia when conspiring to start a conflict with Russia. In reality, the west was simply naive to believe that what worked for EU would work with Russia too and that is the peace model through inter-dependence. Why would you start a conflict with your neighbours when you depend on their wellbeing? It turns out, when the neighbours leaders don't stay in power by providing prosperity for its people the model doesn't work. For the West, Russia is relevant as a petrol station. Russia has turned into a petrostate and unlike Norway they chose to live off it and not do much more. Russia is no contender to the west in any form. Some might blame this too on the west but it's not west that has chosen Putin. The EU is only weak in the Energy department(that's why they actually wanted this Russia thing to work). EU has a well educated and healthy society that is going through demographics crisis, which means there will be problems related to it but it's in much much better shape than China or any other place in the world with exception to the USA. EU/Schengen etc might end at its current form but this is not a video game and those who fail don't simply disappear. Whatever replaces EU will be like EU in different configuration because it doesn't make any sense whatsoever to have 30 smallish countries trying to do their thing without cooperating. EU might fail and become an EU sans social security and human rights. China, on the other hand, isn't going away and will be the primary contenders to the west because during the de-industrialisation of the west they build up huge production capacity and know how on industrial production and technology and west almost completely lost it. The main problem with China is that now they are actually very close to the west to catch up on science, technology and culture and design too which would mean complete Chinese dominence. Their primary disadvantage is that they have very serious demographics issues and they are poor on energy like EU.

s1artibartfast 4y ago
I think they have a really interesting point that is contrary to many scholars about relative power. The decline of Russia and strength of the US was a prerequisite to the Ukrainian situation. If there were more power parody like the US and USSR, I think the US would have been much more cautious about building relationship and influence in Ukraine. Knowing that the US would be free from reprisal enables it to take the route it did before and during the conflict