Russia WW3?: From a Ukraine Crisis or Elsewhere in the Future, World War 3 May Yet Arise

1

1 INTRODUCTION

The Cold War officially ended on the 26th December 1990. Like so much else in history this is arbitrary to some degree. It is true that Russia qua USSR [Union of Soviet Socialist Republics] then formally pulled down her flag at 19:32; but the real date was 9th November 1989 when the Berlin Wall came down, a time of hope, best encapsulated in Fukuyama’s assertion that it was the end of history, though the true starting point was in Poland just before when Solidarity took over part of the government from the communists on 19th August 1989.{1}

Actually Fukuyama was incorrect, albeit not wholly wrong. History carried on, USA missing golden opportunities to set up an everlasting peace while Boris Yeltsin was President of Russia. Instead after Vladimir Putin took over in 2000 and 9/11 occurred, the world stumbled from one crisis to another, fortunately surviving despite at least one potentially fatal international situation, namely over Ukraine in 2004 when USA-Russia relations plunged to Cold War depths in 24 hours.{2}

It is the central thesis of this book that one such crisis, like the previous ones in Georgia{3} and Estonia,{4} or the background current one about the Smolensk Polish plane crash as Russia caused this,{5} or the present second one in Ukraine over Crimea and Donetsk or the next one there over her joining the EU, indeed ultimately any crisis, could escalate until World War 3 starts, whereupon the world would be terminated. This would occur primarily because the world is blind to this danger, even though it was set out in the author’s letters in 1990 and fully worked out in his old but still valid book Russia and World War III in 1993. No such war need happen; but it is alas probable.

This central thesis contains a number of subsidiary ones, in particular about the route to war. However the author’s background theories in political science, mathematics and military theory are not stated here since these are too complex; likewise his historical analyses, though important and relevant, would only complicate this book hence are only noted in passing. Nevertheless the book does present the key prediction, namely that a neocommunist dictator will take over as a result of a crisis, whereupon World War 3 will ensue.

Actually there were crises even while Yeltsin was President of Russia, one of which was another potentially fatal crisis, the dramatic fall in the value of the rouble (also predicted).{6} Thus the crisis, including the fatal one, could be internal hence purely Russian, so not necessarily international. Nonetheless one particular international crisis was predicted, and did actually occur but was fortunately survived, though it has returned, namely over Ukraine;{7} certainly this still remains the most likely flashpoint for World War 3; but it is important to recognise that Ukraine is not causing this crisis, it is not her fault hence she should not be blamed, she is merely a victim of Russian revanchism, so it is termed in a new way a Ukraine not Ukrainian crisis to emphasise this – just like a Ukrainian invasion would be by Ukrainians whereas a Ukraine invasion is her being invaded, as is alas likely.

It is instructive to recall this 2004 Ukraine Crisis, since it confirms the author’s old book’s most worrying points. It was a clash of interests; there was no stability; it was a blind unexpected crisis; it was resolved only because Putin’s Russia backed down – and above all within 24 hours the world was back in the Cold War. This last point is significant. There need be no years of build up to the war; it might take only weeks at most from crisis to world termination, indeed possibly only days, and the war itself taking only an ‘afternoon’.{8}

Thus the world now is on a path like the one that led to World War 1. It is carrying on from crisis to crisis, just like then, only surviving because Russia backed down like Germany in 1911 over Morocco.{9} But what if she does not, as currently over Ukraine? What if she herself provokes the crisis like to a degree Germany then, as is the case with Crimea. The West, above all its key member USA, might then back down instead; but that in turn is reminiscent of the run-up to World War 2 when the West, above all its then key active member UK, appeased and backed down, notoriously in Munich in 1938.{10} Of course there are many differences, but even so the world’s situation does resemble those past ones, most obviously that this is a Weimar Russia (see Appendix 1).{11} In short, the world is sliding down the slope to war.

Moreover there is already a coldness in USA-Russia relations{12} (and UK-Russia ones{13}); there is a religious conflict between Muslims and the West; and the world economy is in a recession. There are also several possible flashpoints. The world has other problems too, which may bring about a crisis.

Nevertheless there is still hope. President or Prime Minister Putin, however he chooses to call himself, is neither Kaiser Wilhelm II nor Adolf Hitler. There is no great ideological conflict at present, though communists and fascists still remain. The world economy is not greatly depressed; indeed the recession has bottomed out. Above all, the world’s media, academia and politicians might take an interest in this prediction and so avoid war. Therefore the world might survive, albeit that this is improbable.{14}

2

2 THE WORLD WAR 3 PROBLEM

In order to see the problem facing the world, it is essential to understand a few basic new assertions. In short, we are not yet out of the woods.

Chapter 2 Parts

2.1 World War Still Possible

2.2 War Per Se

2.3 WMD World War

2.4 World Termination

2.5 World War 3 Likelier Now

2.6 Unsafe World

3

2.1 World War Still Possible

One extremely important point to make at the very outset is that World War 3 is still possible. This is not realised today: since the Cold War, all talk about World War 3 has almost disappeared; it is an almost forgotten possibility – something astonishing since during the Cold War it was constantly mentioned and even occasioned sporadic huge protests such as the Aldermaston March.

However the nuclear bombs are still there; they are still at Cold War levels. Of a certainty nuclear war could be waged tomorrow; there is nothing to stop this. Actually little has changed militarily since the Cold War. The only real difference is that Russia and USA no longer state they are enemies and so do not target each other. However targeting missiles takes very little time, so this is less comforting than it seems. Likewise the recent treaty, hailed by many, still leaves both sides with huge nuclear arms.{1}

Thus World War 3 is technically possible. It is vital to realise this. This is an important opening assertion of this book, so important it has been separated out – arguably it deserves a chapter to itself. To restate this assertion: the possibility of World War 3 has not vanished simply because no one is talking much about it; it still exists, and this must be acknowledged.

A corollary is that as this possibility is not realised, this adds to the likelihood of World War 3 occurring since no one realises this war still possible and so must be guarded against. Thus World War 3 is more likely precisely because no one is talking much about it (detailed in Chapter 7).

Yet by the same token once the world realises this danger, this unexpectedness as a factor in promoting World War 3 is reduced. So this also at once brings out another corollary: this war can be avoided and this book will state how. The world is not doomed; it is merely doomed as long as it continues blindly as now.

A technical corollary is that banning nuclear missiles is by itself no solution either since they can always be rebuilt. Thus the dream held by so many, including famously Reagan’s zero-option and recently Obama’s proposals,{2} is actually a mirage. Without a doubt whoever rearmed faster would have a huge advantage, as Nazi Germany’s initial successes showed. A world with a nuke balance is to some degree, paradoxically, safer.

4

2.2 War Per Se

Wars have been fought for millennia. They formed a staple part of a man’s education and often of his life; they were studied, glorified and engaged in with zest. Unquestionably war was a key factor in bringing about progress.

Wars still occur now. Since World War 2, there has been an impression of peace held by Westerners but only because there has been no war in the West since then – however elsewhere wars have been fought, including by the West. Indeed wars both actual and threatened are present now; there has never been a year without a war being fought somewhere in the world, arguably not a single day, indeed there are wars being fought right now. Moreover if threatened wars, including the Cold War, distant wars and terrorism are included, then even the West has not had a single day of peace since World War 2, despite any prevalent feelings. War is endemic.

Yet war is only apparently the problem because it follows from the above that it cannot be war itself which is the problem; for if there are wars constantly going on yet the world survives, then war in itself cannot be fatal. Wars may well be seen as a problem by some people, sometimes by all; however they are not in fact the key problem facing the world since the world carries on despite their occurrence.

Therefore wars can carry on being waged without any detrimental effect on the world. Of course some people suffer in a war, but the world will survive such wars, and may even progress because of them. Thus as stated war per se is not the key problem. This is another assertion.

A corollary is that pacifism is not the answer. As wars are not the problem per se, trying to stop all of them is not the solution. Indeed such an attempt would be futile and so only serve to exacerbate the situation as such a policy would quickly become discredited because it would be impossible to implement – or as stated even bring about a disaster since it might prove counterproductive because whoever rearms first will have an advantage as Germany did at the start of World War 2. In addition it would become impossible to distinguish between this fatal war and others, so it would be harder to stop the former. It is a pity about this corollary in many respects; however it is not the only apparently laudable policy which is actually unsound if implemented.

5

2.3 WMD World War

Instead it is a particular sort of war that is the problem, namely a thermonuclear world war. It will be referred to from now on as World War 3.{3}

The difference between World War 3 and any other war before, now or to come, is that it will devastate the world. There will be no meaningful recovery from it; it will be the end of the world to all intents and purposes.

So for decades now, the previous view about war being not wholly bad, rather to some degree good, has been altered because of one potential war, namely World War 3. If this war is waged, no good can come of this; for the first time ever, there would be a war that has no redeeming features, which is another assertion of course. There was a silver lining in that the Cold War arms race did again produce some progress. Nonetheless it is vital to stress that this world war will produce no winners; all lose; it will be mutually