• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Are we heading to WW3 because of Syria?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Pomerlaw

Member
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...s-ago-new-interviews-reveal-why-it-derailed/?

U.S.-Russia relations hit new lows this week after the seeming collapse of Syria’s week-old cease-fire. But there was a brief time 15 years ago when the Washington and Moscow had a real opportunity to establish a more durable partnership on security issues.

This was the consensus view in 40 interviews I conducted this year with former U.S. and Russian officials about the past and future of U.S.-Russia relations.

Several former U.S. officials I spoke with acknowledged the crucial Russian contributions immediately after 9/11 to support the Northern Alliance and provide logistical support and share intelligence to U.S.-led coalition efforts to remove the Taliban from power in Afghanistan. As one official remarked, “Operation Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan in 2001 marked the closest alignment of U.S. and Russian interests, and Russian support was as important as that of any NATO ally.”

[The U.S. and Russia are actually cooperating in Syria. Can it work?]

Russian officials hoped for a partnership

Some former Russian officials I interviewed recalled the hope in 2001 that Russia, the U.S. and other partners could establish an anti-terrorist coalition, much like the anti-Hitler coalition in World War II. Vladimir Putin proposed this concept again last September at the United Nations.

During Putin’s November 2001 visit to the U.S., he was extraordinarily positive about the prospects for Russia’s relations with the United States and even with NATO. As one former U.S. official put it, “Putin was ready to deal.”

But the Bush administration was not prepared to deal Russia the cards Putin wanted. Within months of Russia’s cooperation in Afghanistan, Washington announced the U.S. withdrawal from the ABM Treaty. And the U.S. announced that NATO would bring in the Baltic States in 2004.

One former U.S. official noted, “Putin took the ABM and NATO decisions quite calmly.” But as one former Russian official remarked, the young Russian president figured out that “a strategic partnership with the United States means if you accept Washington’s agenda, you remain a partner in good standing, but you are not allowed to contribute to developing the agenda jointly; and if you object, you will be thrown overboard.”



The U.S. had its own agenda

U.S.-Russian cooperation in Afghanistan peaked with the defeat of the Taliban in the fall of 2001. The Bush administration’s priority became preparing for the war with Iraq. The U.S. agenda on many international issues, including the scope of the War on Terror, did not align with that of Russia or, for that matter, many important NATO allies.

My interviews revealed that President George W. Bush wanted to improve ties with Russia, but Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld and others in the Bush administration did not, and other priorities such as missile defense, enlarging NATO and the war in Iraq took precedence. As one former official put it, “Rumsfeld saw Russia as a second-rate power; not worth a hill of beans.”

Despite his increasing frustrations, Putin maintained, at least publicly, a positive outlook on relations with Washington through the conclusion of his first term in early 2004.

What changed?

The U.S.-Russia anti-terror cooperation shut down after the 2004 attack on Beslan School No. 1 in the Northern Caucasus, marking the end of the short-lived U.S.-Russia collaboration after 9/11.

In a speech just days after the tragedy, Putin implied that the U.S. and the West were supporting the Chechen terrorists. Former Russian officials I interviewed explained that Putin used the shock of Beslan to tighten the screws on Russian domestic politics — those opposed to his views were tarred as lackeys of the West.

After Ukraine’s Orange Revolution later that fall, Russia again played the anti-American card. As one former U.S. officials noted, that’s when the “worm turned” in the U.S.-Russia relationship. Putin denounced the U.S. government and U.S.-supported NGOs for interfering in Ukraine’s elections to support the West’s preferred candidate, Viktor Yushchenko, as a means to weaken Russian influence and power.

[We’re in a new era of international cooperation against terrorism. Is that good or bad?]

Putin lashes back

The 2011 NATO intervention in Libya and death of Moammar Gaddafi marked a further watershed. At an annual meeting of foreign experts I attended that fall, Putin flashed considerable anger, calling the NATO action a “rude violation” (gruboe narushenie) and, in so many words, conveyed the message that he would never allow Bashar al-Assad in Syria to experience the same fate as the murdered Libyan leader.


Former U.S. officials also noted Putin’s anger at Secretary of State Clinton’s critique of Russia’s falsified Duma elections, and his accusations that the State Department and U.S. intelligence services called for the opposition to demonstrate. This overt anti-Americanism formed the foundation of Putin’s 2012 presidential platform to defend Russian sovereignty and interests. The Russian annexation of Crimea and the onset of the war in Donbas in 2014 saw Putin’s anti-American stance reach new highs, these former officials agreed.

Monkey Cage newsletter
Commentary on political science and political issues.
Sign up
[Russian elites are more militaristic and anti-American than they’ve been in years]

The stalemate on Syria

This toxic confluence of regional security, terrorism and domestic political issues leaves the U.S. and Russian at loggerheads today on both Ukraine and Syria, the two foreign policy issues that have dominated the bilateral relationship for the past several years.

The apparent total breakdown of the Syrian cease-fire after the airstrikes on a U.N. humanitarian convoy following the mistaken U.S. airstrikes on Syrian forces last Saturday reveals not only seemingly intractable differences over policy, but the dangers of U.S., Russian and other military forces operating in such proximity in the fog of this civil war. Former U.S. and Russian officials agreed in my interviews that this is not a “New Cold War” — but many expressed concern that it may actually be more dangerous. As one former U.S. official stated, “It is not as bad as it looks; it is worse.”

This is starting to get really scary.
 
U.S bombs the shit out of the SAA which kills 100+ of their men, injures another 100+ then says "sorry, oops".

The same SAA group that was directly fighting ISIS.

What did the U.S think would happen when shit like that occurs? The US foreign policy is a mess, it's clear as day the CIA, DoD and SD have conflicting agendas.

Zero leadership.
 

WaffleTaco

Wants to outlaw technological innovation.
Probably not. Just more Cold War bullshit with proxy wars. A WW3 would effect trade and various other types of things of that nature. The sooner Russia sinks as an economic power though the better.
 
There will never be another World War, or any War of the scale of WWII. The stakes are way too high, specially by how interconnected world economies are. All major conflicts will be related one way or another with the Middle East and they will stay in that region.
 

Nivash

Member
Not over Syria, no, but the friction between Russia and NATO is getting severe in general. Syria is just a symptom of how Russia is attempting too reassert itself and challenge the US as a pretender.

If the war starts it will start in Eastern Europe, and it will be because Russia either senses an opportunity to splinter NATO or because they get desperate enough to try it anyway. Tensions in the Baltic in particular is incredibly worrying right now. There are constant strategic moves and counter-moves in the shape of exercises on both sides that mimic the height of the Cold War.

I've been the following the debate here in Sweden in particular because our pseudo-neutrality and weakness puts us right on the front lines. Some experts are convinced that we're heading towards war based on historic precedent unless something changes soon.

Something I found downright scary happened recently: one of our armored units that had been excersising on the island of Gotland - our main strategic target, which hasn't had any permanent military presence since the wall fell - was announced to remain indefinitely, with no warning. That's not normal. That's the kind of thing you only do if you're worried that announcing it beforehand could trigger a preemptive strike. Our MoD announced that the decision was made in response to an "emergent military threat" but refuse to give any specifics.

There will never be another World War, or any War of the scale of WWII. The stakes are way too high, specially by how interconnected world economies are. All major conflicts will be related one way or another with the Middle East and they will stay in that region.

No one wants WW3. The threat is when one side thinks it could start a smaller war without triggering WW3 but end up miscalculating. Aka, the deal with the Baltics.
 
I can't see a World War III happening without at least a limited nuclear exchange. The chance of a limited nuclear exchanging becoming a complete nuclear exchange is extremely high. Even at bare minimum EMP weapons would likely be used, which would destroy modern civilization itself as, as far as we know, the world's power grid and digital infrastructure aren't sufficiently hardened.
 
I can't see a World War III happening without at least a limited nuclear exchange. The chance of a limited nuclear exchanging becoming a complete nuclear exchange is extremely high. Even at bare minimum EMP weapons would likely be used, which would destroy modern civilization itself as, as far as we know, the world's power grid and digital infrastructure aren't sufficiently hardened.

Isn't this the whole point of mutually assured destruction? To prevent parties from reaching this point because it would serve to no parties benefit.
 
No.

Any nuclear war will be between India and Pakistan.

I can see however a civil war in Russia spiralling into something resembling a world war.
 

Nivash

Member
I can't see a World War III happening without at least a limited nuclear exchange. The chance of a limited nuclear exchanging becoming a complete nuclear exchange is extremely high. Even at bare minimum EMP weapons would likely be used, which would destroy modern civilization itself as, as far as we know, the world's power grid and digital infrastructure aren't sufficiently hardened.

Well yeah, that's pretty much what WWIII would be. Over in days, most likely, and with most of us dead or wishing we were. I assumed that's what people meant with WWIII but in case people thought otherwise; no, it won't be anything like the previous world wars.

As a side note, EMPs are seriously overrated though. You need a nuke to set them off anyway, so why settle for just some regional electrical damage when you can scorch your target outright. Continent-wide effects are pretty much science fiction.

Isn't this the whole point of mutually assured destruction? To prevent parties from reaching this point because it would serve to no parties benefit.

Again, the problem isn't someone deliberately starting it, it's the threat of unintentional escalation, poor decisions or outright mistakes. The fact that no one wants to burn isn't foolproof protection.
 

Crisco

Banned
No because the west has no geopolitical interest in Syria. Our mission there is purely counter-terrorism with a dash of humanitarian relief. That goes for the Middle East in general the closer we get to energy independence. If Russia wants to keep playing in sand, that's on them, I think we'll cut and run the moment ISIS has been eradicated as a territorial entity.
 
Possibly.

US talking nonsense about a No Fly Zone with Russian and Syrian jets grounded but US coalition enforcing it (really?).

It only takes one accident. Just one. Where US downs a Russian plane or Russia downs a US plane and it could escalate.

I don't think this scenario would play out now. But once Hillary gets in, I expect the chance of things getting out of control much higher.
No because the west has no geopolitical interest in Syria. Our mission there is purely counter-terrorism with a dash of humanitarian relief. That goes for the Middle East in general the closer we get to energy independence. If Russia wants to keep playing in sand, that's on them, I think we'll cut and run the moment ISIS has been eradicated as a territorial entity.
Oh boy...
 

Keasar

Member
Not because of Syria.

Trump on the other hand, giving him access to nuclear codes with his temperament. Kim Jong Un just need to call his hands tiny and end of the world is a go.
 
I bet we see world peace before another world war. Too many nukes to fuck around with these days. Aliens will step in before that happens.
 

Goro Majima

Kitty Genovese Member
Nah.

This isn't something that should keep anyone up at night.

No major power, even Russia, wants a direct war between major powers. No one has the stomach for it.

Proxy wars? That's been going on since the end of WW2. Probably won't stop anytime soon.
 
Well yeah, that's pretty much what WWIII would be. Over in days, most likely, and with most of us dead or wishing we were. I assumed that's what people meant with WWIII but in case people thought otherwise; no, it won't be anything like the previous world wars.

As a side note, EMPs are seriously overrated though. You need a nuke to set them off anyway, so why settle for just some regional electrical damage when you can scorch your target outright. Continent-wide effects are pretty much science fiction.
Not really. Starfish Prime, a 1.4mt nuclear weapon detonated at an altitude of 250 miles in 1962, damaged electrical equipment in Hawaii which was about 900 miles away from the hypocenter. A handful of nukes detonated at altitude would damage or destroy all unshielded electrical equipment.
 

Crisco

Banned
Not really. Starfish Prime, a 1.4mt nuclear weapon detonated at an altitude of 250 miles in 1962, damaged electrical equipment in Hawaii which was about 900 miles away from the hypocenter. A handful of nukes detonated at altitude would damage or destroy all unshielded electrical equipment.

So ...... nothing operated by the military. What's the point?
 
So ...... nothing operated by the military. What's the point?
A limited direct strike on military facilities followed by an EMP attack on civilian infrastructure would disrupt or outright destroy communications, likely cause an economic collapse, and bring the country to a grinding halt. Let's not forget that an EMP would disable 99% of vehicles and likely destroy the electrical grid.

This could lead to a successful invasion depending on how thorough any second strike would be.
 

Nivash

Member
Not really. Starfish Prime, a 1.4mt nuclear weapon detonated at an altitude of 250 miles in 1962, damaged electrical equipment in Hawaii which was about 900 miles away from the hypocenter. A handful of nukes detonated at altitude would damage or destroy all unshielded electrical equipment.

Sure, and that would trigger MAD. There's no way any side would just ignore an incoming ICBM barrage, it's not like they're labelled "EMP only plz don't nuke". That kind of EMPs are already subject to standard deterrents and in that case, you might as well go whole hog. The inevitable second strike is hardened anyway, as are all other military targets.

I was mainly referring to the idea that a lone North Korean "research rocket" would turn the US back to the stone age and stuff like that.
 

Hari Seldon

Member
A limited direct strike on military facilities followed by an EMP attack on civilian infrastructure would disrupt or outright destroy communications, likely cause an economic collapse, and bring the country to a grinding halt. Let's not forget that an EMP would disable 99% of vehicles and likely destroy the electrical grid.

This could lead to a successful invasion depending on how thorough any second strike would be.

You know you have to shoot probably hundreds of rockets into space to perform an EMP attack, you cannot do that sneakily.
 
There won't ever be wars like WW1 or WW2 again, these same powers have nukes and would just set them off on each other and the world is over

The WW's are romanticized way too much
 

Crisco

Banned
A limited direct strike on military facilities followed by an EMP attack on civilian infrastructure would disrupt or outright destroy communications, likely cause an economic collapse, and bring the country to a grinding halt. Let's not forget that an EMP would disable 99% of vehicles and likely destroy the electrical grid.

This could lead to a successful invasion depending on how thorough any second strike would be.

I mean, unless it's going to knock out the other side's second strike capability, there's literally no point. It's like poking a bear with the butt of your rifle instead of shooting the damn thing. You're gonna get mauled.
 
The thing is a World War does not just "happen". During the Cold War Russia was a Superpower that was getting involved in regional affairs, directly. Now? Russia is a regional power that is rapidly losing relevance on the global stage. The US is allied with everyone just about. Russia would stand alone.
 

Akiraptor

Member
There were never be a World War III. Ever.

And if there were, it wouldn't be over a minor conflict like Syria. People who constantly predict World War III need to read up on the Cold War and understand why it didn't happen then. Syria (and all current conflicts) don't hold a candle to the battles in the Cold War; it's all overblown media hype.

No military in the world even comes remotely close to the US anyway. It's laughable (and yes, I know China exists. China isn't anywhere close to US military strength). Fortunately the people in charge of things know that a war in 2016 would mean everyone loses.
 
You know you have to shoot probably hundreds of rockets into space to perform an EMP attack, you cannot do that sneakily.

Right. A second strike would invariably be launched. If not from ground silos then from nuclear submarines. The instigating nation would be hit hard.

All that I am saying is that if an EMP barrage (only 5-10 ~2mt warheads would be needed to blanket North America in a strong EMP) followed immediately after a limited first strike it would cause unfathomable economic and societal damage without the physical destruction that would come with a complete exchange.

Depending on how well and how secretly the instigating nation prepared they could likely gain significant concessions with only taking acceptable losses (to the US in the Cold War acceptable losses were about 20 million people).
 

MrChom

Member
It's unlikely we see a real world war at this point, just Salami tactics like Russia and China are going through with.

Roughly a fifth of Georgia is occupied, as are large amounts of Ukrainian territory...nothing will happen because "It's not worth it" and eventually the borders will be recognised.
 
People have been waiting for WW3 for 60 years. It's not happening, at least not what people imagine. WW2 was the last great war, with standing armies fighting standing armies.
 

JordanN

Banned
There will never be a world war 3.

No country will ever be able to win it. You might as well call it "global assisted suicide".
 

daveo42

Banned
No, we won't get there because of Syria, it'll be if Russia decides to try and retake land they had during the Cold War due to nationalism. Same if Japan gets to the point of trying reclaim their old territories outside of the Philippines.

No. If it happens it will be China invading Taiwan, which is extremely unlikely imo.

Ehh...I'd more say China overstepping their bounds pretty much anywhere in SE Asia and that is way more likely than them just invading Taiwan.
 
There won't ever be wars like WW1 or WW2 again, these same powers have nukes and would just set them off on each other and the world is over

The WW's are romanticized way too much

There are multiple scenarios. A total nuclear holocaust is possible, sure. But so is a prolonged ground engagement on a scale close to or surpassing WW2 with limited exchanges of nuclear weapons.
 

AlphaDump

Gold Member
there is a proxy war on different levels going on right in front of you, and it points to Russia, among others.

The internet has given birth to a whole new type of warfare that is intertwined with geopolitics. The ability to be anonymous and immortal is something a lot of world hasn't digested as a serious threat to social sustainability.
 
No, we won't get there because of Syria, it'll be if Russia decides to try and retake land they had during the Cold War due to nationalism. Same if Japan gets to the point of trying reclaim their old territories outside of the Philippines.



Ehh...I'd more say China overstepping their bounds pretty much anywhere in SE Asia and that is way more likely than them just invading Taiwan.

No, not even then. China is still a regional power heavily reliant on the US. Maybe in the future but, by then China would most probably be our close friends.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom