Are We Sleepwalking into Wwiii?

[smartidiot]

That's it really. I mean regardless of which side (if any) you take on Ukraine war...there's a growing feeling that this is the beginning of next world war. And in light of this things seem kinda of pointless you know.

What do you think? How do you cope?

PS: pls don't make this into another warzone. The question is just the last one really. How do you cope if you have this view on things.

EU citizen here.

[rossdavidh]

Being born in 1967, WWIII seemed potentially imminent for the first 20 years of my life. There's wasn't particularly a solution, you just go on anyway.

If you're the leader of Russia, you have a good way of preventing this. If you're not, it's out of your control, so just focus on the things you can control.

[klik99]

This is absolutely true, and also why this can cause so much anxiety in most people. More people are afraid of flying in airplanes than driving a car precisely because they have no control over the outcome. Posting an opinion on social media about Ukraine, despite having less impact on the situation than a pebble dropped in a lake, can make some feel better. That might not be a bad or useless thing.

[starwind]

The Second Cold War started up around 2010 and it just turned hot. I doubt it will turn into WW3 but this isn't the last proxy war the US and Russia will fight.

How do you cope?

If you're like me and sleep better with fewer unknowns, understand Russia's and the US's military capabilities—I highly recommend Russia's Military Revival—and read about some modern nuclear strategy. We've evolved past "fire everything at every population center." Matthew Kroenig has publish some good stuff, and elucidates ideas like "warhead sinks."

If you don't sleep better the more you know, get real into sports and another hobby–something you enjoy you can talk about with others that occupies your time. Most people can get by just fine without following the news.

You can manage your own anxiety.

[dragonwriter]

> The Second Cold War started up around 2010

It started with, in response to, or not later than, the 1999 NATO-Yugoslavia War, and was widely recognized to have started at or by that time.

That's literally what the (clearly, failed) famous 2009 “reset button" was about.

[starwind]

Eh, I can see where you're coming from but Russia wasn't a serious challenger in the 2000s—their military was a complete mess until the end of the 2000s, and even then they didn't perform that well in Georgia, that's why I peg the start date later

[dragonwriter]

> their military was a complete mess until the end of the 2000s

Their military remains a complete mess, but that's largely irrelevant to the existence of a Cold War, which doesn't have to rely on both sides engaging in direct military confrontation with proxies of the other. One side doing their bit primarily by sponsoring, aiding, and instigating asymmetric threats against the other is a way a Cold War can happen, especially when it is shielded from many of the direct consequences that would otherwise be imposed by a large nuclear arsenal and a UN veto.

[starwind]

Yeah, the definition of a cold war is that the two parties don't come directly to blows. But I feel like there needs to be a credible challenge, and Russia's military is today light years ahead of where they were when they invaded Georgia (even though, yeah, it still sucks). I just don't think their sabre rattling had anyone in the US government all that worried through the first decade of the 2000s—the US and Russia collaborated on several counter-terrorism efforts

[klyrs]

With nukes in play, one needn't have a competent military to participate in a cold war.

[DocTomoe]

EU citizen here.

During the Korean War, we believed WW3 was just around the corner.

... and during the Berlin Crisis.

... as we did when Vietnam got hot.

... just like we did when the Jom-Kippur-War broke out.

... or when Able Archer 1983 was a bit too realistic for soviet tastes

... then there were several rounds of Gulf Wars...

... remember 9/11?

What you are feeling is the "normal" state. In fact, between 2001 and 2022 is probably the longest time Europeans have not been expecting to get turned into nuclear ash by the madmen of the two superpowers. At least we can live calmly knowing we are the designated primary target and likely won't have to die slowly like the rest.

[kstenerud]

Yes, we are sleepwalking into WW3, much in the same way we sleepwalked into WW2. The West has completely misunderstood Putin, and will continue to do so until it's too late to stop these events (a strong show of force and a no-fly-zone would have stopped this, but it's too late now). Scholz is the Chamberlain of our age.

Putin aims for territorial expansion to reclaim the USSR plus some buffer space, and to secure Russia's place as a world power again. This must happen by force since Russian economic and cultural influences are insufficient.

Nothing will dissuade Putin from his aims, as he believes this to be an existential crisis that threatens the very existence of Russia if he doesn't act now.

He started on this adventure because of bad intel from the FSB about his armed forces, Ukrainian resistance, and world reaction. The plans were modeled after Operation Danube ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warsaw_Pact_invasion_of_Czecho... ), and were supposed to become a fait accompli so that there'd be nothing for the West to do, like all the other times before. Except it didn't work out that way this time. It's far too late to stop now; either he wins, or Russian ambition is destroyed forever. Granted, the ambition has been reduced to only Donbas, but he still needs to walk away with territory and then prepare for his next slice.

You can read it in Karaganov's own words here: https://www.newstatesman.com/world/europe/ukraine/2022/04/ru...

But even if this goes so far that actual nukes start flying (an iffy proposition even for him), the first ones will land in Ukraine as a warning.

[armitron]

I suggest you watch this John Mearsheimer talk (2015) as I think it will help clear a lot of misconceptions you seem to have and also tighten your thinking about the matter.

If there's gonna be a WW3, it'll be because the West wants a WW3.

[2015] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrMiSQAGOS4

[starwind]

I've never found Mearsheimer's arguments on Ukraine all that convincing. I really liked Adam Roberts succinct take down in the Economist a couple weeks ago. I know Roberts doesn't address all Mearsheimer's points, but he hits the main ones

https://www.economist.com/by-invitation/2022/03/26/sir-adam-...

[LichenStone]

Also see this - https://tompepinsky.com/2022/03/03/heres-why-mearsheimers-re...

[armitron]

I'm being super generous when I say he's splitting hairs.

Take this part:

"These factors suggest that the 2008 proposal to expand NATO to include Georgia and Ukraine is just one among many developments that have made the current crisis so acute. It is arguable, indeed likely, that the NATO expansion proposal made matters worse, as may some other Western actions, but to assert that “the West is principally responsible for the Ukrainian crisis” goes too far."

Or this gem:

"It’s questionable whether Mr Putin was right to say NATO posed a threat to Russia’s sphere of influence. From the start in 2008 there were different interpretations of what was meant by “will become members”. "

Putin made it very very clear where he stood, and yet you still see armchair psychoanalysis being done. It's all pretty shoddy. There is certainly nothing of substance here that even begins to address Mearsheimer's iron-clad arguments.

[starwind]

I wouldn't say Roberts's arguments are splitting hairs, I'd say he's turning the whole thing around and saying Putin interpreted every Western action in the worst light possible, Russia decided that Ukraine was its domain, and the West and Ukraine had the right to define their own relations.

Mearsheimer's argument boils down to: Russia thinks it has the right to do what it wants in Eastern Europe, and the West caused this problem by not saying "ok."

Putin violated the Bucharest Memorandum by moving into Crimea and eastern Ukraine. Russia created this mess.

[leobg]

You are arguing like the man whose wife wants to divorce him, and who concludes that the only way to stop the divorce would be to give in to every demand his wife ever makes, which is clearly unacceptable. Every marriage counselor will tell you: What escalates conflict is not so much “not giving in“, but “not listening“. Mearsheimer’s argument, in other words, is not that West needs to do everything Putin ever says. Instead, his argument is that the West is provoking Putin by treating him as if he is not to be taken serious, and as if Russia as a country is not to be taken serious.

[reducesuffering]

Putin wasn't even scared of NATO coming to the defence of a sovereign country, Ukraine. It's damn sure not he was never scared of NATO actually threatening Russian territory.

I see too many people these days being reflexively contrarian, like they're on a next level of understanding, simply by being opposite of the "current thing." Mearsheimer's arguments are widely known, it's not an "aha" moment to name drop him, stick to the arguments. Personally, I prefer info from people that actually predicted the invasion months ago.

[kstenerud]

OK, having transcribed and read the whole talk, I fail to see what misconceptions I have. Mearsheimer is mostly correct in that NATO expansion and Western misunderstanding of the Russian psyche precipitated the conflict in Ukraine, but this didn't change Putin's ambitions, which were always the same.

Even Clinton is perplexed at Russian reactions: https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2022/04/bill-clint...

Mearsheimer is absolutely wrong in suggesting that Russia is not interested in absorbing Ukraine and the other satellite states. But then again he's framing it in some sort of Afghanistan-like invasion and ensuing quagmire, which of course Putin would never (knowingly) do.

Here's a nice quote from 23:41: "In fact if you really want to wreck Russia, what you should do is encourage it to try and conquer Ukraine. Putin again is much too smart to do that."

[s1artibartfast]

>"In fact if you really want to wreck Russia, what you should do is encourage it to try and conquer Ukraine. Putin again is much too smart to do that."

I think there is still a ton of time for these intentions to play out, and I think they the quote is still accurate. Russia can not conquer all of Ukraine, and never attempted to do so. If they invasion went better than their wildest dreams, they might have taken what is east of the Dnieper, but would be unlikely to hold on to that.

The invasion did and still lines up with the intentions of regime change, and taking some boarder regions.

[kstenerud]

"Russia can not conquer all of Ukraine, and never attempted to do so."

Russia did absolutely attempt to do exactly that. This invasion was modelled after Operation Danube, intended to:

- Cut off all major airstrips by landing planes in friendship and then unloading paratroopers to capture them.

- Quickly enter the major cities and capture the "illegitimate" government.

- Crush the pockets of resistance among the mostly pro-Russian populace.

- Install a Russia-friendly government.

- Execute the old government as a warning against other countries.

Of course, none of it went according to plan. The upper government was misinformed about their own military strength and preparedness, the supposedly already "pro-Russian" Ukrainians who would just stand by and let this happen, and the world response. Also, the Ukrainian military was forewarned, so the airstrip captures ... didn't exactly go according to plan :P

And since this was expected to take half a week tops, nobody bothered to set up proper supply lines or airforce + ground + artillery coordination. After all, why bother with all of that on a milk run?

[s1artibartfast]

You are forgetting an entire half of the country with cities and airports.

Even then, operation Danube is more akin to regime change than conquering and occupying a country, which was mersheimers point

[empiricus]

The west just played some superficial games. But in the end the west is not serious, and they won't seriously protect Ukraine. Ukraine would not join NATO, it was not real, the west does not have to balls. It was just a pretext for Putin to invade it.

[s1artibartfast]

It wasn't a superficial game, it had very real stakes for the Ukrainians, and the Russians as well. Thing may turn out quite nice indeed for the west, but only time will tell.

[crateless]

> a strong show of force and a no-fly-zone would have stopped this, but it's too late now. Scholz is the Chamberlain of our age.

It's not too late to put up a no-fly zone. If it was ok then, why is it not ok now?

[mezentius]

He is suggesting that a no-fly zone should have been instituted prior to the invasion, at the invitation of Ukraine. This would have produced significantly different military and diplomatic implications; it would have required Russia to be the aggressor, and attempt to strike NATO aircraft preemptively before mounting their initial attacks in Ukraine.

If implemented now, a no-fly zone would require NATO aircraft to behave offensively, and would require strikes on Russian air defenses on the ground as well as aircraft.

[aaaaaaaaata]

Before anyone lynches you and takes this off-topic:

> it would have required Russia to be the aggressor

toward NATO*

[mezentius]

Yes, thank you, that was my intended meaning.

[LorenPechtel]

A no-fly zone would have resulted in direct conflict between US and Russia. In other words, at least WWIII-lite. It's a horrible idea.

[bigdict]

> Putin aims for territorial expansion to reclaim the USSR plus some buffer space

What is this claim even based on?

[tymofiy]

On the official Kremlin demand that NATO leaves all the post-Soviet and post-Warsaw Pact states. https://mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/rso/nato/1790803/?lang=en

[bigdict]

> territorial expansion to reclaim the USSR plus some buffer space

> NATO leaves all the post-Soviet and post-Warsaw Pact states

Are those equivalent?

[mezentius]

The people of Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania certainly see it as equivalent, which is why they wanted to join NATO in the first place. Russia had been attempting to destabilize the governments of those countries by providing support to fringe parties trying to stir up the Russian-speaking minority populations, which could serve as a pretext for an "intervention" similar to that which we're seeing in Ukraine (based, supposedly, on support for a Russian-speaking minority population in the east).

[SideburnsOfDoom]

It is based on Mr Putin's own words in February 2022

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/feb/22/putin-...

https://notesfrompoland.com/2019/12/23/putin-blames-poland-f...

I know people in Poland who are alarmed at the threat to their country embodied in by this rhetoric. To say nothing of Finland, Estonia etc and Ukraine.

[AnimalMuppet]

Someone stated that Putin doesn't think he's at war with Ukraine. He thinks he's at war with NATO. From some of the things he's said, I think that assessment is correct.

That makes it really hard to stop. If he thinks he's already at war with us, then he can make that a reality how and when he wants. But I'm not sure we're sleepwalking into it. We're aware; we just have very few options of avoiding it if Putin is determined to make it happen. We are, however, trying to avoid direct confrontation while also avoiding appeasement and "peace in our time". I don't know that we have a better option.

How do I cope? Well, I'm a Christian. I believe that God is in charge of history - this isn't all at the whim of random human folly. And I believe that, even if I get killed, that's all right too, because I have something better that I'm going to.

If that's not where you're coming from... yeah, it's scary. I don't know what to tell you in terms of how to deal with it.

[empiricus]

Well, he is at war with the world. Do you think China will be happy if nuclear war starts and the world will end for same random grain fields in Ukraine? Putin is not simple, but in this case it looks he just reached for the low hanging fruit that was Ukraine. I mean, his army was grouping for months near border and nobody did anything. What more clear signal did he need?

[sleepdreamy]

What do you think God's Stance is on Billionaires/Oligarchs?

[AnimalMuppet]

This very much feels like a troll. But just in case it's not:

If you're asking what I think God's position is on sanctions, I'm going to follow Obama and say "That's above my pay grade".

If you're asking about God's position on the existence of oligarchs, I'm pretty sure I've read some stuff about greed and covetousness and exploitation somewhere. I suspect God's got a problem, if not with the existence of billionaires and oligarchs, at least with the process most of them used to become billionaires (and their motivations).

[dmonitor]

they're greedy bastards. I shouldn't have to pull a source for Jesus not particularly caring for rich people

[dragonwriter]

My fear isn't that we are “sleepwalking into WW3“, but that the world is deep into it, but large parts of it are making it worse, in the long term, by denial of that fact.

OTOH, I also desperately want the denial to turn out to be correct.

[unfocussed_mike]

You're in very good company.

https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2022/02/28/world-war-...

Fiona Hill (without question the smartest person in the room on this topic) says that we're already in WWIII, in the sense of a global spread of conflicts with a handful of competing power centres.

[klyrs]

It does, and it doesn't. Like the US invasion of Iraq, the war in Ukraine doesn't make a damned lick of sense. The thing that I'm most scared of is the possibility that he'll actually use a nuke; that others will respond in kind. I think that a hot WWIII would be measured in days, and I don't expect that to happen.

What gives me hope is that nobody is really taking Putin's side here outside a few of Russia's neighbors which are already in shambles because of Russia's military excursions into them. Germany had more and stronger allies going into the previous two world wars; right now it's pretty much Russia vs the West and it seems that China doesn't want to get involved.

I'm somewhat dismayed at the non-involvement we're seeing. My heart-sinking prediction is that Russia will nuke Kiev (or perhaps something of more tactical value) and that still won't move the needle. That would define a new era in nuclear tactics; one which I'm terrified to contemplate.

[jstx1]

> How do you cope if you have this view on things.

Keep doing whatever you're doing - things like the course of world wars are completely out of your control so there's no point in worrying about them.

[markus_zhang]

Nothing to see and walk along is my attitude. Maybe I'll throw in a cabin if wifie allows but she probably doesn't so whatever. If nuclear missiles start to fly around and there is still time I'll calmly tell her "I told you".

[Barrin92]

I don't really see that happening. For one a world war requires well.. the world and its unclear to me how and why Asia would be drawn into this conflict given that there's nothing to gain.

Secondly there is way too much asymmetry between NATO and Russia. Russia is in no state to fight a war against a major power which has become obvious given their military performance in Ukraine.

So the next escalation would be nukes and I have my doubts that they're more likely than the Russian military apparatus straight up deposing Putin should that seem like a credible threat. Russian's top brass has survival instincts too, and not to mention a lot of offspring in Europe and the US.

[armitron]

You seem to think that cascading events follow some sort of hierarchy subject to the whims of the military and/or that the chain of causation following an event as probable as Russia deploying tactical nuclear weapons is subject to human stratagems.

I think history has shown that nothing could be further from the truth. The outbreak of WW2 after the devastation of WW1 deserves particular study. We can zoom out and look at the gradient of events unfolding in order to know if the situation if improving (probably not) or getting worse (likely) but that's pretty much all we can do. A few key actions is all it will take for the cascade of events to turn into a runaway scenario that nobody has any control over.

Things happen and we react. There are no masterminds pushing buttons and pulling levers that have any kind of deliberate control over what happens to the system as a whole.

[Barrin92]

I don't think history has shown any of that given that we lived through an entire cold war with The Soviet Union that saw many proxy wars not unlike this one, missile crises and through all of this communication was intact and this remains the case, control structures were intact, and even though war is very scary hierarchies and safety systems remain intact. There are no automatisms or runaway scenarios and modern states have rational command structures or we'd all be nuclear dust already. And there have been way crazier people in power in the Kremlin by the way over the last century.

I'm a little bit tired of people whose entire headspace is WW I and WW II analogies because frankly it's not the world we've been in any more for a long time. And it's actually what has made the world more unsafe, because it has made leaders reluctant to act and confront aggressive powers.

[armitron]

If you examine the history of the cold war, you'll see that rather than any sort of deliberate control over the unfolding states of the system as a whole, we've simply been very very lucky. Stupendously lucky. If that doesn't reinforce what I said, nothing will.

Here's some folks who also think exactly that:

"Luck, in this context, seems to mean the exact opposite of control. It’s all that prevented bad outcomes when things could easily have gone in a different direction, no matter what anybody wanted. The historical policymakers who have invoked “luck” have included Robert S. McNamara, who was defense secretary during the Cuban missile crisis; Dean Acheson, special envoy of President John F. Kennedy at the time; ambassador Gerard C. Smith, chief U.S. delegate to the Strategic Arms Limitation Talks in 1969; former defense secretary William Perry, former secretary of state George Shultz, former national security adviser and secretary of state Henry Kissinger, former chairman of the Senate’s Armed Services Committee, Sam Nunn, and former head of Strategic Air Command and Strategic Command, Gen. George Lee Butler."

From: https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2020/08/10/reason-we-...

[panax]

Maybe, maybe not. There is always the potential. I think the chances are slim but the risk is high -- even with very low probability the potential consequences are enormous resulting in a significant risk. With the risk of a world war the greatest risk comes the risk of nuclear war. Especially over the past two years I have grown more wary about the risk of war between so called superpowers and the risk of nuclear war in particular. Humanity needs to learn to transcend violent conflict if we are to progress. We need to work towards the elimination of nuclear weapons globally, although there isn't a lot we can do at the individual level on that. Fortunately since WWII the world has become less violent overall and things have generally improved in a positive direction.

I disagree that everything seems pointless. If anything there is much more at stake and actions are even more important.

Lately I have been reading papers from ALLFED[1-2]. They have found quite a few alternative ways we could produce food during a sun blocking crisis and they would be enough to feed more than 8 billion people if needed through a severe nuclear winter, even if we lost all of our current agriculture. But they have also found that only few would survive if we only try to survive on stored food.

Another excellent resource for planning for the initial few moments/weeks of a nuclear war has been [3] which provides practical instructions for rapid construction of expedient fallout shelters.

Understanding these I at least have a feasible and actionable plan, and better understanding of what would be involved if worst case scenarios were to happen. It is a lot less hopeless than most believe, although still terrible.

I suggest reading through these and you can find things you can do at the individual level. Also consider supporting ALLFED as their work has potential to be highly impactful if such a scenario is ever realized.

[1] https://allfed.info [2] https://80000hours.org/podcast/episodes/david-denkenberger-s... [3] https://www.oism.org/nwss/