Since recently I have been thinking about the direction the world, as a whole, is heading in and, for better or worse, it seems awfully familiar.

How all wars begin

I think that wars are fundamentally a consequence of strong identities. People of nationality X believe that their identity is superior to that of nationality Y, so they stoop down to physical violence to make their point.

Secondly, there is the question of rightful land ownership. Immovable property conflicts that happen so often in the interiors of a nation happen with just as much – or even greater – ferocity along national borders.

Russia is the only country in the world that is realistically capable of turning the United States into radioactive ash.

Dmitry Kiselyov

Thirdly, there is patriotism, which, like anything else, is dangerous when present in large quantities. People go to great lengths for their nation, and an increase in patriotism is not hard to come by when the former two ideas are present.

The world since WWII

It has been 69 years since the second world war ended; over twice the period that passed between the first and second world wars.

Things are heating up around the world, how much ever we want to deny it. If the WWII ended in a cold war and eventually peace, I suspect that the next world war will begin in a cold war which will escalate into a well-defined arms conflict.

Some nations are trying to establish their identities, however successfully or unsuccessfully, (Syria, Egypt); some others are trying to break free from long-established rules for no clear reason except for being beckoned by the sweet promise of what absolute freedom or its symbolisms can deliver (Scotland, New Zealand); yet others have been more open about their intentions (Russia).

The world has been fairly peaceful since WWII, but with countries like North Korea refusing to get in-sync with the world, there will always be some needles poking the wrong way out of the sponge.

The Budapest Memorandum

Back in 1994, Russia was one of the main signatories to the Budapest Memorandum which saw Ukraine get an assurance against the use of force against its integrity as it acced to the Non-Proliferation Treaty.

Less than ten countries have been recognised by this: US, France, Russia, the UK, China, India, Pakistan and North Korea. And, exactly ten years later, Russia broke the agreements of the treaty.

But we can go further back: Pax Americana was an agreement signed by several countries, under the auspices of the UN, soon after the second world war, which prevents countries from annexing each other.

Putin’s recent moves have openly broken these two agreements – agreements made to prevent a World War III.

Mutual destruction

Theres is also some light at the end of the tunnel because, with today’s nuclear-armed band of nations, any over-ambitious move with nukes is bound to be replied to with a similar such attack.

What this amounts to is that once nuclear strikes begin in earnest, countries can effectively mutually wipe out one another from the face of the earth.

But, when you step back and look at it, this is only a sort of partial consolation: a nuclear-free war (but a war nonetheless) can still very well occur.

Putin’s strategy

Mr Putin’s strategy seems pretty clear so far: he likely intends to take back former Soviet Union countries under Moscow. Right of ownership etc.

He recently had the Russian Black Sea fleet sink a Russian submarine, Ochakov, just so he could block the only exit for Ukrainian naval forces. This move, along with Russia’s annexation of Crimea against the backdrop of Obama’s uncertain threats of diplomatic isolation, was frowned upon by the UN, the EU, the USA and others; but the damage has been done.

The farther east one goes from Iraq, Iran etc., one notices that the influence of the US falls to near nullity. When the US got Ukraine into NATO, it was, as analyst, Dr Paul Craig Roberts, says, only so they could get military bases set up in the region, and, specifically, right outside Russia’s backyard, and tip Putin’s naval command in the Black Sea.

“[This] reckless carelessness … is the way wars start,” says Dr Roberts, referring to the possibility of Russia’s understanding of an increasing number of NATO and US military bases as a threat to itself. Russia may then retaliate solely on a perceived threat.

A new Russian order

In his address in mid-March 2014, Mr Putin’s made his stand on key issues pretty clear. He declared the present as the end of the post-Soviet era (something many also see as the start of another Soviet regime, what with Russia’s annexation of Crimea, Abkhazia etc.) and said Russia had its own national interests to be taken into account and respected.

Steve LeVine paraphrases this well: “Putin did not spell out the new rules of this still largely vague new period, but he did make one matter unmistakable: some of the rules will be set by Russia.”

Several see this as extremely similar to Hitler’s unchecked growth prior to and during the early years of WWII, and if history has taught us anything, it is to nip danger in the bud. But is Mr Putin still a bud?

Passing tensions: an optimistic alternative explanation

Having spoken so far about the rather depressing consequences the recent events may have in the future – and given that this is no debate for me to necessarily take sides – it is worth arguing with some optimism against the possibility of a World War III.

Although Russian presidents could hold office for four years for a maximum of two terms, Putin changed the term to six years. Although the limit of two terms stays to this day, Putin himself is currently incumbent for a third term and plans to stay for a fourth.

Broken laws apart, if Putin could somehow get himself an undisputed (even if not well-loved) third term, he may very well get himself a fourth, and the Crimean annexation and any such move that may come during the next few years may be thought of as geared towards moulding himself as an image of anti-West, pro-Russian ideologies. But the next election is four years away, so why would he start campaigning so early?

If Russia wishes to make a point, especially one about their military capability and general importance in international matters, this would not be a wise way to do it: it would topple all their on-going efforts to mingle with the EU and the USA, and unless they want to risk complete diplomatic isolation (read, unless Putin believed his country’s armyed forces have grown, in the sixty-odd years of peace after WWII, strong enough to take on the US, the EU and neighbouring non-EU nations combined) then these annexations are petty and pointless at best.

The end? or the beginning?

The problem is that such annexations play on a basic human element: greed. Putin will find it hard to stop at Crimea, especially with Transnistria (a part of Moldova, right next to Ukraine) beckoning him rather openly.

This will bring him dangerously close to Europe, and the biggest victim will be European markets. Gas, for instance, is a major import in Finland, Bulgaria, Poland etc. The former two countries, especially, import nearly all their gas from Russia.

Joe Biden, the US vice-president, may have called it a landgrab, and president Obama himself may have called Russia a regional power in denial, but the fact remains that Putin’s moves can have a dastardly effect – however large or small – on the entire world.

But really, Russia’s recent antics are just an outstanding example of where the world is headed. There is also Syria, Egypt, Iraq, Turkey, and one can go on. But the general direction is, fortunately, clear: downwards since the cold war.

At the end of it all, perhaps we have very few war survivors around to quickly tell us not to fight another round. Perhaps with generation, the wounds of war heal, and so do their memories, leaving us with no real understanding of one of the darkest sides of humans. However, being optimistic as ever, I suppose I can say we still have time to set things right. And we do. But will we?

The post Precursors of a World War III appeared first on VHBelvadi.com.