World War III?

Simon Webb of History Debunked suggests that World War III has already begun.  In fact, he proposes that the first world war should be the Napoleonic Wars, which spanned a decade (1803-1815) and involved actions from India to the Caribbean, and the Middle East to Scandinavia.  The current situation has recently seen North Korean troops heading to Ukraine to aid the Russians.  The NATO powers are funding and supplying equipment to Ukraine, most notably the United States.  In fact, US soldiers are stationed in Israel to man anti-missile batteries.  Israel's war with Gaza has leaked over into Lebanon.  Iran has fired yet another barrage of missiles, which Israel will soon answer.  Will that draw Iran into the war?  Maybe.  He notes that previous world wars were easily defined thanks to the war declarations by each side.  Few participants are declaring war but certainly engaging in war-making activities.

I would not call this a world war yet.  It is more like a new chapter of the Cold War.  Yes, the Cold War ended more than 30 years ago, but this has the same vibe.  If all that it requires to be a World War is the participation of many countries, the Korean War should count.  The UN (led by the US) was on the side of South Korea and while the Chinese & Russians supported North Korea.  Similar conflicts happened throughout the world during the Cold War.

Cold War II.  For now.

The Last Soviet

"Gentlemen, comrades, do not be concerned about all you hear about Glasnost and Perestroika and democracy in the coming years. They are primarily for outward consumption. There will be no significant internal changes in the Soviet Union, other than for cosmetic purposes. Our purpose is to disarm the Americans and let them fall asleep."

Mikhail Gorbachev

November 1987

Mikhail Gorbachev died today, and the Western media is celebrating him as the man who ended the Cold War.  What about Reagan?  No, he was the man who might have nuked the world and only Gorbachev saved us.  How is it that the leader of a totalitarian state has long been hailed as a peacemaker while his democratically elected opponents - Reagan & Thatcher - are painted as dangerous extremists?  The fact is that Gorbachev had the misfortune of coming to power during the final decline of the Soviet system.  He lost the Cold War, but the Democrat and Labour opponents of Reagan and Thatcher weren't about to give them credit.  No, the hagiographies were composed for the loser.  For years, Reagan's refrain was 'We win, you lose,' to the Soviets.  The US economy dwarfed the Soviet economy, and an arms race was like Usain Bolt racing a 10-year-old.  Efforts to keep pace could only result in bankruptcy for the USSR.  Then there was Chernobyl.  That disaster changed the dialogue.  Even Gorbachev decried the shoddy workmanship in the Soviet Union, admitting failings that prior leaders spent decades denying.  While the Soviet people view Gorbachev negatively, he has been quite popular in the West.  By presiding over the destruction of the nation he led, he received a Nobel Prize (1990).  The man who wanted to save Soviet communism, and failed, was lionized.  In retrospect, that was a fair trade.  Even Reagan would agree.

“There is no limit to the amount of good you can do if you don't care who gets the credit.”

Ronald Reagan

"The role of Ronald Reagan had been deliberately diminished; the role of the Europeans, who, with the exception of Helmet Kohl, were often keen to undermine America when it mattered, had been sanitized; and the role of Mr. Gorbachev, who had failed spectacularly in his declared objective of saving communism and the Soviet Union, had been absurdly misunderstood."

Margaret Thatcher

Courting War

During the Korean War, American pilots found themselves in dogfights with Soviet MIGs piloted by Russian pilots.  Of course, we pretended that such was not the case, because if it was, that would mean the US and the Soviet Union were at war.  That could get out of hand very quickly.  Likewise, we accepted the Chinese involvement in the war but did not attack China.  The only Chinese targets that were valid were those that crossed the Yalu River into Korea.  As with the Soviets, this was to prevent an escalation.  China was newly converted to the communist cause and viewed as a Soviet satellite.  An expanded war with China might lead to war with the Soviets.

When the US supported Afghanistan in the 1980s, we started by providing Russian weapons, so it wasn't obvious.  Sure, the Soviets knew, but there wasn't a smoking gun of M-16s.  In Reagan's second term, he opened the floodgates and sent clearly American weaponry, most notably the Stinger missile.  As we had shown restraint during Korea, the Soviets did so with Afghanistan.  There were many proxy wars during the Cold War, where the great powers fought for global supremacy in some unfortunate country's backyard.

Now consider Ukraine.  The US is openly sending money and materiel.  President Biden called for the removal of Putin, a statement that was walked back by Jenn Psaki shortly after.  US legislators - including Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi - have visited Ukraine and declared support until 'victory.'  The Defense Department has posted a list of military support sent to Ukraine.  Now the news says that US Intel assisted in sinking the Russian cruiser.  The Russians can't pretend we aren't in this war.  Unlike previous clashes, this one is not some proxy war.  Where neither Stalin nor Truman were at threat in Korea, nor Reagan nor the various Soviet premiers at threat in Afghanistan, Putin is clearly in danger in this conflict.  This could be an existential threat to Putin.  And that should guide our actions.

According to the media over the last several years, Putin is a madman.  Worse, he's a madman with nuclear weapons.  We have spent decades appeasing the North Korean dictators lest they do something reckless with their nukes, but now we are undaunted by a dictator with an immense nuclear arsenal.  Putin has threatened nuclear escalation and still we poke the bear.  He's probably bluffing.  However, North Korea was probably bluffing too, but we didn't risk this kind of brinksmanship.

There are several possible explanations.  First, our leaders know that Russia will not escalate, either because we have contact in the Russian government who assure us that Putin would be deposed if he ordered a nuclear strike or we know their nuclear capacity has degraded to uselessness since the collapse of the Soviet Union, or something along these lines.  Second, our leaders have forgotten the risks.  It has been 30 years since the Cold War ended and the Cold Warriors are mostly gone.  This one is hard to swallow as President Biden himself was in Congress throughout the Afghan conflict and should know better.  Then again, Joe isn't all there these days.  Third and most cynical, the administration is in domestic freefall and needs a foreign conflict to dominate the news.  With rampant inflation, a stagnating economy, an uncontrolled border, and cratering poll numbers, there is reason to want the press to look outside the country for something to cover.

Cold War, Part 2?

With the ejection of diplomats/spies in the United States and Russia, there is talk that we are entering a new Cold War.  Unlikely.  Sure, we may not have the best of relations but the US is the world's number 1 economy and Russia ranks about 12th at a paltry 7% of the US economy.  California alone has an economy twice the size of Russia.  Economically, Russia is to the US what Slovakia is to Russia.  South Korea has a bigger economy than Russia!  Embarrassing.  Coal and Petroleum are the big exports for Russia and US fracking has depressed prices.  When ANWR starts producing, the oil market is going to be even more competitive.  We can economically hamstring Russia just by drilling for oil here.  Win-win!  As far as population, Russia is suffering a decline in population and has only 45% as many people as the US.  What about allies?  The US could count on the majority of the EU, Japan, South Korea, India, and probably most of the former Soviet Republics.  Russia can look forward to support from Syria and Iran.  China might adopt Russia as the new North Korea but wouldn't commit itself.  The breakup of the Soviet Union left Russia as a far less formidable country.

 

Putin benefits from memories of the Soviet days and makes great use of the memories of the former super power.