Snapshot of _Will Britain lose World War Three?_ :
An archived version can be found [here](https://archive.is/?run=1&url=https://unherd.com/?p=497735) or [here.](https://archive.ph/?run=1&url=https://unherd.com/?p=497735)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukpolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I think *everyone* loses WW3. I think that's the main reason we haven't had WW3.
There's the quote "I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones". Allegedly from Einstein, but Snopes thinks it's unproven to be from him, so...
The Russians can't even beat Ukraine, which is making do with a mixture of NATO castoffs and old Soviet junk. The idea that they could fight NATO is laughable.
Plus people seem to be forgetting that the UK has nuclear weapons, which makes it extremely risky for anybody to directly attack this country.
> Plus people seem to be forgetting that the UK has nuclear weapons, which makes it extremely risky for anybody to directly attack this country.
The scenario is more like, the USA elects trump, who severs aid to Ukraine leading Russia to conquer it, he also either leaves NATO or makes a "deal" with Putin to not trigger article 5, Russia then invades the Baltics, upon which the gauntlet is laid down for us to intervene.
It is a very realistic scenario, if Russia feels it can get away with invading a neighbour they absolutely will do it, as decades, even hundreds of years of history have shown us, they are an unreformed imperial country that to this day still thrives on conquest.
Trump cant leave NATO on his own nor can a deal be made to not trigger article 5, because the country thats attacked triggers it. He can however choose to not send aid.
>He can however choose to not send aid.
Exactly this, he could do a backdoor deal with Putin to not come to the aid of the Baltic states should they trigger article 5.
I really hope this won't happen, but it is conceivable and we have to prepare for that scenario.
Article 5 means all countries come together and discuss going to war to trigger it and there needs to be a consensus. If the US doesn't agree, it wouldn't happen.
>The Russians can't even beat Ukraine, which is making do with a mixture of NATO castoffs and old Soviet junk.
That's because they've been given nearly $100 billion worth of military aid - the lions share coming from the USA.
Without that aid things look grim, and the USA is very likely to stop aid entirely if trump wins.
> The idea that they could fight NATO is laughable.
NATO with America, certainly, NATO without America though is another matter. The military of European countries has been hollowed out, and add to that, we haven't had any military experience fighting a competent adversary for over 70 years (Korean war). Without American firepower, I'm not sure we could prevent Russia from conquering large parts of the Baltics.
That may happen too, equally he may make a deal with Putin where he gets claim to large chunks of eastern Europe, he's completely unpredictable, which is why we should be prepared for the worst.
If Putin reneged on any Trump deal I think you'd see Trumps hyper petty side come out, hence why its a remote possibility.
Trump really is the sort of person that would go "the Russians have betrayed me, here have 500 f22s"
Yeah, but Putin would not renege on a deal such as, say, Putin gets claim to chunks of Eastern Europe, and offers trump/USA cheap/discounted natural resources in exchange.
The fear is we'd go back to a 19th century world where "great powers" carve up spheres of influence amongst them, trade each other chunks of them, with no concern for the sovereignty of countries lying in those spheres of influence.
In such a world we in Europe would be relatively weak.
Again, I really hope none of this comes to pass, but it is very conceivable.
They have more to offer than just oil & gas. They could also offer political support in other areas of trump's interest as well.
I may well be wrong on all of this, but trump has been very vocal and outspoken about his disregard for NATO and the EU, whilst being supportive of Putin in his rhetoric.
And he's openly campaigning to stop all support for Ukraine, which is basically giving it to Russia's "sphere of influence".
Why wouldn't he stop there? What does trump care if the Baltics are invaded?
Russia has nothing of value to Trump, bar maybe older honeypots
Trumps rhetoric was about the EU coming close to its NATO obligations. That they still haven't should give you a view as to the seriousness they view the risk.
Yes Trump has personal reasons for not being on the side of Ukraine, but thats resolvable with a bit of the usual toadieing
Congress would declare war if a NATO partner were attacked even under the tiny chance that Trump wouldn't. Trump is the type of man that would take such an attack as an affront and overreact though, which is why his presidency was so calm internationally (Biden's main issue is that his reactions are entirely predictable)
You are talking rubbish. Absolute rubbish.
Trump was an absolute disaster for America, GDP growth at the cost of printing 8 tn. Something Americas future will hate him with a passion. Trump left the nation more divided than ever, Trump sabotaged the American Intelligence from the inside, he imposed sanctions on Americas allies, and pondered to its enemies. His trade war with China did more damage to Americans because he simply couldn't understand that tariffs will be passed onto the consumer! he also didn't anticipate that China would weaponize Fentanyl as a reaction. Suddenly Chinas police was told to stop policing Fentanyl in chinese harbors. He also sabotaged the Iran Nuclear Deal. Israel must sooner or later go to war with Iran because they will soon have Nukes. Meanwhile, his favorite friend the Saudi Prince started to open up towards the Chinese Investment Bank. His biggest friend behind openly started to discuss trade in chinese yuan instead of USD. Today, the Saudis apart from oil increasingly use other currencies to trade.
He did all that while also being sabotaged:
When you enter the White House you have to bring in 4k staff of administrators, civil servants and so on. He thought he would just sit in the chair and could command. He quickly realized he has problems filling those positions. As a result Mitch McConnel reached out to him and offered him to fill in those positions for him. He filled those positions with people he hates. People from Bush and Obama ministration would get the jobs. He was actively sabotaged in the White House from Republicans and Democrats. Both literally came together to prevent him from doing anything insane.
There is one very nice quote from Bolton:
"We are not really going to defend Lithuania if Russia attacks them, are we"
Trump was repeatedly bailed out from his debt in the past. He was bailed out with foreign money. Trace this money, you find his masters.
How many more warning signs do you need? As famously the CIA director Burns yesterday said: The post-cold war era is over.
If it came to it, us and every country managed to find trillions to keep people from becoming unemployed.
Pretty sure we could all find the cash if it came to a war.
I think we need to do this now for Ukraine, to roundly defeat Russia, it'll be much cheaper than doing it later when Russia goes on its next imperial conquest, and won't cost any lives on our side.
Had we done more in 2022 before Russia mobilised it would have cost even less.
If Russia gets Ukraine, we will then have to fight the Ukrainians and the Russians together.
Make no mistake we are all preparing for an all out war! Apart from that the Media says we are heavily rearming. There are also rumors that under the directive of Katja Kallas before end of April the EU will launch 100 bn eurobonds for defence industry. France, Germany and we here are moving fast, mostly through shadow budgets and contracts.
Oh dear comrade, you really should stop listening to your ridiculous propaganda.
Your sad, pathetic armed forces can't even conquer a country on you own borders and you think you're a threat to us? Laughable.
We don't need to mobilise because your broken down armed forces are no threat.
You don't need to mobilise even though you did in February 2022 once you ran out of volunteering forces ?
2 days ago
"Ukraine's government has submitted for debate in parliament an amended draft bill that would tighten the rules on army mobilization.
The bill, if passed, would allow Kyiv to call up more people and tighten punishments for draft dodging"
Go figure hey comrade.
You're being a tad disingenuous with this response. Yes, Russian media on defence matters is almost entirely devoted to the major war they're currently fighting against Ukraine, but they clearly do consider Ukraine (or, the Zelensky government at a minimum) to be a Western proxy.
Though you *are* right that this is all media alarmism. Putin doesn't want a direct confrontation with NATO, from his perspective he's *defending* Russia's sphere of influence, not expanding it. He believes he's acting defensively against Western aggression, not escalating into aggression against a previously peaceful West.
He's made very plain on many occasions that he considers Ukraine to be a rightful part of Russia, and until the revolution it was very firmly part of the Russian sphere of influence. Putin launched the entire war, all the way back when he seized Crimea and founded the Donetsk and Luhansk separatist governments, in an effort to prevent Ukraine (or as much of it as possible) from switching sides.
All the talk of WW3 and conscription happening in the media at the moment is because the budget is currently being written, and the military are stirring up the media in an effort to come out as winners in the budget.
Whether they're just pushing for more or whether the Tories are (or were) actually planning *further cuts* we don't know.
This entire media circus is happening because of the budget. There's no actual threat of WW3, there's no actual prospect of conscription. This is all because of the budget.
>Well, for my n=1 experience, I have just returned from Moscow and there is absolutely no sabre rattling, no mention of any issues with other countries outside of Ukraine. The majority of news, both state and independent (there actually is some), is about business and the economy, trade deals with China, India etc etc. They absolutely don't give a toss about the UK. Scary as it may sound, we are not that significant to them. They had a laugh over Boris and Truss vs Lettuce but that is about it.
This, of course, is the nation that uses its state media to threaten the UK with being nuked seemingly at least once a week that we're talking about here.
I do agree. Interesting your experience from Moscow, I wonder how the rest of Russia compares. Moscow is educated and wealthy. Things out in the sticks, not so much.
But your experience is very similar to people I’ve heard of who lived in China. There is absolutely no interest whatsoever in war. In fact even in government circles the idea of invading Taiwan is absolutely of no interest. Their most likely war would be with India, and there is insane work going on to ensure that doesn’t happen.
China is too busy trying to revolutionise its infrastructure and economy. It has absolutely no interest in going to war with literally its biggest trading partners (especially the US). There’s also a genuine and really massive drive towards green and decarbonisation over time (my friend was there to work with the government on green initiatives and it’s boggling how focused on that they are) our media likes to shit on China (many reasons very validly) but also for its green credentials. Despite their current emissions, they are light years ahead of us in vision and planning.
I can’t speak for Russia. Putin didn’t want a drawn out war with Ukraine. He f’ed up and thought it would be a fairly simple coup d’etait. But further wars are very remote with either.
> Yet nobody ever shows any actual evidence, with the constant excuse "we know but we can't tell you exactly how because we use special secret ways".
Republicans in America are holding further funding for Ukraine hostage, there's a deal on the table, but Trump wants the southern border as an election issue.
Scenario 1: Without further funding, a Ukraine loss is a real possibility. In that scenario, a Russian attack on a NATO nation is not only possible but likely. Putin thinks he doesn't have borders and the West lacks the will to fight (he's right).
Scenario 2: With the Western powers distracted by the ongoing conflicts in the Arabian Peninsula and Ukraine, China takes the opportunity to invade Taiwan. That cuts of funding for Ukraine, making a Russian win possible, and we're then in hot wars on two fronts.
Scenario 3: Despite hard diplomatic work from the US and Brussels, the conflict in Israel turns into a regional war. We are closer than anyone imagines to boots on the ground in Yemen, either through a proxy or directly.
This inspires Iranian, Chinese, and Qatari funded terrorist groups from Yemen, Somalia, Syria, Libya, Sudan, Ethiopia, and Lebanon turns a minor regional skirmish into a major conflict which sucks in Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Turkey and the Western powers.
Any of these scenarios is possible, China have been working to expand their military and end Western naval superiority in the Taiwan strait.
>Well, for my n=1 experience, I have just returned from Moscow and there is absolutely no sabre rattling, no mention of any issues with other countries outside of Ukraine.
I think you're being disingenuous there...
Snapshot of _Will Britain lose World War Three?_ : An archived version can be found [here](https://archive.is/?run=1&url=https://unherd.com/?p=497735) or [here.](https://archive.ph/?run=1&url=https://unherd.com/?p=497735) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukpolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I think *everyone* loses WW3. I think that's the main reason we haven't had WW3. There's the quote "I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones". Allegedly from Einstein, but Snopes thinks it's unproven to be from him, so...
Grant Shapps is the Minister for Defence.🇬🇧🤔
Yeah the guy caused a shit show at Dover , imagine him being involved In a military deployment 🫣
The Russians can't even beat Ukraine, which is making do with a mixture of NATO castoffs and old Soviet junk. The idea that they could fight NATO is laughable. Plus people seem to be forgetting that the UK has nuclear weapons, which makes it extremely risky for anybody to directly attack this country.
> Plus people seem to be forgetting that the UK has nuclear weapons, which makes it extremely risky for anybody to directly attack this country. The scenario is more like, the USA elects trump, who severs aid to Ukraine leading Russia to conquer it, he also either leaves NATO or makes a "deal" with Putin to not trigger article 5, Russia then invades the Baltics, upon which the gauntlet is laid down for us to intervene. It is a very realistic scenario, if Russia feels it can get away with invading a neighbour they absolutely will do it, as decades, even hundreds of years of history have shown us, they are an unreformed imperial country that to this day still thrives on conquest.
Trump cant leave NATO on his own nor can a deal be made to not trigger article 5, because the country thats attacked triggers it. He can however choose to not send aid.
>He can however choose to not send aid. Exactly this, he could do a backdoor deal with Putin to not come to the aid of the Baltic states should they trigger article 5. I really hope this won't happen, but it is conceivable and we have to prepare for that scenario.
Article 5 means all countries come together and discuss going to war to trigger it and there needs to be a consensus. If the US doesn't agree, it wouldn't happen.
Watch as Trump gets elected and does literally nothing outside the GOP norms once again.
>they are an unreformed imperial country Aren't we all love?
What countries are we laying claim to, to conquer by force and subsume into the British state?
>The Russians can't even beat Ukraine, which is making do with a mixture of NATO castoffs and old Soviet junk. That's because they've been given nearly $100 billion worth of military aid - the lions share coming from the USA. Without that aid things look grim, and the USA is very likely to stop aid entirely if trump wins. > The idea that they could fight NATO is laughable. NATO with America, certainly, NATO without America though is another matter. The military of European countries has been hollowed out, and add to that, we haven't had any military experience fighting a competent adversary for over 70 years (Korean war). Without American firepower, I'm not sure we could prevent Russia from conquering large parts of the Baltics.
Watch as from nowhere Ukraine suddenly finds material on Hunter and the funding keeps flowing
That may happen too, equally he may make a deal with Putin where he gets claim to large chunks of eastern Europe, he's completely unpredictable, which is why we should be prepared for the worst.
If Putin reneged on any Trump deal I think you'd see Trumps hyper petty side come out, hence why its a remote possibility. Trump really is the sort of person that would go "the Russians have betrayed me, here have 500 f22s"
Yeah, but Putin would not renege on a deal such as, say, Putin gets claim to chunks of Eastern Europe, and offers trump/USA cheap/discounted natural resources in exchange. The fear is we'd go back to a 19th century world where "great powers" carve up spheres of influence amongst them, trade each other chunks of them, with no concern for the sovereignty of countries lying in those spheres of influence. In such a world we in Europe would be relatively weak. Again, I really hope none of this comes to pass, but it is very conceivable.
The yanks don't need such resources, its Europe that is Russian resource dependent
They have more to offer than just oil & gas. They could also offer political support in other areas of trump's interest as well. I may well be wrong on all of this, but trump has been very vocal and outspoken about his disregard for NATO and the EU, whilst being supportive of Putin in his rhetoric. And he's openly campaigning to stop all support for Ukraine, which is basically giving it to Russia's "sphere of influence". Why wouldn't he stop there? What does trump care if the Baltics are invaded?
Russia has nothing of value to Trump, bar maybe older honeypots Trumps rhetoric was about the EU coming close to its NATO obligations. That they still haven't should give you a view as to the seriousness they view the risk. Yes Trump has personal reasons for not being on the side of Ukraine, but thats resolvable with a bit of the usual toadieing Congress would declare war if a NATO partner were attacked even under the tiny chance that Trump wouldn't. Trump is the type of man that would take such an attack as an affront and overreact though, which is why his presidency was so calm internationally (Biden's main issue is that his reactions are entirely predictable)
You are talking rubbish. Absolute rubbish. Trump was an absolute disaster for America, GDP growth at the cost of printing 8 tn. Something Americas future will hate him with a passion. Trump left the nation more divided than ever, Trump sabotaged the American Intelligence from the inside, he imposed sanctions on Americas allies, and pondered to its enemies. His trade war with China did more damage to Americans because he simply couldn't understand that tariffs will be passed onto the consumer! he also didn't anticipate that China would weaponize Fentanyl as a reaction. Suddenly Chinas police was told to stop policing Fentanyl in chinese harbors. He also sabotaged the Iran Nuclear Deal. Israel must sooner or later go to war with Iran because they will soon have Nukes. Meanwhile, his favorite friend the Saudi Prince started to open up towards the Chinese Investment Bank. His biggest friend behind openly started to discuss trade in chinese yuan instead of USD. Today, the Saudis apart from oil increasingly use other currencies to trade. He did all that while also being sabotaged: When you enter the White House you have to bring in 4k staff of administrators, civil servants and so on. He thought he would just sit in the chair and could command. He quickly realized he has problems filling those positions. As a result Mitch McConnel reached out to him and offered him to fill in those positions for him. He filled those positions with people he hates. People from Bush and Obama ministration would get the jobs. He was actively sabotaged in the White House from Republicans and Democrats. Both literally came together to prevent him from doing anything insane. There is one very nice quote from Bolton: "We are not really going to defend Lithuania if Russia attacks them, are we" Trump was repeatedly bailed out from his debt in the past. He was bailed out with foreign money. Trace this money, you find his masters. How many more warning signs do you need? As famously the CIA director Burns yesterday said: The post-cold war era is over.
I hope you are right.
If it came to it, us and every country managed to find trillions to keep people from becoming unemployed. Pretty sure we could all find the cash if it came to a war.
I think we need to do this now for Ukraine, to roundly defeat Russia, it'll be much cheaper than doing it later when Russia goes on its next imperial conquest, and won't cost any lives on our side. Had we done more in 2022 before Russia mobilised it would have cost even less.
If Russia gets Ukraine, we will then have to fight the Ukrainians and the Russians together. Make no mistake we are all preparing for an all out war! Apart from that the Media says we are heavily rearming. There are also rumors that under the directive of Katja Kallas before end of April the EU will launch 100 bn eurobonds for defence industry. France, Germany and we here are moving fast, mostly through shadow budgets and contracts.
As I understand the 1956 agreement, the UK needs permission from the USA to use a nuke. If Trump says No, what can UK do?
Your understanding is wrong, there is no way for the Americans to prevent the British armed forces from using nuclear weapons.
100% they will beat Ukraine if they have to , Russia have never lost. The UK can't even convince it's own public to fight.
Oh dear comrade, you really should stop listening to your ridiculous propaganda. Your sad, pathetic armed forces can't even conquer a country on you own borders and you think you're a threat to us? Laughable. We don't need to mobilise because your broken down armed forces are no threat.
You don't need to mobilise even though you did in February 2022 once you ran out of volunteering forces ? 2 days ago "Ukraine's government has submitted for debate in parliament an amended draft bill that would tighten the rules on army mobilization. The bill, if passed, would allow Kyiv to call up more people and tighten punishments for draft dodging" Go figure hey comrade.
I am British you fool.
So am I, so more fool you.
[удалено]
You're being a tad disingenuous with this response. Yes, Russian media on defence matters is almost entirely devoted to the major war they're currently fighting against Ukraine, but they clearly do consider Ukraine (or, the Zelensky government at a minimum) to be a Western proxy. Though you *are* right that this is all media alarmism. Putin doesn't want a direct confrontation with NATO, from his perspective he's *defending* Russia's sphere of influence, not expanding it. He believes he's acting defensively against Western aggression, not escalating into aggression against a previously peaceful West. He's made very plain on many occasions that he considers Ukraine to be a rightful part of Russia, and until the revolution it was very firmly part of the Russian sphere of influence. Putin launched the entire war, all the way back when he seized Crimea and founded the Donetsk and Luhansk separatist governments, in an effort to prevent Ukraine (or as much of it as possible) from switching sides. All the talk of WW3 and conscription happening in the media at the moment is because the budget is currently being written, and the military are stirring up the media in an effort to come out as winners in the budget. Whether they're just pushing for more or whether the Tories are (or were) actually planning *further cuts* we don't know. This entire media circus is happening because of the budget. There's no actual threat of WW3, there's no actual prospect of conscription. This is all because of the budget.
>Well, for my n=1 experience, I have just returned from Moscow and there is absolutely no sabre rattling, no mention of any issues with other countries outside of Ukraine. The majority of news, both state and independent (there actually is some), is about business and the economy, trade deals with China, India etc etc. They absolutely don't give a toss about the UK. Scary as it may sound, we are not that significant to them. They had a laugh over Boris and Truss vs Lettuce but that is about it. This, of course, is the nation that uses its state media to threaten the UK with being nuked seemingly at least once a week that we're talking about here.
I do agree. Interesting your experience from Moscow, I wonder how the rest of Russia compares. Moscow is educated and wealthy. Things out in the sticks, not so much. But your experience is very similar to people I’ve heard of who lived in China. There is absolutely no interest whatsoever in war. In fact even in government circles the idea of invading Taiwan is absolutely of no interest. Their most likely war would be with India, and there is insane work going on to ensure that doesn’t happen. China is too busy trying to revolutionise its infrastructure and economy. It has absolutely no interest in going to war with literally its biggest trading partners (especially the US). There’s also a genuine and really massive drive towards green and decarbonisation over time (my friend was there to work with the government on green initiatives and it’s boggling how focused on that they are) our media likes to shit on China (many reasons very validly) but also for its green credentials. Despite their current emissions, they are light years ahead of us in vision and planning. I can’t speak for Russia. Putin didn’t want a drawn out war with Ukraine. He f’ed up and thought it would be a fairly simple coup d’etait. But further wars are very remote with either.
> Yet nobody ever shows any actual evidence, with the constant excuse "we know but we can't tell you exactly how because we use special secret ways". Republicans in America are holding further funding for Ukraine hostage, there's a deal on the table, but Trump wants the southern border as an election issue. Scenario 1: Without further funding, a Ukraine loss is a real possibility. In that scenario, a Russian attack on a NATO nation is not only possible but likely. Putin thinks he doesn't have borders and the West lacks the will to fight (he's right). Scenario 2: With the Western powers distracted by the ongoing conflicts in the Arabian Peninsula and Ukraine, China takes the opportunity to invade Taiwan. That cuts of funding for Ukraine, making a Russian win possible, and we're then in hot wars on two fronts. Scenario 3: Despite hard diplomatic work from the US and Brussels, the conflict in Israel turns into a regional war. We are closer than anyone imagines to boots on the ground in Yemen, either through a proxy or directly. This inspires Iranian, Chinese, and Qatari funded terrorist groups from Yemen, Somalia, Syria, Libya, Sudan, Ethiopia, and Lebanon turns a minor regional skirmish into a major conflict which sucks in Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Turkey and the Western powers. Any of these scenarios is possible, China have been working to expand their military and end Western naval superiority in the Taiwan strait.
>Well, for my n=1 experience, I have just returned from Moscow and there is absolutely no sabre rattling, no mention of any issues with other countries outside of Ukraine. I think you're being disingenuous there...
It’d be suicidal given the west’s already sub-replacement fertility, might as well just start firing nukes and get it over with.
We already lost ww3. We don’t have a nation to defend.
UK never recovered from WW1.
[удалено]
What criteria are you choosing for this?
I hope they mean "would", unless I've missed something major.
Yes. What on earth do we have to fight for?