The World stage & WWIII - A theory

[Andreia]

So I've shared this theory of mine a few weeks ago with my wife and interestingly enough, The Independent newspaper published an article on the 10th of March with some of the things I had pointed out in my 'crazy' theory, and bear in mind this theory will seem crazy and a bit far-fetched, but then again no one expected the twin towers in NY to be destroyed, or people in Paris to be shot during a concert, so expect the unexpected.

I have some basic knowledge and perception of the current geopolitical World, but by no means I am an expert, far far from it, so what I would like to see here from people with similar interests would be a debate and discussion about some of the topics below. I'm sure a lot of you might give me grief and tll me how ridiculous this or that notion is, or how that would never happen, which is great, you probably know more about that particular situation then I do, what I would like to ask of you fine people is to just explain to me the why of your reasoning and why you disagree and think it would work out in a different way. Some things might actually be factually wrong, I completely admit, which is another reason for creating this thread, to get corrections if I'm wrong.

I'm just trying to shuffle some ideas around to get a better perception of the current world, and I'm asking for your help and ideas about it.

Thanks for reading (if you do read it), as there is no TLDR.

Act I

Before moving to the big leagues, I just want to plant the bug out there that circa 2014 Russia decided to illegally annex part of the Crimea peninsula "for no apparent reason", said peninsula is part of Ukraine, which at the time was applying for UN membership, so before they managed to do that, Russia decided "out of the blue" to claim that area as their own and say that Ukraine was part of Russia anyway (USSR), so "it's ok" by their book.

Moving forward two or so years, Trump wins the US presidency, he is implicated in all sorts of ways with Russia as you are all very aware, from the Russians being in secret talks with several staff of Trump's presidential campaign, during said campaign, to buying real-estate from Trump in Florida at a much higher price than the price markup, to re-starting the Dakota pipeline project using Russian steel rather than American (as he said he would) and so on and so on.

Trump also supports the UK's decision to leave the EU. As a matter of fact Trump also supports any other countries that might want to leave the EU and be "sovereign" and independent without having to answer to the evil overlords in Brussels. Basically he supports all the right-wing parties that are rising up in close coming EU elections.
For Trump, the fragmentation and dismantling of the EU is a good thing.

Now bear in mind the EU was precisely created post World War II to unite the continent and control/eradicate bigotry and 'slow-boil-but-quick-to-spill-over' rises in zealot nationalism. The exact reasons Adolf Hitler happened. (I'd recommend watching Al Jazeera's "the making and breaking of Europe")

Act II

Meanwhile, tensions are growing in the South China Sea, Trump is scaling up the military presence in the region and it seems that China's irritating Chihuahua (North Korea) was pretty much under wraps.

Until Kim Jong Un decided this was the perfect time to kill his half-brother in such a drastic way that it shows it was meant to send a message. Later on, teased by Trump's war games in South Korea, he also decided it would be a good idea to launch a missile test just 300 miles from Japan's isles, falling into Japan's national waters.
The irritating Chihuahua is now barking louder and louder.

Trump of course probably wants this, if NK does something even remotely stupid (despite China trying to pull the leash) that is considered an attack to SK or Japan, this will be the perfect excuse for the US to jump the gun, and I don't just mean further sanctions.
Meanwhile Japan is already under tension and moving warships around due to China's claim on the South Asian Sea.

This is all stuff that is happening right now, you can easily find articles covering the events of any of these topics, or just scroll down to the bottom for some reference articles.

Act III (the theory)

NK actually does something stupid, the US might ultimatum China into controlling their 'pet' lest they take control over NK to stop Kim Jong once and for all.
The US might not give an ultimatum at all, and just declare war on NK.

Upon declaration of war by the US to NK, South Korea also declares war to NK. (technically they actually never left this state) China defends NK's interests and declares war on the US. Japan declares war on China, China asks for Russian support.

Now here's the twist that might be extremely debatable, that every single article and expert out there would say otherwise, but I say Russia allies itself with the US... Expect the unexpected remember? The reasoning is explained in Act IV, keep reading.

Meanwhile Europe is like "what the hell just happened?" and ask everyone to calm down and stop. Nobody listens.
Europe is weakened, weakened by choices of fragmenting nature rather than unison, right wing parties on the rise in France and Germany (this is true as of now) after Brexit lead the way to set a precedent for the dismantling of the EU.

Russia sees this - and predicted it - and decides to take over the remaining Crimea peninsula, and possibly the entirety of Ukraine and even the baltic countries. If Europe, even a weakened one, decides to intervene, it can become World War III...

Act IV

Rex Tillerson, US secretary of state, appointed by Trump, used to be chief executive of ExxonMobil, one of the major oil companies with ties and business assets and interests in Russia, so his interest in the annexation of Crimea is paramount, here's why:

While Russia obviously claims that the taking of Crimea is due to ex USSR legitimacy combined with the expansion of NATO and the possibility of NATO westernizing Ukraine and permanently remove it from Russia's grasp, there's a far deeper reason why Crimea and the entire Ukraine is of so much interest to Moscow.
Although Russia can transport and process a significant amount of oil right now with the control of the Crimea peninsula, it's nothing in comparison with the amounts that could be processed (and cut off from Europe) if they only had control of the entire Ukraine territory, total dominance - instead of partial - over the oil fields and Ukrainian pipelines. So the invasion and take-over of the rest of Ukraine is a priority, something Russia has been wanting to do since 2014.
This can be legitimately considered a hostile invasion of Ukraine as many Ukrainians do not identify Russia as their nationality or first language.

By intervening, Europe set themselves to be at war with Russia. By not intervening, the cold war between Europe and Russia intensifies.
With Europe being fragmented and in shambles, the UN presence is kept on standby lest a war with Russia begins, bringing misery to the already weakened EU nations.
Out of conflict of interests, the US does not help Europe to mitigate the Russian threat, a) because Russia would cease the support with the war effort on China, b) because Europe (still undecided about the UK, but Theresa May would probably follow) refused to follow and even opposed the US when they declared war on NK and China, and c) because Russia is supplying the US with Crimea oil.

"America first."

Act V (final act)

China currently would surpass the US economy eventually and establish economic dominance, Trump absolutely despises this. Launching a war on China via proxy through NK is the perfect solution to shut down China's economic explosion of the last decade, and it would give Trump the excuse of being able to say "they started it, NK started it. It's not my fault, we merely responded", despite the US being the one taunting and playing war games with NK to incite Kim Jong Un to do something drastic.

With the current planned increase of the US military budget, the US can establish it's military dominance over China's, and also impose said dominance over China's economy in order to cripple it or shut it down completely before it surpasses the US's. This is a very dangerous game Trump is playing.

It's not World War III yet, but if nuclear weapons are used at any point and/or Europe decides to wage war with Russia? We could have WWIII in our hands. Realistically Europe wouldn't engage in anything without the backup of the US as Russia would be to powerful of a Nation, although, Russia would be fighting the war on two fronts instead of just one (China+NK). But again, the US would hold its support towards Europe due to conflicts of interest.

The aftermath of a full fledged (World) War could be a subdued China (with massive damaging impact on the world economy) and a crippled, fragmented, and possibly invaded continental Europe, with the UK grasping for the scraps at the table (no deals with the EU, and rubbish deals with the US), having protection from Russian attacks due to the so called "special friendship" with the US as long as the UK gave support to the US or maintained neutrality and leave continental Europe to its demise.

The Russian and US alliance would be the two major world powers, empowered by military presence, oil, and a dismantled Europe.

As an afterthought; the war on ISIS and the war on terror is never won because it would never be battled.
Saudi Arabia and Qatar would keep supplying terror groups with arms, and Trump would never lift a finger (just like he doesn't now) due to his business interests with the Saudis.

Due to the new WWIII, the middle-east would only be further destabilized, creating further conflict in the region, and enabling ISIS or something much worse and military capable to rise up.

Final Thoughts

This, in my likely flawed opinion is Trump's and Putin's perfect world vision, or close to it. Maybe not as drastic, maybe very far from the truth. But I personally reckon that this is pretty close to what they would love. Please share your ideas and why you think I'm completely wrong. :)

Be civil guys.

Thank you for reading.


References / Sources:

Act I
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukrain...NATO_relations
http://www.reuters.com/investigates/...rump-property/
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/14/u...rump.html?_r=0
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...does-it-matter
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017...-on-going-war/
https://www.ft.com/content/1071a4a6-...f-061b01e23655
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-tr...-idUSKBN16A2FC
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017...us-ambassador/
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...european-union
http://interactive.aljazeera.com/aje...ing-of-europe/

Act II
https://www.ft.com/content/161d4040-...5-9e5580d6e5fb
https://www.forbes.com/sites/panosmo.../#3f766e86dad1
http://www.economist.com/news/asia/2...r-was-murdered
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017...yangs-nuclear/
http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/201.../#.WNECFvnyi00
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-no...-idUSKBN16C0YU
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/wo...-a7613116.html
https://www.stratfor.com/sites/defau...?itok=X17p6467

Act III
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/wo...-a7510881.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean...tice_Agreement
http://time.com/4504010/europe-politics-swing-right/
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/...ies-listy.html
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/wo...-a7417276.html
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/wo...-a7449961.html
https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...huania-ukraine

Act IV
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/01/u...confirmed.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rex_Tillerson
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/12/w...sanctions.html
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/o...213-story.html
https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...tars-explainer
https://www.foreignaffairs.com/artic...in-took-crimea
https://www.foreignaffairs.com/artic...s-west-s-fault
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/wo...-a7507361.html
http://www.offshore-technology.com/f...4788063-1.html
http://image.digitalinsightresearch....gas-assets.jpg
http://creofire.com/wp-content/uploa...-Pipelines.png
http://www.haciendapub.com/sites/def...imeaWarMap.jpg
https://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/18/w...-reserves.html
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/...a-9193464.html
http://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/660/med...kraine_624.gif

Act V
https://www.forbes.com/sites/mikepat.../#2e443ace224a
https://www.foreignaffairs.com/artic...ure-superpower
http://uk.businessinsider.com/chinas...1-years-2015-6
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/...-a7362071.html
https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/3774

Final Toughts
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/www.ind...296.html%3Famp

[Azadina]

North Korea starting something only spells the end to North Korea. No one is going to start a world war over that irrelevant country.

[Gadion]

North Korea starting something only spells the end to North Korea. No one is going to start a world war over that irrelevant country.

I tend to agree... Why would China really care if people take out North Korea?
"Meh, it was a mutt anyway. Don't love it. Besides, it's crazy!"

No need for an escalation in that scenario at all

[Versy]

expect a visit from the NSA Op.

[Wildtree]

Pretty sure I've read that conspiracy theories aren't allowed..

And OP, you really think someone goes through that insane wall of text with those countless links to find out they agree or disagree with the conspira... err.. theory?

[Puremallace]

North Korea starting something only spells the end to North Korea. No one is going to start a world war over that irrelevant country.

Obama was pretty smart by getting the Chinese to be pissed at the North Koreans and if Trump had kept that up then North Korea would have taken care of itself. Trump instead like a dumbass has managed to piss off the Chinese so that if he moves on the North Koreans then the Chinese might step in.

China stepped in previously and is the reason why we never won that war.

[Dr Assbandit]

I seriously doubt China is dumb or short-sighted enough to double down on protecting NK. They have already mentioned annoyance with NK several times before and I'm quite sure if push came to shove China would throw them under the bus.

[Azadina]

I tend to agree... Why would China really care if people take out North Korea?
"Meh, it was a mutt anyway. Don't love it. Besides, it's crazy!"

No need for an escalation in that scenario at all

They might even like the buffer zone better if it was barren wasteland with no one in it. Now it costs them money, and constant irritation from Kim Jongs stupid tricks.

Obama was pretty smart by getting the Chinese to be pissed at the North Koreans and if Trump had kept that up then North Korea would have taken care of itself. Trump instead like a dumbass has managed to piss off the Chinese so that if he moves on the North Koreans then the Chinese might step in.

China stepped in previously and is the reason why we never won that war.

They stepped in previously because you tried invading all the way up to their border. They want to have their buffer zone, for whatever reason.

[Activi-T]

I tend to agree... Why would China really care if people take out North Korea?
"Meh, it was a mutt anyway. Don't love it. Besides, it's crazy!"

No need for an escalation in that scenario at all

China cares because a unified Korea would mean a US ally, that has US troops in it, right on its north eastern border.

It wouldn't surprise me if China doesn't just implement regime change if little Kim keeps pushing his luck.

[Skroe]

(1) The US would never launch a military operation against North Korea without Japan and South Korea giving their consent and cooperation. South Korea would be an active participant in any action and Japan would have to defend itself against North Korean missile attack.

(2) China would never swoop in to save the North Koreans. This is the latest variation on an age old misperception about the value of smaller states to greater powers. The exact same (wrong) argument was made 15 years ago with regards to Iraq (with Russia coming to Saddam's rescure), and has been made more recently with Iran and Syria (that the value of either countries is worth a major conflict with the US to them).

The individuals who state these beliefs greatly misunderstand the nature of the relationship between Russia/China and these smaller countries. The value of these coutnries is mostly as buffer states and as regional offsets to the US dominance. pre-Syria, the Middle Eastern area, without Iran, was dominated by US allies. For China, Asia-Pacific , minus North Korea, is dominated by US allies.

The value of these countries are as pressure valves, but there is a limit to that value. With Iran for example, if it were to build a large nuclear arsenal, the greatest loser would be Russia, which is Iran's neighbor and whom it has had a complicated relationship with. With North Korea, Kim Jong Un just killed his half-brother, a man the Chinese took care of for life, because he was their "backup plan" to install a new North Korean regime.

China is far more likely to intervene and try and remove the North Korean leadership itself, than it would be to fight the US. China's nightmare scenario is US Troops stationed on the Chinese border.

(3) The US would NEVER "be fine" with Russia taking more Ukranian territory. I don't think I can understate the extent to which that Crimea will not be normalized. The US waited 50 years for the Baltics to be free, and it never normalized that. It will do the same for Ukraine. The US would not, in the modern era, allow opportunism for any ally to change their border via military means. If Russia were to take more of Ukraine and threaten Europe, it would mean the end of such an "alliance". The US military would never stand for it. The US State Department would never stand for it. You would see mass resigniations.

The US security community (rightly) regards Russia as our chief geopolitical foe. They are focused on Russia. Trump's election doesn't change that.

(4) Furthermore Russia and China have essentially no expeditionary capability. What Russia has in Syria is the extent to which it can deploy it's airpower - about 30 jets. The US has over 150 in Turkey alone, and hundreds more in nearby friendly countries. Hell it takes Russia 2 weeks to move 3000 men and their equipment, by rail, over Russian territory. It would take months to move 20,000 men and their equipment. Ukraine represents the extent of Russian expeditionary capability.

China is the same. It lacks power projection it's territory is deeply vulnerable to US attack.

Russia is not a militarily powerful country. It's a rather decrepit military with a lot of missiles. European Air Power, and with some training and re-investment, Ground forces, would be able to wipe them out.

[Andreia]

you really think someone goes through that insane wall of text with those countless links to find out they agree or disagree

No no, of course not, the links are just there in case someone actually wanted sources for this or that claim. I feel kind of apologetic for the wall of text, but I was on a 2.5 hour train journey, I was bored and forgot to bring a book.

I do agree that China covering up for NK would be suicide and most likely would just let the US deal with it and be done with, so it is a bit of a stretch on that one, but then again, would SK annex NK and still leave a (empty) buffer zone for China to have some breathing space away from Westernization? *shrug*

- - - Updated - - -

Thanks Skroe, that was very enlightening to read and a lot of it makes sense, specially point 2.

[Adolecent]

The aftermath of a full fledged (World) War could be a subdued China (with massive damaging impact on the world economy) and a crippled, fragmented, and possibly invaded continental Europe, with the UK grasping for the scraps at the table (no deals with the EU, and rubbish deals with the US), having protection from Russian attacks due to the so called "special friendship" with the US as long as the UK gave support to the US or maintained neutrality and leave continental Europe to its demise.

Russia isn't powerfull enough to hold off the EU. But it's absolutely clear Trump's US and Russia are trying to destabilise the EU. The US is slowly becoming our enemy.

[Deleted]

I tend to agree... Why would China really care if people take out North Korea?
"Meh, it was a mutt anyway. Don't love it. Besides, it's crazy!"

No need for an escalation in that scenario at all

Really? You can't grasp why china wouldn't be keen on having us troops in north korea?

[Nadiru]

OP sees the destabilization of the Middle East as a consequence of some greater scheme. I think it's more likely that the destabilization of the Middle East (or at least OPEC) is the scheme. This is hardly the first time the US has colluded with some power to effectively price OPEC out of its own market, either.

[Skroe]

No no, of course not, the links are just there in case someone actually wanted sources for this or that claim. I feel kind of apologetic for the wall of text, but I was on a 2.5 hour train journey, I was bored and forgot to bring a book.

I do agree that China covering up for NK would be suicide and most likely would just let the US deal with it and be done with, so it is a bit of a stretch on that one, but then again, would SK annex NK and still leave a (empty) buffer zone for China to have some breathing space away from Westernization? *shrug*

Well here' some historical context.

The Unification of East and West Germany was not a foregone conclusion and serious thought was given to keeping them two, independent states. Unification of them was controversial (and indeed, we can see why: a united Germany is a global economic juggernaut and the real power in Europe). But the decision to unify them was made and in effect, West Germany swallowed East Germany. It's been 25 years since that happened, and something in the realm of a trillion dollars has spent on bringing ex-East Germany to ex-West Germany's standards of development. To this day, on the metrics, there is is regional inequality and development differences.

The cost and complexity of German unification, which on the balance can be regarded as a historic success, has in fact been a cautionary tale because of the magnitude and complexity.

North Korea is so much further behind South Korea than East Germany was behind West Germany, that it's hard to understate how much money and work would go into unifying the country. It would involve wholesale re-education and reorganization of the lives of every ex-North Korean citizen. Trillions of dollars would have to be spent, over decades. Public health disparity's would take lifetimes to equalize.

Who would pay for this? South Korea couldn't afford it on it's own. Actual development aid sent to Iraq and Afghanistan over the years, a fraction of the total war's cost, will not be nearly enough in comparison.

Perhaps North Korea would be left to its own devices... not integrated into the South, but free of the Kims, maybe a kind of Mynamar-analog that makes China and South Korea feel safe, but does not require South Korea to take on a 20 million person humanitarian relief effort, which is in effect what absorbing North Korea would be.

[Ealyssa]

North Korea starting something only spells the end to North Korea. No one is going to start a world war over that irrelevant country.

This, #endrthread

Sure China like to back them VS south Korea "backed" by the US. But nobody would go to war to protect them.

[Skroe]

OP sees the destabilization of the Middle East as a consequence of some greater scheme. I think it's more likely that the destabilization of the Middle East (or at least OPEC) is the scheme. This is hardly the first time the US has colluded with some power to effectively price OPEC out of its own market, either.

Thank's to US Shale, we don't need to collude with anyone to do that. Everytime it starts getting close to $60, idle wells start pumping and flood the market, forcing it back into the $40s and low $50s.

OPEC could supply cut further, but they need the revenue and don't have much more margin to cut.

Basically it's not another power, but technology, that has oil producers by the balls.

[breadisfunny]

there will be only one phase. the u.s. and russia launch their nukes and bathe the world in the power of a exploding sun.

[Wildtree]

Well here' some historical context.

It's been 25 years since that happened, and something in the realm of a trillion dollars has spent on bringing ex-East Germany to ex-West Germany's standards of development.

Pretty sure, not that many dollars have been spent.
Primarily it was D-Mark and nowadays Euro. Just saying.

To this day, on the metrics, there is is regional inequality and development differences.

There are some, true.

The cost and complexity of German unification, which on the balance can be regarded as a historic success, has in fact been a cautionary tale because of the magnitude and complexity.

This is the moment where I have to address something..
Whose to be credited? First and foremost the people of East Germany. They stood up. They rose, peacefully but consequently.
Any other society, any other country, west or east no difference, needs to look at these people and learn how things are done, how you get your will.
Secondly on the levels of diplomacy the credit goes to Willy Brandt and Michail Gorbachev. All others, without any exception were just leeches, trying to skim off the success story.. Kohl, Genscher, Reagan, fuck these assholes. They've done very little..
They've entered the game when the result was already there.
Anyway:

North Korea is so much further behind South Korea than East Germany was behind West Germany

This is something I can answer halfway, but that part with 100% certainty and accuracy.
I am a West-German. Shortly after the fall of the wall, I was sent on some official matter by my employer to East Germany. To the city of Gera.
It was like entering another planet. There is not much more worse anymore than what I've been subjected to.
I was suppose to stay there for a week, and take part in a number of meetings and public festivities, I've left after two days. I've had better living qualities on camping trips with buddies before. The only positives were: I had a bed, and running water.
The quality of the hotel was horrible. And I don't know if NK could possibly get any lower than that.

I am not bashing the people I've met. They were actually very nice and tried their best considering their limited resources.
Should also be mentioned that prior to the unification there was the ongoing joke about Bananas and East Germans.
Since the fruit was something extremely rare in the GDR.

Now anyway, no idea how bad it is in NK.. But if it is a lot worse than what the GDR was, then the people are suffering big time.

[Allybeboba]

Europe isn't "united" because of the EU. Hell, the EU won't even let some European countries join it's esteemed club. Shouldn't every every European countries be allowed to join if there if that is truly why the EU exists.

While I nor my wife bother discussing WWIII, one of the running jokes is that WWIV will be fought with sticks.