…by the mid-summer of 1914 more than a decade of belligerent erraticism by German leaders, who lacked the diplomatic skill and self-restraint of Chancellor Otto von Bismarck, contributed to the feeling among Germany’s neighbours that there were bounds which she should not be permitted to cross. Hence, a regional Balkan conflict involving Germany’s ally Austria-Hungary and a Serbia supported by her Russian patron rapidly escalated first into a continental and then a general world war. - Michael Burleigh, The Third Reich: A New History
Does this sound familiar? Change some names of countries, and it should. The conflict between Georgia and Russia, now a regional conflict, could easily escalate into a European, and then a world conflict. We’ve been here before. At no other time since the end of World War II has the world been so close to another world war. We should not kid ourselves that we are not living through dangerous times. With the Russian invasion of Georgia, the world became a far more dangerous place. Alas, there is war in the air!
Dmitry Medvedev, the president of Russia, has already stated, loud and clear, that he is not frightened by the thought of another cold war. I think we can assume, also, that he would not be frightened by the thought of a little more than that: World conflict, perhaps? Make no mistake about it: Russia is very rich in natural resources, especially oil and gas; and it wants to re-establish its pre-eminent place in the world of geopolitics. The downfall of the Soviet Union was a humiliation for Russia. It weakened the country, the proud people of Russia beyond anything we could have inagined. There is no doubt about the fact that Russia has felt marginalized ever since; and Medvedev and Putin are out to correct that. Their intention is clear to see: They want to make Russia a force to be reckoned with – again.
It is therefore very important that Western politicians find the right and appropriate response to their actions. A reaction that is too weak, and we lose; a reaction that is too strong, and the world could yet again become a very ugly place.
It is hard for us all to imagine a world war. Things have been very comfortable for Westerners ever since the 50s. Most people living today are far too young to know anything of the privations of a world conflict. It is quite unimaginable to most people. But this does not mean to say that another world war will not happen.
We have all heard it said, ‘never again shall we be dragged into a world war’. ‘Not in our lifetime.’ But that phrase is only meaningful if each side feels the same about a world conflict. It is so obviously not the case. The Russians are clearly not as timid as Westerners when it comes to military action. Their position in the world seems to be far more important to them than the pursuit of world peace.
It seems that not enough has been done since the fall of communism to bring Russia on side. America and Russia should be partners in world politics, not adversaries. Were these two great countries to be partners, we would not be where we are now.
Alas, the conflict in Georgia has happened at a time when the West is very weak. The US, after many years of conflict in the Middle East, can hardly afford another war. It’s on its uppers as things stand. Imagine what another costly war would do for the economy. Especially a world war.
Moreover, it’s election year; and there is more than a chance that the Americans will elect a president to the White House who has little experience of foreign affairs. Obama therefore hardly inspires confidence at a time when Russia is sabre-rattling. Would Obama really be strong enough to cope with a major conflict with Russia?
From what I can see of the Democratic National Convention in Denver, it has been pure, unadulterated schmalz. Touchy-feely to the limit! Check out the schmalz here and here. What the Russian leaders must be thinking when they see such naïve displays of devotion to an untested politician, one can only imagine!
These are tough times; and tough times call for strong leadership, especially from the United States – the leader of the free world. How would Obama react if the world went to war? What experience could he bring to the table?
One has to ask oneself one simple question: Does the American electorate have any idea of the dangers that lie ahead of us? Are all these people ready to elect Obama because he has charisma, because they may perceive him to be good-looking? Don’t they want more from their leader than that? Doesn’t the free world need more than that?
The problems we face from Islam, too, are formidable. And they haven’t gone away. Indeed, the problems we now face with Russia have compounded the problems we face with Islam, since Russia has strong connexions with both Syria and Iran, and those connexions are getting stronger.
There has been much talk for a very long time of the possibility of bombing Iran if it doesn’t abandon its nuclear programme, which they say is peaceful, but which the West insists is not. Bombing Iran and destroying its nuclear installations just got a whole lot more difficult for the Americans to do. Indeed, it could be said that that ship has already left the harbour, for Russia is almost bound to come to the aid of Iran if it is attacked, if only covertly through Syria,
And if Israel were to attack Iran? What would be the outcome? Your guess is as good as mine, but such an action would almost certainly be a huge danger to world peace, stability and security.
We can see the fault lines being drawn with each passing day. We really cannot afford to sleepwalk into a world conflict. Only today, Miliband has urged tough action against Russia in response to its aggression against Georgia. But where is the capability going to come from? Europe is weak militarily. There has been gross undespending on the Europeans’ militaries for decades now. If Europe is to talk tough with the Russians, then it has to have the military might to back up its tough talk. It clearly doesn’t have strong militaries. The UK doesn’t either; the armed forces in the UK have been underfunded for years. Indeed, it is high time that European governments started spending far more of its money on its militaries. And while they are at it, it might not be a bad thing if they were to re-introduce national conscription. (I can’t believe I wrote that!) It would do a whole lot of good to the rudderless youth we see about the streets. It would also do a great deal to teach our young people some self-respect and discipline. It would also help give them a purpose in life.
With Russia on the move, and determined to reassert its authority, European governments might have little choice but to re-introduce conscription. The soft times, it seems, might well be over. Ahead of us, we have some tough choices to make. Let’s hope that the Americans make a good start in the upcoming election; and show the rest of the West the way forward by making some tough choices, too.
©Mark Alexander
10 comments:
I don't hear anyone speaking about the danger and larger meaning of what's going on right now in the Balkans. Of course, in the run-up days to WWI, a lot people in the West just didn't see the conflagration coming.
I note that foreign-policy issues were barely mentioned at the week's DNC in Denver.
Hello Always. It's good that you stopped by.
Yes, I agree with you: There seems to be little talk about the meaning of what's going on. Though I have seen some comments around, they don't seem to be coming from the direction of the DNC. Obama, as usual, is too busy wooing his fans; and in any case, he steers well clear of foreign policy issues. I wonder how he would perform if push came to shove? And push might well come to shove in the coming months, or year or so.
There's tough talk by Miliband; but how is he going to back it all up? Europe is weak militarily, and Russia knows that.
Many Europeans understand that the alternative to Ossetia gaining independence would be its eventual emergence into an EU Superstate that mimics day by day the Orwellian nightmare those same Eastern Europeans had just managed to break free from.
The west no longer has the moral upperhand of standing for freedom that it used to.
We ourselves want independance from the EU and so there in lies the crux of the matter, previous wars depended on patriotic nations.
Growing police state
Political Correctness
Islamification
Corporatism
Multi-Cultural
Our governments have become everything we have fought against who will co-operate with the draft.
Arm our nations now and you will more likely see civil wars not world wars
DizzyFatPlonka, welcome!
Arm our nations now and you will more likely see civil wars not world wars
Who wants to see another world war? Certainly not I!
Are you therefore arguing that our nations be left unarmed in the face of a potential aggressor? I am sorry, but I cannot understand the logic of your argument. Perhaps you could explain further.
I am not the anti-European that you appear to be; though I do sympathize with much of what you have stated.
What concerns me about Europe is that it is growing far too large, that it is unresponsive to the will of the people, that it is undemocratic, and much else besides. But most of all, I am deeply troubled by the possibility of Turkey being allowed in. That will be a major contributing factor in the Islamization of the European continent. Eurabia here we come! I am also deeply troubled by the mass immigration into Europe in particular, and the West in general. It is changing the nature of our societies. Our politicians, however, seem not to care.
I often ask myself whether those European expansionists understand that all these states that are allowed into Europe will one day have to be defended. And without a strong military capability, how on earth are we going to be able to do that? Furthermore, would the Europeans really have the appetite for that?
Regarding a civil war, it would appear to me that sooner or later, when Islam starts getting stronger and stronger and people's freedoms will have been eroded, civil war will result anyway. Is it, perhaps, only a matter of time?
"I am sorry, but I cannot understand the logic of your argument. Perhaps you could explain further."
No problem!
The miss understanding seems to stem from the ussumption that im putting forwards an argument, im just putting forwards a view as to how circumstances have changed.
"I am not the anti-European that you appear to be;"
The EU is not Europe the EU is a dictatorship seeking the powers of the old Soviet Union so anti-EU is not anti-European.
"I often ask myself whether those European expansionists understand that all these states that are allowed into Europe"
May I offer constructive criticism on your use of words you see Europe is a continent and all the Countries of Europe are and always have been in Europe.
We are not States and nobody needs to allow us into Europe
it is the EU popagandists who have attemted to subvert people into beleiving the EU is Europe.
"Are you therefore arguing that our nations be left unarmed in the face of a potential aggressor?"
No I am just considering that our own treasonous politicians are the potential aggressors we should be concerned about.
"I do sympathize with much of what you have stated."
Indeed and so why would I argue ;)
Mark, Congratulations on hitting the bullseye again! Indeed, an excellent post. It seems as if you are always far ahead of others in identifying the most important factors affecting our society. Keep up the good work.
DizzyFatPlonka:
The EU is not Europe the EU is a dictatorship seeking the powers of the old Soviet Union so anti-EU is not anti-European.
Yes, I agree: The EU is rather dictatorial. Too many diktats flowing from Brussels. And they come from unelected bureaucrats for the most part, it seems.
May I offer constructive criticism on your use of words you see Europe is a continent and all the Countries of Europe are and always have been in Europe.
We are not States and nobody needs to allow us into Europe
it is the EU popagandists who have attemted to subvert people into beleiving the EU is Europe.
You may offer "constructive criticism". By all means. But I have to assure you that I understand full well the difference between the continent of Europe and the EU.
By the way, what have I said about "allowing us into Europe"? I do, however, remember talking about "allowing Turkey into Europe". By Europe, here, it is pretty clear that I am talking about the EU. And while on the subject of the European continent, Turkey is not, and never has been, part of Europe geographically. Except for the small part of Anatolia.
We Europeans - and I count myself as one - often refer to Europe and the EU rather loosely. I think it might be true to say that only the Eurosceptics, of whom I believe you are one, make these hairsplitting differences. [Forgive me, please! :-)]
No I am just considering that our own treasonous politicians are the potential aggressors we should be concerned about.
Yes, and I do agree with you here. Many of them do appear rather treasonous; and if ot treasonous, then certainly spineless.
Cyberpatriot:
Welcome, and thank you for your kind words.
Dizzy:
I was just going to reply to your post, but then I discovered that you had removed the post. I can't imagine why. It was a good post.
Post a Comment