World War 3, When Does It Start, Who Wins, How Many 'Empires' Fall?

[PJL]

So Gideon Rachman wrote a forward looking piece on the state of the world in the FT, at the end setting out some scenarios:

Given all the elements involved, there can be no certainties about how the new world order will evolve, only scenarios. So here are five possibilities.

A new great power bargain: Trump's transactional nature, his determination to avoid war and his contempt for democratic allies leads the US to strike a new grand bargain with Russia and China. The US tacitly grants Russia and China spheres of influence in their regions. America concentrates on asserting dominance in its own region — pushing around Mexico and Canada, and seeking to take back the Panama Canal and gain control over Greenland. Trump forces a peace deal on Ukraine without accompanying security guarantees. Sanctions against Russia are relaxed and Putin is welcomed to Thanksgiving dinner at Mar-a-Lago. A possible bargain with China would involve the easing of American tech restrictions and tariffs on Beijing, in return for Chinese purchases of American goods and sweetheart deals in China for US companies such as Tesla. Trump would also signal his lack of interest in fighting to defend Taiwan. US allies in Europe and Asia would be left scrambling to provide for their own defence in a new atmosphere of insecurity.

War by accident: The western allies have a trade war with each other. Political instability spreads in Europe, with the rise of populist forces sympathetic to both Trump and Putin. A ceasefire is agreed in Ukraine — but there is widespread fear in Europe that Russia will resume hostilities at some point. Trump himself repeatedly calls into question America's willingness to defend its allies. China, Russia or North Korea — or some combination of these powers — decide to take advantage of western disarray by launching military action in Asia and Europe. But they miscalculate. Asian and European democracies fight back, and eventually the US gets drawn into the conflict, as happened twice in the 20th century.

Anarchy in a leaderless world: The US, China, Russia and the EU avoid direct conflict. But Trump's America First policies on trade, security and international institutions create a leadership vacuum. Economic growth is depressed across the world by Trump's trade wars. Civil conflicts in countries such as Sudan and Myanmar intensify. The UN is debilitated by big power rivalry and is powerless to intervene. Instead conflicts are fuelled by competing regional powers that are seeking advantage and resources. More countries such as Haiti slide into violent anarchy. Refugee flows to the west increase. Populist parties, contemptuous of liberal democracy, flourish in an atmosphere of social and economic insecurity.

Globalisation without America: The US retreats behind tariff walls and leaves the World Trade Organization. Prices rise in America and goods get more shoddy. The rest of the world responds to American autarky by accelerating economic interdependence. The EU ratifies its new trade deal with Latin America and signs new agreements with India and China. Europe also opens its market to Chinese electric vehicles and green tech, in return for the Chinese setting up factories across the EU and restraining Russian aggression against Europe. The global south's integration with the Chinese economy deepens further and the Brics gain new members and influence. The use of the dollar as the global currency declines.

America First succeeds: Trump's faith in the irresistible nature of American power is vindicated. Investment is driven to the US, increasing America's lead in tech and finance. The Europeans and Japanese sharply increase spending on their own defence and this is enough to deter Russian and Chinese aggression. American tariffs dramatically reduce Chinese growth, sending the Chinese system into crisis. The Iranian regime is finally felled by some combination of military, economic and domestic pressure. Trump's prestige soars at home and abroad. American liberals are cowed into silence and some of Trump's enemies are jailed. The stock market hits a new high.

Scenarios 3 and 5 seem the most plausible to me.

[Sheilbh]

Ferdinand Foch said - according to Churchill - after the Versailles Treaty that it was no peace, but a twenty year armistice.

Yeah that's a very common argument and I think the mainstream view here - I don't agree - but it's very common.

But I suppose I don't see that as a continuation of WW1 but a failure of the post-WW1 order (albeit an order that lasted longer than Russia starting to invade its post-Soviet neighbours), in part I think precisely because of the serious disruptions in that period. Soviet victory in the civil war and invasion of Poland, revolutions in other parts of Central and Eastern Europe, the Great Depression and the rise of the Nazis. It feels to me like saying the Seven Years War and French Revolutionary Wars were a continuation - there's something to it around structural geopolitical forces, but there are also massively significant changes in between (in both cases, I'd argue, eruptions of modernity).

I think there's probably an alternative universe were starchy Prussian reactionaries with a yearning for the Kaiser end up in power and there is some form of conflict - which feels more a continuation of WW1. But I don't think that it is anywhere like WW2.

[Sheilbh]

Scenarios 3 and 5 seem the most plausible to me.

Interesting I think 3 and 4 seem most likely - but I wouldn't rule out 1 or 5 and 2 seems least likely (but that might just be me being an optimist).

[mongers]

Ferdinand Foch said - according to Churchill - after the Versailles Treaty that it was no peace, but a twenty year armistice.

Yeah that's a very common argument and I think the mainstream view here - I don't agree - but it's very common.

But I suppose I don't see that as a continuation of WW1 but a failure of the post-WW1 order (albeit an order that lasted longer than Russia starting to invade its post-Soviet neighbours), in part I think precisely because of the serious disruptions in that period. Soviet victory in the civil war and invasion of Poland, revolutions in other parts of Central and Eastern Europe, the Great Depression and the rise of the Nazis. It feels to me like saying the Seven Years War and French Revolutionary Wars were a continuation - there's something to it around structural geopolitical forces, but there are also massively significant changes in between (in both cases, I'd argue, eruptions of modernity).

I think there's probably an alternative universe were starchy Prussian reactionaries with a yearning for the Kaiser end up in power and there is some form of conflict - which feels more a continuation of WW1. But I don't think that it is anywhere like WW2.

Yes, one's heard that a lot down the years, but isn't 20 years enough to separate them out and so much went on in between, all sorts of outcomes by 1939 could have been possible?

As for the Foch comment, can it not also be construed in other ways, for instance that the treaty wasn't hard enough on the Germans?

So perhaps occupying far more of it, annexing off more boundary territories and cutting it up into pre-1870 states; that could set back the cause of a powerful, threatening united Germany by many decades?

[grumbler]

I don't buy this argument.  The period between the World Wars was a time of constant troubles, what with the Post-WW1 slump, the Great Depression, irredentism, and some strong moves towards autarky.  Post Cold War was not like that.  The main powers were all satisfied powers and the world was relatively peaceful through the 1990s. There's a new wave of irredentism today, but that doesn't spring from the end of the Cold War.  That springs from the particular political needs of specific rulers, and that's a common feature of history.

I disagree with this.  The post WWII powers were not satisfied.  There's a reason it was called a "cold war".  The Soviets wanted to expand communist influence.  Colonial powers wanted to hold on to as much of their colonial possessions as they could (at least at first).  US wanted to combat communist influence.

What happened was the introduction of nuclear weapons which made a third hot war unthinkable.  In order for there to be a WWIII someone, somewhere, would have to think that nuclear war was thinkable after all.  That's a hard thing to guess.

I'm not sure if you didn't carefully read my post, or thought that you were responding to someone else, but nothing here comes close to responding to my argument.  Post-WW2 =/= post Cold War

[Neil]

Scenarios 3 and 5 seem the most plausible to me.

Interesting I think 3 and 4 seem most likely - but I wouldn't rule out 1 or 5 and 2 seems least likely (but that might just be me being an optimist).

Scenario 4 seems pretty challenging, given that a global US withdrawal also means that US capital withdraws from the European banking sector, resulting in serious liquidity problems.  I just can't take any scenario involving de-dollarization seriously. 

[Zanza]

As for the Foch comment, can it not also be construed in other ways, for instance that the treaty wasn't hard enough on the Germans?

So perhaps occupying far more of it, annexing off more boundary territories and cutting it up into pre-1870 states; that could set back the cause of a powerful, threatening united Germany by many decades?

Yes, that's what he meant.

PS: I do not see WW2 as a continuation of WW1, as obviously Germany had agency and deliberately decided to start another war. Same for Italy, Japan and before 1941 the Soviet Union as other aggressors.