Will war break out in Europe?

[vindicated erudite]

I live in the UK and lots of people are talking about the possibility of WW3 due to our prime minister (Rishi Sunak) putting the idea of reintroducing conscription on to the table. Lots of people are scared about this, many people are saying they would refuse to be conscripted.

I would like to discuss with users if they believe a war is likely and if we will see the use of nuclear weapons in this conflict. 

My thoughts are:

I don't think Russia has a chance if it plans to challenge Europe, with or without American support. Even if Ukraine loses this war, Ukrainians will never accept Russian rule in their country, when you multiple this Russo-phobia to the rest of Europe, Russia will collapse on itself if it attempts to subjugate the whole of Europe  as the Russian state is over expanded as it already is. Europe also has a larger potential fight force than Russia, 358.3 million male Europeans (2023) and 68.11 million Russian men (2019). This doesn't account for the percentage of fighting men in each country but it's obvious from this figure alone that Russia is fucked. 

I also believe the collapse of the Russian state is a likely outcome of this era of history, if Russia manages to invade Europe or not. Russia is a corrupt, unequal, racist overextended, low trust, mafia state, this war is an excuse for some time of change in that region. It's best if the West takes away it's nukes and break up this Imperialist state. 

In regards to British conscription, I believe discussing conscription is a stunt designed to bolster support for Ukrainian aid, since British people are selfish as they would rather pay more taxes to allow Ukrainians to fight rather than fight themselves. 

[Raze]

If a war breaks out it’ll quickly become nuclear warfare and kill all life on the planet. 

[vindicated erudite]

1 minute ago, Raze said:

If a war breaks out it’ll quickly become nuclear warfare and kill all life on the planet. 

I highly doubt this. Can you explain your reasoning for this viewpoint?

[vindicated erudite]

0

[BlueOak]

I am in the UK.

There is a much higher level of tension here. At the moment the conscription rhetoric is to prepare people for that possibility, not to engage in it. To propagandize them somewhat to the idea. As i've said many times all countries are shifting right, with more indifference to human life, fascism vs anarcho-capitalism is rising, the left wing is being effectively suppressed or removed, so there is no counterbalance to it. This has been going on for 20 years.

If you look at America's actions through the lens of their influence trying to hold Iran, Russia and China in check, most decisions they make can at least be explained in that manner, whether someone agrees with them or not.

Many countries already embody some of the core themes of fascism or at least are reaching it. This means more border conflicts, and a rising potential of WW3. When you add to that the US influence is pulling back to be more isolationist (and fascist themselves), while BRICS - Russia/China/Iran are pushing their influence outward to test what they can grab

War is already going on in Europe, Russia vs Ukraine. Is war likely further inside Europe, in the next 10 years?  More so than before. Its very hard to put an exact value on something with so many moving pieces, I would doubt anyone saying this with absolute certainty at this stage, that the larger global powers will engage directly. No it won't be nukes as a first step, that is irrational fearmongering, certainly, we could see them though. 

Its a certainty that we are in a period of greater global instability because we are living it. I do expect more conflicts. Do I think Russia could invade Europe successfully on ther own, no. I think they could try though, certainly with Chinese manpower they could. If Trade continues to break down we'll see greater calls for war, it's often linked to trade throughout history, and it's why a war with Iran is being given any attention at all because trade is affected.

Edited January 31 by BlueOak

[Schizophonia]

Who today is stupid enough to give their life for stories like this?

Unless you're full of cocaine or steroids.

Edited January 31 by Schizophonia

[Heaven]

I think the possibility is low but you can never know what the big players are planning..

Everything is interconnected. The Arabic countries conflict with Israel to Russia verses Ukraine and the support from the US.

We definitely live in a very delicate situation but I don’t think after Covid the world wants another crisis for now..

[BlueOak]

2 hours ago, Schizophonia said:

Who today is stupid enough to give their life for stories like this?

Unless you're full of cocaine or steroids.

Conscription isn't voluntary. 
Depending on the country and situation the result of not fighting, will be a certain level of suffering up to and including worse than dying.

In the UK I guess it would be a prison sentence, which I agree is preferable, In other countries that is getting off-light, but with the way things are headed, that might change to be worse here too. Though if there is mass conscription here, of non-volunteers for a very unpopular war, there will be riots, the people here are not as cowed as in other countries, nor directly threatened.

Plus people see the government reducing the professional army, every single year. If the government really wanted a large army, they should not be constantly cutting it.

Edited January 31 by BlueOak

[rnd]

On 27/1/2024 at 11:55 PM, vindicated erudite said:

I live in the UK and lots of people are talking about the possibility of WW3 due to our prime minister (Rishi Sunak) putting the idea of reintroducing conscription on to the table. Lots of people are scared about this, many people are saying they would refuse to be conscripted.

I would like to discuss with users if they believe a war is likely and if we will see the use of nuclear weapons in this conflict. 

My thoughts are:

I don't think Russia has a chance if it plans to challenge Europe, with or without American support. Even if Ukraine loses this war, Ukrainians will never accept Russian rule in their country, when you multiple this Russo-phobia to the rest of Europe, Russia will collapse on itself if it attempts to subjugate the whole of Europe  as the Russian state is over expanded as it already is. Europe also has a larger potential fight force than Russia, 358.3 million male Europeans (2023) and 68.11 million Russian men (2019). This doesn't account for the percentage of fighting men in each country but it's obvious from this figure alone that Russia is fucked. 

I also believe the collapse of the Russian state is a likely outcome of this era of history, if Russia manages to invade Europe or not. Russia is a corrupt, unequal, racist overextended, low trust, mafia state, this war is an excuse for some time of change in that region. It's best if the West takes away it's nukes and break up this Imperialist state. 

In regards to British conscription, I believe discussing conscription is a stunt designed to bolster support for Ukrainian aid, since British people are selfish as they would rather pay more taxes to allow Ukrainians to fight rather than fight themselves. 

You may think anything you so desire. The question is how much of wishfull thinking is it?

For instance:

How much of wishfull thinking have there been generated by US and EU mass-media and politicians for the last 2 years about Russia and Putin? And even about the importance and military, economic might of US and EU themselves.

And how much of it have they gotten right? Perhaps, of all their predictions and claims, it'll amount to 1%. Namely, 99% - horseshit
 

Edited February 1 by rnd

[rnd]

By the way, if you source your information from the Western media, you won't even find out that they - US and EU - themselves has been bypassing their own sanctions against Russia, as well as the oil price cap

And yes --Putin will come to your house tomorrow and eat you alive. If not tomorrow, then after tomorrow.

Edited January 31 by rnd

[bebotalk]

I think it's increasingly likely. 

However, there should be no reason why British people are so cowardly to fight. Past generations did, and Britain was under direct peril of invasion in WW2. It may not be in WW3, if there ever is such a conflict, however it cannot be understated that it would be a major on Britain's doorstep. The younger generations are spoilt asf. 

[Sucuk Ekmek]

16 minutes ago, bebotalk said:

However, there should be no reason why British people are so cowardly to fight. Past generations did, and Britain was under direct peril of invasion in WW2. 

Fight for what? Past gens were brainwashed.

[bebotalk]

On 31/01/2024 at 4:54 PM, Heaven said:

I think the possibility is low but you can never know what the big players are planning..

Everything is interconnected. The Arabic countries conflict with Israel to Russia verses Ukraine and the support from the US.

We definitely live in a very delicate situation but I don’t think after Covid the world wants another crisis for now..

Crises can't always be chosen. Covid wasn't. 

[bebotalk]

On 31/01/2024 at 3:54 PM, BlueOak said:

I am in the UK.

There is a much higher level of tension here. At the moment the conscription rhetoric is to prepare people for that possibility, not to engage in it. To propagandize them somewhat to the idea. As i've said many times all countries are shifting right, with more indifference to human life, fascism vs anarcho-capitalism is rising, the left wing is being effectively suppressed or removed, so there is no counterbalance to it. This has been going on for 20 years.

If you look at America's actions through the lens of their influence trying to hold Iran, Russia and China in check, most decisions they make can at least be explained in that manner, whether someone agrees with them or not.

Many countries already embody some of the core themes of fascism or at least are reaching it. This means more border conflicts, and a rising potential of WW3. When you add to that the US influence is pulling back to be more isolationist (and fascist themselves), while BRICS - Russia/China/Iran are pushing their influence outward to test what they can grab

War is already going on in Europe, Russia vs Ukraine. Is war likely further inside Europe, in the next 10 years?  More so than before. Its very hard to put an exact value on something with so many moving pieces, I would doubt anyone saying this with absolute certainty at this stage, that the larger global powers will engage directly. No it won't be nukes as a first step, that is irrational fearmongering, certainly, we could see them though. 

Its a certainty that we are in a period of greater global instability because we are living it. I do expect more conflicts. Do I think Russia could invade Europe successfully on ther own, no. I think they could try though, certainly with Chinese manpower they could. If Trade continues to break down we'll see greater calls for war, it's often linked to trade throughout history, and it's why a war with Iran is being given any attention at all because trade is affected.

Maybe we've led life too easily. If our forebears in WW1 and WW2 fought, and needed to given national security, why not this or any other generation? 

Despite the post-WW2 order, human nature hasn't changed. 

[BlueOak]

3 hours ago, bebotalk said:

Maybe we've led life too easily. If our forebears in WW1 and WW2 fought, and needed to given national security, why not this or any other generation? 

Despite the post-WW2 order, human nature hasn't changed. 

In the UK? If we were the liberal country we used to be with socialist values, I might agree.

Corporate feudalism doesn't need defending with my sacrifices. If corporations want to go to war in a global power struggle, they can pay for it by providing people with compensation for the risks they are taking. That's what corporations do, pay people, a professional army. Forcing people with little training, for no or little money amounts to slavery and that can and should be challenged in any form.

Edited February 5 by BlueOak

[bebotalk]

28 minutes ago, BlueOak said:

In the UK? If we were the liberal country we used to be with socialist values, I might agree.

Corporate feudalism doesn't need defending with my sacrifices. If corporations want to go to war in a global power struggle, they can pay for it by providing people with compensation for the risks they are taking. That's what corporations do, pay people, a professional army. Forcing people with little training, for no or little money amounts to slavery and that can and should be challenged in any form.

What liberal country? During WW1/WW2, Britain was way less equal. There were also more "corporate interests" as you put it and people were then expected to "know their place". Yet the country was under threat. I don't see why conscription in time of national crisis is somehow less valid. Both world wars were due to geopolitics and  if there is a world war three soon or far into the future then it most likely will be for the same reason. 

Though in WW1, proportionally more upper class people died vis a vis lower class.

[BlueOak]

26 minutes ago, bebotalk said:

What liberal country? During WW1/WW2, Britain was way less equal. There were also more "corporate interests" as you put it and people were then expected to "know their place". Yet the country was under threat. I don't see why conscription in time of national crisis is somehow less valid. Both world wars were due to geopolitics and  if there is a world war three soon or far into the future then it most likely will be for the same reason. 

Though in WW1, proportionally more upper class people died vis a vis lower class.

Way less equal? You are going to need to expand that. @bebotalk

In the 40's there was an extensive middle class that bridged the divides between the super-wealthy and working class. In fact there were several social tiers, not just two. This connected the extremes more both in day-to-day life, and in terms of influence on the political system, it gave us more of a middle ground that closer reflected the country's population. People have been for decades saying or doing things to get rid of the middle class, and all it does is give us a few individuals of immense wealth that are so disconnected from everyone else, that the whole system sucks more for the majority living there. It even manifests in things like assistant managers being a thing of the past, and all their responsibilities being passed down to supervisors who get maybe 25p more an hour.

Now after the war, there was extensive socialist influence going on in England, till the thatcher years killed it. 

The points that affect lives are things like:

Protests are very limited, the suppression is obscene and it's mostly of an overuse of things like terrorism powers. We are living in a police state with the powers they abuse daily for the average person, this creates more of a suppressive negative effect on the population.
The police act as a corporate security force, protecting corporate interests at the expense of everything else. Much more land for example is at the mercy of corporate policy, rather than UK law that everyone abides to and expects. Every single square inch of the UK is filmed or monitored.
Both main political parties represent the same small stratification of people.
Public Transportation to rural areas now sucks, ditto health care, ditto education. (Again the death of the middle class, as that's where many were educated).
Because of this widening social gap, it means affording things becomes more difficult, including your own home, which is all but impossible to afford, but it extends further to other luxuries.
Then you get places like Amazon owning the marketplace where you can sell to, almost as a monopoly so even small businesses are now operating under another's policy, not UK law.
Media, Politicians, Where you can go, What you can do, and how you can operate, are increasingly owned by fewer and fewer people. This limitation is perhaps the biggest problem, it's stagnating and you can see that happening in the culture (formulaic movies), and the inability to address fundamental critical problems like climate change.

Probably the worst for me. People have to work twice as hard for half as much. Jobs 20 years ago asked half as much from you and paid you more relative to expenses. This is because policy is made for a small number of very rich people, none of which I have any loyalty to whatsoever.

So yes the disconnection or revulsion I feel to this artificially suppressed corporate system in no way will make me bleed or die for it. Pay me. That's what corporations do. Pay a good professional army. They did in the past, they didn't ask for sacrifices unless you are going back thousands of years.

*No point arguing the negatives of these decades, let's say I concede whatever you'll say upfront about them.

Edited February 5 by BlueOak

[bebotalk]

10 minutes ago, BlueOak said:

Way less equal? You are going to need to expand that. @bebotalk

In the 40's there was an extensive middle class that bridged the divides between the super-wealthy and working class. In fact there were several social tiers, not just two. This connected the extremes more both in day-to-day life, and in terms of influence on the political system, it gave us more of a middle ground that closer reflected the country's population. People have been for decades saying or doing things to get rid of the middle class, and all it does is give us a few individuals of immense wealth that are so disconnected from everyone else, that the whole system sucks more for the majority living there. It even manifests in things like assistant managers being a thing of the past, and all their responsibilities being passed down to supervisors who get maybe 25p more an hour.

Now after the war, there was extensive socialist influence going on in England, till the thatcher years killed it. 

The points that affect lives are things like:

Protests are very limited, the suppression is obscene and it's mostly of an overuse of things like terrorism powers. We are living in a police state with the powers they abuse daily for the average person, this creates more of a suppressive negative effect on the population.
The police act as a corporate security force, protecting corporate interests at the expense of everything else. Much more land for example is at the mercy of corporate policy, rather than UK law that everyone abides to and expects. Every single square inch of the UK is filmed or monitored.
Both main political parties represent the same small stratification of people.
Public Transportation to rural areas now sucks, ditto health care, ditto education. (Again the death of the middle class, as that's where many were educated).
Because of this widening social gap, it means affording things becomes more difficult, including your own home, which is all but impossible to afford, but it extends further to other luxuries.
Then you get places like Amazon owning the marketplace where you can sell to, almost as a monopoly so even small businesses are now operating under another's policy, not UK law.
Media, Politicians, Where you can go, What you can do, and how you can operate, are increasingly owned by fewer and fewer people. This limitation is perhaps the biggest problem, it's stagnating and you can see that happening in the culture (formulaic movies), and the inability to address fundamental critical problems like climate change.

Probably the worst for me. People have to work twice as hard for half as much. Jobs 20 years ago asked half as much from you and paid you more relative to expenses. This is because policy is made for a small number of very rich people, none of which I have any loyalty to whatsoever.

So yes the disconnection or revulsion I feel to this artificially suppressed corporate system in no way will make me bleed or die for it. Pay me. That's what corporations do. Pay a good professional army. They did in the past, they didn't ask for sacrifices unless you are going back thousands of years.

*No point arguing the negatives of these decades, let's say I concede whatever you'll say upfront about them.

You're citing anachronisms and fallacies. In most Western countries, corporate power was heightened, especially with fewer competition rules and overall regulation. It's no use discussing this, since you're arguing things from your own brain and not reality. You;re saying that British society wasn't more deferential in the first half of the 20th century, and there wasn't more open class discrimination at play....lol. 

 

 

[BlueOak]

54 minutes ago, bebotalk said:

You're citing anachronisms and fallacies. In most Western countries, corporate power was heightened, especially with fewer competition rules and overall regulation. It's no use discussing this, since you're arguing things from your own brain and not reality. You;re saying that British society wasn't more deferential in the first half of the 20th century, and there wasn't more open class discrimination at play....lol. 

 

 

The 60's were probably the most rebellious era ever recorded in recent centuries. I have experienced reality over 40 years of life yes, and these conclusions I have formed from it, I was born to those who were born in the 40's and became adults in the 60's. I lived with people who fought in WW2 and got their experience firsthand. This is lived experience.

There is less of a middle class. There is more economic pressure. Protest is subdued or non-existent. More do work harder for less, i've gone for the exact same jobs 20 years later and had that experience. Homes are more expensive. Assistant managers are becoming a thing of the past. The rich - poor divide has been exaggerated by the death of the middle class. I've repeatedly seen people calling for the removal of the middle class for 'equality', ill thinking through what that means.  Corporations do own more of where we can exist and how we can live. There is more suppression and more hatred of authority generated as a result in the youth. There is a decline in the quality of life. Everything I've said I have experienced. I get that you didn't and that's fine.

But as usual bebo there is no point us replying to each other, as you dismiss what you don't like rather than discuss it, source it or point to it. So what do I say. - A reflection? Its all in your mind too, everything you say is false from a different perspective, and your experience of life is meaningless. If that's all you've got, why reply if you are not going to bother trying to see the world through different eyes for your benefit, or even bother to expand why you think what you do for mine?

I don't need you to understand what I say, that's mine already, I do need at least token effort for you to describe your perspective for this to be worth it. Else it's a waste of time. Here i'll do one better.

No U.

Edited February 5 by BlueOak

[BlueOak]

Though I would like to know where you think you get your information from if not your mind? Cereal boxes?