2022 is looking like it might be a year where major conflicts break out across the the globe.
Russia has massed more then 100,000 troops on the border of Ukraine, and has support from Belarusian troops on Ukraine’s northern border. Will Russia invade again, and this time take way more territory then just Crimea and the Donbass? Will NATO get involved to back Ukraine if they do?
China has made it their policy to “reunite” with Taiwan. Many say an invasion could be launched in the weeks following the Winter Olympics. This would be a major conflict as the US and Japan have promised to support Taiwan if they do. China and India have also been massing troops on their shared border, and renewed conflict could break out at any time.
It is also looking more likely then ever that Israel will finally attack Iran to destroy its nuclear program, after talks between the US and Iran have broken down recently. An attack on Iran will certainly provoke a response across the Middle East, from direct Iranian retaliation, to using their proxies in Gaza, Lebanon, and Syria.
There is also a chance Azerbaijan and Armenian could return to conflict, after fighting a month long war in 2020. They have recently been fighting daily skirmishes along the new border.
I really hope none of these conflicts happen, but even if one of these scenarios becomes reality, there will be huge global repercussions.
I think we're closer to war than we have been in a long time, but I still don't think it's likely. All of these warring countries are so hard baked into globalism and economic entanglement it would be a catastrophic experiment in self-harm.
The Following User Says Thank You to Ozy_Flame For This Useful Post:
While I agree that tensions are certainly higher then they've been at any other times in this century, and there are several tinder box issues such as the current energy crisis in Europe, collapsing economies around the world. I think for the most part we're talking about regional saber ratting more then actual steps to war.
If we look at the key factors of military strength, and the desire to fight actual wars I think its low. Russia while it has jumped forward in modern submarine technology and tanks and airplanes, they're still struggling with the professionalization of the Military. So I wanted to take a look at three tinder boxes above and maybe discuss them.
Quote:
Russia has massed more then 100,000 troops on the border of Ukraine, and has support from Belarusian troops on Ukraine’s northern border. Will Russia invade again, and this time take way more territory then just Crimea and the Donbass? Will NATO get involved to back Ukraine if they do?
How hard will the World fight for the Ukraine. The Russians have the massive advantage of distant. its easier for them to re-enforce and move key supplies, its a simple matter of geograpy. Ukraine allies and especially the American's are at the far end of a relatively fragile logistics chain. While the Russians have many of their better units ready to go. Their more advance tanks and artillery and even aircraft. I believe that they would be at a technological disadvantage to Wetern Militaries. So it would come down to the use of Western Airpower more then troops on the ground. The Western powers would try to take the air and draw blood and the Russians know that. However the Russian navy has really worked to improve themselves. They've jumped their subs forward several generations. The Key to the Russians winning would be to close off the Atlantic, something that they would be capable of for a short period of time. In terms of sheer numbers the Russians are still a shell of what they were at the height of the Cold war. But I doubt that the West would seriously put a lot of troops on the ground in the Ukraine, also I doubt that the Russians would expand any kind of invasion, we won't see Russian T-99's rumbling through the Fulda Gap.
Quote:
China has made it their policy to “reunite” with Taiwan. Many say an invasion could be launched in the weeks following the Winter Olympics. This would be a major conflict as the US and Japan have promised to support Taiwan if they do. China and India have also been massing troops on their shared border, and renewed conflict could break out at any time.
Again I can't see this happening, the reaction of the World would shatter China's economy. Basically the Chinese on paper have two aircraft carriers, the Lianing is more of a test bed carrier and not really a combat capable carrier. However the Shandong is a fairly advanced character but still badly outclassed by an American carrier. The PLAN is working on upgrading its submarine force and have several new generation subs in the planning or building phase. For the most part their current boats are second generation boats which are relatively noisy and slow. If the American's get involved, and its not to be arrogant, there's a good chance that the PLAN ceases to exist, they don't have the next gen technology or experience in Carrier operations and submarine operations that the Americans have. On top of that the Chinese don't have the amphibious capability to effectively invade Taiwan. They'd need to bombard the island and cause massive civilian casualties and the Chinese won't do that. Now, I do believe that China is becoming aggressive but they're resource hungry so the Spratley Islands would be a more logical target and I don't know if that would be a flashpoint for a larger war. Also China's economy is heavily dependent on exports and any kind of aggressive war action would be economically devastating if every country in the world boycotts their goods. However that could shift with the theoretical greening and electrification of cars for example as China has a huge stock of rare earth metals.
Quote:
It is also looking more likely then ever that Israel will finally attack Iran to destroy its nuclear program, after talks between the US and Iran have broken down recently. An attack on Iran will certainly provoke a response across the Middle East, from direct Iranian retaliation, to using their proxies in Gaza, Lebanon, and Syria.
I can't see this expanding beyond the usual airstrike, scrimmage, terrorist attack or also known as business as usual. I doubt too many Middle Eastern Nations would actually go to war for Iran and most would relish its destruction if war ever happened. I think most nations would be extremely hesitant in taking on Israel in a military versus military war. Israel is still an extremely advanced military and extremely well trained. Israel would literally own the air in any war and if you back that up with the theoretical Israeli nuclar arsenal Only a fricken maniac would go to open war, considering that the American's would quickly come to Israel's defense. So lets say that Israel does effectively bomb the Iranian nuclear program out of existence we're more then likely going to see a shadow war where Iran attacks through its proxies, and Isreal retaliates through its intelligence services. So business as usual. Now logically if you war game this out, the Russians could come to the rescue for Iran. They could give Iran more advanced aircraft and armor and even add advisors while the Russian Navy harasses and cause problems. But no I don't see a real war happening there.
__________________
My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings;
Look on my Works, ye Mighty, and despair!
The Following 13 Users Say Thank You to CaptainCrunch For This Useful Post:
Russia['s]... still struggling with the professionalization of the Military.
Is that so? Compared to whom? Take a look at The Canadian military right now. Take a look at the US military even. The US Army and National Guard are having problems on their US/Mexico border deployment. The USS Arleigh Burke just entered the Black Sea covered in rust. The USS Zumwalt just returned to San Diego with its hull covered in rust. These are just three examples, I know, but they are indicative of a military that has issues.
What's your take on the professionalism of Ukraine's forces?
Quote:
Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch
I believe [Russia] would be at a technological disadvantage to Wetern Militaries.
Western analysts continually over-estimate their own capabilities while, simultaneously, under-estimating their adversaries. Russia enjoys superiority in artillery and air defence. The point the so-called experts in the West fail to understand is that Russia does not need to invade Ukraine in order to light up the Ukrainian army. All they have to do is attack Ukrainian units with stand-off munitions fired from Russia proper.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch
So it would come down to the use of Western Airpower more then troops on the ground. The Western powers would try to take the air and draw blood and the Russians know that. However the Russian navy has really worked to improve themselves. They've jumped their subs forward several generations. The Key to the Russians winning would be to close off the Atlantic, something that they would be capable of for a short period of time. In terms of sheer numbers the Russians are still a shell of what they were at the height of the Cold war.
All of this is irrelevant. It's irrelevant because if Russia decided to invade Ukraine, they'd be in Kiev in a matter of days. Alleged NATO air superiority wouldn't stop that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch
Israel is still an extremely advanced military and extremely well trained.
Their air force is. Their army? Not so much. The IDF's experience recently is with beating up elderly Palestinians and shooting Palestinian teenagers. Hezbollah has considerable experience in Syria, fighting in some grizzly urban engagements. So, Hezbollah is the pre-eminent light infantry in the middle east right now, not the IDF. There are also a few Syrian units that aren't too far behind Hezbollah in terms of ability and experience. Israel's saving grace is that the Syrians are too busy fighting Al-Queda loons and other Jihadi maniacs in Idlib to be too concerned about Israel.
If Israel attacks Iran, Iran will retaliate against US forces in the Gulf and they will retaliate against Saudi oil infrastructure. This is why Biden told Israel to put the brakes on any idea of attacking Iran. Will Israel listen?
__________________
"If you do not know what you are doing, neither does your enemy."
- - Joe Tzu
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Baron von Kriterium For This Useful Post:
2022 is looking like it might be a year where major conflicts break out across the the globe.
Russia has massed more then 100,000 troops on the border of Ukraine, and has support from Belarusian troops on Ukraine’s northern border. Will Russia invade again, and this time take way more territory then just Crimea and the Donbass? Will NATO get involved to back Ukraine if they do?
China has made it their policy to “reunite” with Taiwan. Many say an invasion could be launched in the weeks following the Winter Olympics. This would be a major conflict as the US and Japan have promised to support Taiwan if they do. China and India have also been massing troops on their shared border, and renewed conflict could break out at any time.
It is also looking more likely then ever that Israel will finally attack Iran to destroy its nuclear program, after talks between the US and Iran have broken down recently. An attack on Iran will certainly provoke a response across the Middle East, from direct Iranian retaliation, to using their proxies in Gaza, Lebanon, and Syria.
There is also a chance Azerbaijan and Armenian could return to conflict, after fighting a month long war in 2020. They have recently been fighting daily skirmishes along the new border.
I really hope none of these conflicts happen, but even if one of these scenarios becomes reality, there will be huge global repercussions.
Keep your eye on Bosnia as well. Things are very fragile there right now.
Bosnian Serbs are being led by Serbia's president Vucic to pull out of the Bosnian Army to form their own, and will be boycotting paying taxes and supporting other federal institutions. Basically declaring separation with with out calling it that. Germany has threatened sanctions, Russia and China and pledged to support Serbia. The most recent hoopla was triggered when Bosnia passed a law to criminalize genocide denial which was supported by the Bosniak-Croat Federation but offended the the Serbian leader, Milorad Dodik. And of course, Putin has had his fingers in it.
Massive protests in Kazakhstan tonight. Might we see a Euromaidan type situation here like we did in Ukraine back in 2013-2014?
These protests are in response to the lifting of price caps on liquefied petroleum gas. Nothing to do with the encroachment of Russia, China, or any other country.
Please don't fear-monger on this type of thing and get context. Do not conflate these protests with symptoms of a pending world war.
The Following User Says Thank You to Ozy_Flame For This Useful Post:
I get daily emails from the Ukrainian Canadian congress with updates from Ukraine. (Not "The Ukraine")
A couple of paragraphs of interest here, and of course all on the political/diplomatic front which likely has little meaning:
The White House stated on January 2, “President Joseph R. Biden, Jr. spoke today with President Volodymyr Zelenskyy of Ukraine. President Biden made clear that the United States and its allies and partners will respond decisively if Russia further invades Ukraine. The leaders expressed support for diplomatic efforts, starting next week with the bilateral Strategic Stability Dialogue, at NATO through the NATO-Russia Council, and at the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe. President Biden underscored the commitment of the United States and its allies and partners to the principle of ‘nothing about you without you.’ He reaffirmed the United States’ commitment to Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity.
Former NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen wrote for Politico, “When I met Russian President Vladimir Putin for the first time as NATO secretary-general, he opened our meeting by telling me he wanted to disband NATO.
If NATO allies engage with Russia’s most recent proposals for a new security relationship in Europe, they will be directly helping him move a step closer to achieving his goal, giving Russia the whip hand over the security of Central and Eastern Europe.
Under the new Russian proposals, NATO would have to seek consent from Moscow to deploy troops in Central and Eastern Europe, refrain from ‘any military activity’ across Eastern Europe, the southern Caucuses and Central Asia, and halt any NATO drills near Russia. The agreement also demands a written guarantee that Ukraine will not be offered NATO membership, and a draft treaty with the United States would ban it from sending warships and aircrafts to “areas where they can strike targets on the territory of the other party,” like the Baltics and the Black Sea.
This is not a serious proposal from a man who wants peace. […]
Putin is skilled at creating crises only to later extinguish them, like a firefighter trying to douse his own arson attack, and by threatening to invade Ukraine, he has calculated that the U.S. and other Western powers might negotiate directly with the Kremlin — potentially over their Eastern European and Baltic allies — offering concessions and allowing him to maintain influence over former Soviet countries in exchange for peace.
Putin plays a bad hand well — but his tactics will only work if we fold. And it’s time for NATO to call Putin’s bluff.
Under no circumstances should the U.S. or NATO give commitments on future enlargement, real or de facto. Russia has already signed up to the 1999 OSCE Charter, which grants ‘the inherent right of each and every participating State to be free to choose or change its security arrangements, including treaties of alliance, as they evolve.’
This also means we should end Putin’s de facto veto on Ukraine and Georgia’s Euro-Atlantic aspirations, achieved by fomenting low-level conflicts in these countries, the intensity of which he turns up and down to suit his agenda.
The biggest issue with Taiwan is that the Chinese government and a lot of its population are perfectly happy to get into a fight with Japan. And attempting to re-take Taiwan is an excellent way to provoke that fight, if the Americans and Japanese get involved in pushing back. I do not believe that the USA would be interested in supporting Taiwan without Japan as a partner. So from the Chinese perspective it may be that there's no downside - either a move on Taiwan gets them Taiwan, or it gets them increased momentum towards a conflict with Japan that they want to have anyway.
__________________ "The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
The biggest issue with Taiwan is that the Chinese government and a lot of its population are perfectly happy to get into a fight with Japan. And attempting to re-take Taiwan is an excellent way to provoke that fight, if the Americans and Japanese get involved in pushing back. I do not believe that the USA would be interested in supporting Taiwan without Japan as a partner. So from the Chinese perspective it may be that there's no downside - either a move on Taiwan gets them Taiwan, or it gets them increased momentum towards a conflict with Japan that they want to have anyway.
Why do they want to get into a war with Japan?
Doesn't the US and Japan have a defense agreement?
2022: The year the world returns to war?
