How bad can it get for Europe…let’s drill down

13 comments

1. The worst it could get?

   (And this scenario is the most extreme of extremes)

   A total withdrawal of the US from NATO and an a subsequent power vacuum.

   This reignites the 1100 Franco German rivalry, with the UK already positioned to play their traditional role as the counter balance.

   Whether this would play out within the framework of the EU, outside it, or some hybrid of the two is a question.

   Germany would rush to the bomb, and the two daughters would become the two daughters again.

2. I’m sitting in Sweden, and with the exact same nagging thoughts as you. I appreciate the post and really need to hear people’s thoughts about all this.

3. In my opinion, no war will break out in europe in the future between russia and europe.First because russia has conquered only portions of ukrainian territory (20%) after three years. Secondly russia and europe would benefit enormously from trading together. The russian elites want money not territory (as do the european elites). Third, in the event of a russian invasion, how do they plan to control the territory? Russia has the population of Italy and Germany..europe has 600 million inhabitants against 140 million russians. 

4. Worst case for Europe is a small Russian action without a unified response from America or Western Europe.

   Perhaps Russia looks to close the Sulwaki gap, and America refuses to intervene militarily. A lack of American response leads the less militarily reliable western European nations to choose not to respond either. Without a unified response, NATO is hopeless to effectively counter Russia. In light of the hopelessness of NATO it ceases existence.

   Lacking a unified military direction, Russia would be able to take bits and pieces as it pleases. Probably no continent wide war, but a quick collapse of European unity and western power.

5. IMO, Russia will keep expanding until they are decisively defeated militarily.  

   Based on recent history, countries far from the front lines will not invest in defense of their neighbors and for those closest to the frontlines the investment will be too little and too late to stop the Russians.  Some countries, like Belarus, will be independent but function as vassal states.  

   It will start slow, but as Russia grows, so will its war machine. 

6. Deep State Radio’s nuclear analysts came out with a video discussing Trump’s nuclear plans and I’d suggest you watch that and prepare a bottle stronger than wine. Trump wants to drastically increase the number of warheads, MIRV our ICBM warheads again, pull out of the Test Ban Treaty and start atmospheric testing again, place tactical nuclear cruise missiles on destroyers and non-nuclear attack submarines. They also have implied the abandonment of NATO enough that it materially becoming true is sort besides the point now anyway. He’s not the kind of person to fulfill treaty obligations, it’s wholly unclear if Trump would actually come to the defense of, say, Estonia. I frankly think the idea that the US would allow Poland to use nuclear weapons on advancing Russian formations was a bit beyond my belief before this election, but I don’t think *anyone* expects Trump to actually come to the military defense of any other country. Nuclear proliferation will be intense and has almost certainly already begun the process.

7. As an American, I can say that the times seem dark, and the Trump years will be perilous, but the American populous still overwhelmingly supports Ukraine and would not abandon NATO. Exit polling showed that Trump was elected because of the economy, immigration, and social issues. Most Americans did not elect Trump because he is an isolationist.

   The ball is in Europe’s court right now. If Western Europe continues to ignore its military responsibilities, and maintains its tepid support for Ukraine, it is giving Trump the ammunition to say “we shouldn’t help people who aren’t helping themselves”.

8. To be honest, the worst-case scenario is Ukraine completely destroying Russia (not that that is really on the table). As long as Russia is an existential threat, Europe can remain unified and not look onwards to other threats like inwards. Also Russia can’t really keep up the war with Ukraine at this point let alone NATO even w/o the US. A war with China would be regional. Same with the ME. I’m not really sure it’s as doomsday as people think it is. Ukraine paid in blood so (the rest of) Europe/America didn’t have to.

   Edit: no I’m not pro russian it’s just logical. An existential threat covers up internal issues. Soon as it’s gone then you can look inward see the US currently lack of external threat leads to domestic turmoil.

9. There is so much nonsense being said here, from Russia taking over Europe to Franco-German rivalry. No simply the two biggest dangers are in order is, first more Nukes. I cannot stress how volatile nukes are, not only are they insanely devastating if used, they are also insanely stress inducing if you have them. Somehow due to American security guarantees we managed to avoid a world where every developing country has it’s own arsenal, without it, we may soon see a world where countries like Turkey, Egypt have one. Countries that are not so stable as the US is. Absolute nightmare scenario if during a crisis a few warheads go missing.

   Second a resurgent Europe. Europe will rearm itself, but when we talk about Europe everybody seems to forget that historically the last 50 years of declawed, shell shocked Europe wasn’t the norm. What the world will look like when Europe has a capability to enforce it’s will outside of it’s boundaries once again is anyone’s guess. There are already far right voices within Europe that to stop the immigration Europe should take control of Northern Africa, imagine if such an operation is actually within the capability of the continent, also if Russia was nervous before with American troops getting closer to Moscow, imagine what their mood will be having an entire hostile continent.

   I don’t see a chance of a major war in Europe, as even in such a sorry state as Europe at the moment is in, it’s still pretty evenly matched with Russia, but other areas of the world like South America, Middle-East might not be so lucky. If the US carries through with it’s plan and shuts it’s door on the world, a lot of the players would scramble to establish a dominant position in regions that lack one. At this point a middle eastern conflict involving everyone is all but inevitable in my opinion, right now peace only kept because China and the US jointly maintain security guarantees, but if hostilities between the two superpowers escalate and cooperation halts completely, this could be the main battleground via proxies.

10. A lot of pessimism in these comments, not sure if anyone here could be cool headed enough to give an objective answer.

11. The conflict in the ME will intensify as Trump supports Bebe’s annexation. This will erupt into regional conflict.

    Trump plans to take back Ukrainian weapons to help Putin. Trump is aligned with the oligarchs. Russia will slowly take over Ukraine in the year or so with additional help from NK. Russian will start attempting to expand its territory into NATO territory, maybe the baltics, in about 2 years. NATO with the exception of US will fight back. Russia will try to get help and Iran and proxies will join the fight against NATO in Europe. It will take a new POTUS for US to join the fight with NATO.

12. Europe’s main geopolitical threat is severely weakened, the huge majority of it is still democratic, economies are doing well. The whole “axis of autocracy” threat is negligible (as always, authoritarians are too stupid to think more than a year ahead) and we have a more predictable Trump in office, who has shown 2016-2020 that despite his bluster his idiocy is largely confined to domestic/social issues.

    Things aren’t great, especially given the situation in Ukraine, but it has definitely been worse.

13. The answer realistically depends on how you view the actors within the global dynamic and that’s a very hard profile per nation to determine and requires a very educated background on objective truths like actions those states have made vs stating a more simply opinionated view on a certain actor like “Putin is crazy and would nuke any adversary”.
    At the end of the day when we talk about and debate these things nothing we say is definitive and there is the whole chance that improbable things may happen, so we (or more accurately governments) have to gamble and bank on what we (they) think is most probable but have contingencies for the worse case scenario.

    As for the case that no nuclear power uses any of its nukes (which personally I think is the current and active truth) well we have us-China tensions, Iran-us tensions, Russia-west tensions plus the many more that litter our planet and current geopolitical climate.
    Baring in mind with what I’m going to say my opinion is just that, an opinion, and things may sway differently but I believe my opinion is considerably well informed.

    As for how bad it can get? Not that bad, realistically.
    If we bank on worst case scenarios well sh*#t the worlds gonna end tomorrow, but doing so disregards any states instinct of self preservation and hence doesn’t give an accurate prediction of the outcome of any conflict.

    If we talk about Russia and Ukraine, regardless of whoever “wins” Russia won’t ever establish its pre war objectives because those objectives were based on false intel and the fighting likely wouldn’t stop even if Russia occupied all of Ukraine. Frankly the idea that Russia would wage a full scale war against Europe/NATO after “reorganising its military” all within the timescale of less than 10 years is to me absurd.
    Reorganising it’s military in less than 10 years when 1. Doing such a task is already immensely difficult and time consuming 2. It’d be doing so whilst in the depths of anti insurgency efforts in a “post war” Ukraine 3. It would also be restructuring and rebuilding its entire economy (granted it doesn’t collapse) and that 4. it would be fighting an adversary better funded and with arguably better doctrine than it sounds more than improbable and frankly ridiculous.

    China and the us? Chinese exports to western countries literally keep the country afloat and any wars it would instigate would void that market and cause the country to be in a less than ideal situation all for what? “One China”?
    So that too seems unlikely to happen.

    Iran and the Middle East is a Little different, sure if even just tensions were to increase to a less manageable level things could get globally difficult considering Iran has reasonable control over a narrow passage through which a majority of global oil exports travel through, causing fundamental pressure on a resource society as a whole depends on to function.
    But given the scenario that Iran blocks those exports, the 50% of irans income that comes from energy exports would void and well…you can see why that’d be a problem.

    In reality any fear mongering in the media is used to sway domestic opinion so that countries currently acting against foreign nations interests curb towards where they want them.
    Also politicians use such populism to gain votes, a perfect e.g of this being the next us president 🍊🇺🇸

    Edit: as for if the wars did break out tho.

    Taiwan is a literal fortress of which China would have to make a massive amphibious assault onto faced with Taiwanese counter measures and by the literal might of the US airforce and Navy.
    It probably wouldn’t go well for them, leading to my point it won’t happen (within reason).

    As for Russia if it somehow did wage war on Europe well I think it would ultimately get its ass handed to it.

    And if tensions in the Middle East caused an Iranian blockade well I can assure you the global community would probably rally against the party stopping the modern world from functioning.

Comments are closed.