So after all the talk of Russia, Crimea, Syria, economic embargoes etc it seems we are beginning to lurch in to a new cold war era. I just watched a very interesting piece by Vice (The HBO version, not the current social media dominated version) about this very topic. It essentially points at a new Cold War in which Russia believes it is being threatened by the West and all it's recent activities is in retaliation to this. The West (Essentially the US) says they are merely protecting its interests.
I honestly believe, as one of the journalists in the the HBO piece suggested, is that the original end to the Cold War was only a short ceasefire, which was reinstated by NATO's actions in Belgrade etc. Will this result in the 3rd World War? What are your thoughts?

WW3 will happen when the refugees from climate change affected countries upset the balance in the first world. The right wing reaction is already occurring esp. in Europe

Immigration and refugees have been around for centuries with each new influx apparently going to rip apart the "fabric of our culture". Each of these new "threats" have amounted to sod all. Not to mention these right wing parties would create more of a civil war rather than a global conflict

Add the climatic factors to the immigrant problem and it will be exacerbated. Problems relating to oil & water will also be very influential

I doubt we'll see a real World War in our lifetimes (thinking the next half-century or so). Nuclear weapons have essentially ensured that any war between superpowers will be unwinnable (i.e. obviously detrimental to both sides). Aside from that, though, the current global climate is totally incomparable to the Cold War. The US and (in particular) Russia are both far weaker than they once were. Meanwhile, China and the US are far too dependent on one another for a war to be in the interests of either party.

I think marconi is right though - there will be plenty of smaller conflicts over resources all across the world. If I had to guess, I think the biggest war we're likely to see would be between India and Pakistan - where there's intense hatred, long-running border disputes, unstable governments and poor nuclear weapons security etc.

There will always be conflict around the World.....with the Christians / Jews Vs Muslims thing.
Its been going on for centuries.

If only that shepherd hadn't licked a mushroom in a cave and then let his wife convince him that his hallucinations were legit... :lol:

What are you talking about mate, it's how Rome fell.

Besides, I'm sure letting in millions of homophobic, misogynistic and deeply devout young Muslim men will only be a good thing :roll:

I must have missed that part of our immigration policy, how silly of me. ](*,)

Anyway, you are all missing my point. I am not talking about a religious war, i am talking about what is essentially another Cold War with numerous proxy wars being fought and an arms build along the Russian border on both sides

I don't think the uncivilised jihadis are capable of proxy.

*The Western Empire anyway, bloody hell mate get it right

Lol.

the right wing backlash is being overestimated by racist right wing media

look to Sweden as an example of immigration done right :)

we need a no fly zone over Syria and Iraq
the Russians are violating international norms by invading that airspace

Sweden is messed up. There are several high profile youtube blogs from immigrants dispelling the myths that Sweden is a multicultural haven.

They're all racist nutjobs with an agenda. Dont believe everything you read on the internet :)

Bang on. For the entire duration of the cold war, the USA and Soviet Union were the worlds leading superpowers and thus dictated much of what went on around the globe. Russia is no longer a superpower and the US will follow suit eventually. In this regard the 21st century will belong to China and, once they get their act together, India.

Which is why I don't believe that life is as peachy as we're told it is in the Nordic countries.

:lol:

Who's multi is this?

With the growing animosity between Saudi and Iran there is the potential for a decent sized conflict between Sunni and Shia in the Middle East within a decade or so. Hopefully electric vehicles will be prevalent enough by the time it kicks off for the West to sit this one out.

I noticed a newsfeed today loaded with several "Fear the Kremlin" type propaganda stories. It was refreshing from the usual muslim hatemongering crap they shove down our throats but still absolute shit none the less.

> Swallowing Western propaganda

I bet you think Assad is bad, multiculturalism is good and Russia represents all that is wrong with the world.

America is far far far worse, it's only that we're their allies that we excuse it.

Seems we've all forgotten about that hospital bombing, if Russia had done it there'd be calls for war.

:lol: You're not seriously defending Assad? The bloke who used chemical weapons on women and children? Or is that also Western propaganda?

Which was never actually proven? Which was most likely the same sort of bullshit that got us into Iraq to take out those WMD's that didn't exist?

Open your eyes.

Well the WMD comparison is stupid, so gonna ignore that.

But to the substance of your argument - at the point you adopt this 'everything we're told is propaganda' line, then you have to assume that the pro-Assad media in Syria and Russia is also spouting propaganda. It's fine to be sceptical of the media, but to trust the press in what are essentially autocracies over the press in western liberal democracies such as Australia's is just nonsensical.

Lol no it's not.

It's almost exactly the same situation. Using an event/lie to get us into another war.



No I don't think everything is propaganda, but from what I've personally read from both sides I've come to the conclusion that Assad would be good for Syria.

1. When the West went into Iraq, even in the mainstream media (and at the UN), there was still real scepticism over the credence of the WMD claims. Since then, those claims have been categorically disproven.

In contrast, the members of the mainstream media have basically universally accepted that Assad has used chemical weapons (and the UN has confirmed it). The only people who question the veracity of the chemical weapons claims are conspiracy theorists. So they're entirely different situations.

2. I don't think there's a clear answer for Syria, and the sad reality is that the country would be in a better place if the rebellion had never occurred and Assad was still in power. But the rebellion did occur, we now have a civil war, and we can't just wish that away.

To defend the actions of Assad or Putin in Syria, though, is insane. Assad is a war criminal and he is far more interested in his own power than securing peace for his country. Putin has pretty much left ISIS alone while massively bombing the rebels who pose the biggest threat to Assad's rule.

:lol:
The UN confirmed that chemical weapons were used, not that Assad used them. It's hardly a conspiracy theory to base your descicions in fact and logic instead of what you think happened. The only reason the media are "certain" of Assad weapons is that they are told to be by their masters.

And what does it matter what Putin or Assad do to foreign terrorists? These "rebels" are the same sort of people we backed against the Russians - they'll turn on us the moment they can.

its a matter of picking the lesser of twp evils