In this article, we will look at how to download product information from your...
The growing number of military conflicts taking place in different countries, more and more often makes us think about how fragile peace on Earth is. Tensions are growing between West and East, which could lead to cold war, and it will be followed by another round of the arms race, including nuclear weapons. Is a new global conflict really unrealistic, which could escalate into the Third World War?
Want to see what the world will look like after World War III? Watch a visualization of the catastrophic destruction of the largest cities in the world after a fictional war.
19 PHOTOS
1. Destroyed Berlin. (Photo: Michal Zak).
Frightening photographs, or rather, a well-made photo montage, representing large cities after destruction, were included in the project called "The End of Eternity."
2. Amsterdam. (Photo: Michal Zak). 
3. Brussels. (Photo: Michal Zak). Look what can happen if world leaders do not sit down at the same table and resolve all the sharp and smoldering conflicts for years. This will affect all of us.
4. Budapest. (Photo: Michal Zak). Albert Einstein once said, "I don't know what kind of weapons humanity will use in World War III, but sticks and stones will be used in World War Four."
5. Buenos Aires. (Photo: Michal Zak). Debris, devastation, smoke and fire we see in these pictures. But they don't have people. Even corpses. It was as if everyone had disappeared, as if they had evaporated in an instant.
6. Kyiv. (Photo: Michal Zak). In the fourth world war stones and sticks will not be used. No one will use them. There are enough weapons on the planet to raze everything to the ground and turn the world into landscapes, as in the pictures of Michal Zak - without people.
7. Moscow. (Photo: Michal Zak). 
8. Tallinn. (Photo: Michal Zak). 
9. Rome. (Photo: Michal Zak). 
10. Riga. (Photo: Michal Zak). 
11. London. (Photo: Michal Zak). 
12. Madrid. (Photo: Michal Zak). 
13. Tokyo. (Photo: Michal Zak). 
14. Paris. (Photo: Michal Zak). 
15. Prague. (Photo: Michal Zak). The future of Russia, or the future of many “Russias”, many weakened and divided states, as Washington and its NATO allies see it, is demographic decline, deindustrialization, poverty, lack of any defensive capabilities and exploitation natural resources its interior regions.
Russia's place in the plans of the Empire of Chaos
The collapse of the Soviet Union was not enough for Washington and NATO. The ultimate goal of the United States is to prevent the emergence of any alternatives to Euro-Atlantic integration in Europe and Eurasia. That is why the destruction of Russia is one of their strategic objectives.
Washington's goals were working and pursued during the fighting in Chechnya. They were also seen in the crisis that erupted with the Euromaidan in Ukraine. In fact, the first step to break Ukraine and Russia was the catalyst for the collapse of the entire USSR and the cessation of any attempts to reorganize it.
The Polish-American intellectual Zbigniew Brzezinski, a former national security adviser to US President Jim Carter, actually advocated the idea of destroying Russia through its gradual disintegration and decentralization. He formulated the condition that "a more decentralized Russia would not be so receptive to calls to unite into an empire." In other words, if the US divides Russia, Moscow will not be able to compete with Washington. In this context, he states the following: “For Russia, arranged on the principle of a free confederation, which would include the European part of Russia, the Siberian Republic and the Far Eastern Republic, it would be easier to develop closer economic ties with Europe, with the new states of Central Asia and with the East, which would thereby accelerate the development of the Russia".
These ideas are not limited to the offices of some out-of-touch scientists or individual thought factories. They have the support of governments and even trained supporters. Below is a discussion of one of them.
US State Media Predicts Russia's Balkanization
On September 8, 2014, Dmitry Sinchenko published an article about the division of Russia “In anticipation of the Third World War. How the world will change. Sinchenko participated in the Euromaidan, and his organization, the All-Ukrainian Initiative "Movement of Power Creators", among other foreign policy goals, supports ethnic nationalism, the territorial expansion of Ukraine at the expense of most of the countries bordering it, giving a new impetus to the pro-American Organization for Democracy and Economic Development - GUAM (Georgia, Ukraine, Azerbaijan and Moldova), joining NATO and going on the offensive in order to defeat Russia. Note that the inclusion of the word “democracy” in the name of GUAM should not mislead anyone – GUAM, as the inclusion of the Republic of Azerbaijan into it proves, is not about democracy, but about balancing Russia in the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS).
Sinchenko's article begins with a story about the history of the appearance of the expression "axis of evil", used by the United States to vilify its enemies. It talks about how George W. Bush Jr. coined the phrase in 2002, bringing Iraq, Iran, and North Korea together, how John Bolton expanded the "axis of evil" to include Cuba, Libya, and Syria, how Condoleezza Rice included Belarus, Zimbabwe, and Myanmar (Burma), and then At the end, Sinchenko proposes that Russia be added to the list as the world's main rogue state. He even proves that the Kremlin is involved in all conflicts in the Balkans, the Caucasus, the Middle East, North Africa, Ukraine and Southeast Asia. He further accuses Russia of hatching plans to conquer the Baltic states, the Caucasus, Moldova, Finland, Poland and, even more absurdly, two of his close military and political allies, Belarus and Kazakhstan. Judging by the title of the article, he even claims that Moscow is purposefully seeking a third world war.
This reading does not circulate on US-allied corporate networks, but it does go directly to media owned by the US state. This forecast was published by the Ukrainian service of Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, which is a US propaganda tool in Europe and the Middle East that helps bring down governments.
It is horrifying that the article attempts to give a decent look to the likely scenario of a new world war. Disgustingly, without taking into account the use of nuclear weapons and weapons of mass destruction, which will begin in Ukraine and in the world, the article paints a deliberately false, but comfortable picture of a world corrected by a great global war. Radio Liberty and the author are essentially telling the Ukrainian people “the war will do you good” and that after the war with Russia there will be some kind of utopian paradise.
The article also fits very well into the contours of Brzezinski's forecast regarding Russia, Ukraine and the Eurasian continent. It predicts the partition of Russia, with Ukraine as part of an enlarged European Union that includes Georgia, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Israel, Lebanon, and the Danish North American dependency of Greenland. In addition, under his control is a confederation of states in the Caucasus and in the Mediterranean - the last could be the Mediterranean Union, which would include Turkey, Syria, Egypt, Libya, Tunisia, Algeria, Morocco and the Saharan Arab Democratic Republic, or Western Sahara. Ukraine is presented as an integral part of the European Union. In this regard, Ukraine, apparently, is located in the US allied Franco-German-Polish-Ukrainian corridor and on the Paris-Berlin-Warsaw-Kyiv axis, which Brzezinski advocated in 1997 and which Washington would use to challenge the Russian Federation and its allies in the CIS.
Reshaping Eurasia: Washington's Maps of Russia's Partition
As the Radio Liberty article says, any bipolar rivalry between Moscow and Washington will end after World War III with the partition of the Russian Federation. Clearly contradicting herself, she argues that a truly multipolar world will only be when Russia is destroyed, while making it clear that the United States will be the most important world power, even if Washington and the European Union are weakened by the results of the predicted major war with the Russians. .
The article is accompanied by two maps, which generally show the redrawn Eurasian space and the outlines of the world after the destruction of Russia. At the same time, neither the author nor his two maps recognize territorial changes in the Crimean peninsula and portray it as part of Ukraine, not the Russian Federation. Here are the changes that have been made to the geography of Russia, from west to east:
The Russian region of Kaliningrad will be annexed by Lithuania, Poland or Germany. In any case, it will become part of the enlarged European Union.
Eastern Karelia (Russian Karelia) and the currently federal subject of the Republic of Karelia as part of the Northwestern Federal District, together with the federal city of St. Petersburg, the Leningrad Region, the Novgorod Region, two northern thirds of the Pskov Region and the Murmansk Region, are separated from Russia with the formation of a pro-Finnish country. This territory can be completely absorbed by Finland, which will lead to the creation of Greater Finland. Although Arhangelsk region in this article it is indicated as part of this isolated territory, on the map it is not included in it (probably due to a mistake made in the map).
The southern districts of the Pskov region (Sebezhsky, Pustoshkinsky, Nevelsky and Usvyatsky) from the Northwestern Federal District and the westernmost regions of the Smolensk region (Demidovsky, Desnegorsky, Dukhovshchinsky, Kardymovsky, Khislavichsky, Krasninsky, Monastyrshchinsky, Pochinkovsky, Roslavl, Rudnyansky, Shumyachsky, Smolensky , Velizhsky, Yartsevsky and Ershichsky), as well as the cities of Smolensk and Roslavl, from the Central Federal District are annexed to Belarus. Dorogobuzh, Kholm-Zhirkovsky, Safonovsky, Ugransky and Elninsky districts of the Smolensk region, apparently, will be further highlighted on the map as a new border between Belarus and Russia, which is planned to be cut.
North Caucasian federal district Russia, consisting of the Republic of Dagestan, the Republic of Ingushetia, the Kabardino-Balkarian Republic, the Karachay-Cherkess Republic, the Republic of North Ossetia-Alania, the Stavropol Territory and Chechnya, is separated from Russia in the form of the Caucasian Confederation, which is under the influence of the European Union.
The Southern Federal District of Russia, formed from the Republic of Adygea, the Astrakhan Region, the Volgograd Region, the Republic of Kalmykia, the Krasnodar Territory and the Rostov Region, is completely annexed by Ukraine. This creates a common border between Ukraine and Kazakhstan and cuts off Russia from the energy-rich Caspian Sea, as well as direct southern access to Iran.
Ukraine also annexes the Belgorod, Bryansk, Kursk and Voronezh regions from the most populous federal district and region - the Central Federal District.
Siberia and the Russian Far East, namely the Siberian Federal District and the Far Eastern Federal District, are cut off from Russia.
The text says that the entire territory of Siberia and most of the territory of the Russian Far East, consisting of the Republic of Altai, Altai Territory, Amur Region, Republic of Buryatia, Chukotka, Jewish Autonomous Region, Irkutsk Region, Kamchatka Territory, Kemerovo Region, Khabarovsk Territory, Republic of Khakassia, Krasnoyarsk Territory, Magadan Region, Novosibirsk Region, Omsk region, Primorsky Territory, the Republic of Sakha, Tomsk Oblast, the Republic of Tuva and the Trans-Baikal Territory, either turn into several independent states under Chinese domination, or, along with Mongolia, become new territories of the Chinese People's Republic. On the map, Siberia, most of the Russian Far East, as well as Mongolia are unambiguously depicted as Chinese territory. The exception is the Sakhalin region.
Russia loses the island of Sakhalin (Sakharin and Karafuto in Japanese) and the Kuril Islands, which form the Sakhalin Oblast. These islands join Japan.
On his own web page, Sinchenko posted his article with Radio Liberty a few days earlier, on September 2, 2014. There are also the same maps that are attributed to Radio Liberty. However, on Sinchenko's personal page there is another picture worthy of mention - this is a picture in which from Russia, as from a large dish, all the countries bordering it are cheerfully cutting off pieces for eating.
Mapping the New World Order: The World After World War III?
The second map is a map of the planet after the Third World War, divided into several supranational states. The only exception is Japan. The second map and its supranational states can be described as follows:
As already mentioned, the European Union has expanded and controls its margins in the Caucasus, Southwest Asia and North Africa. This is the implementation of the NATO Mediterranean Dialogue and the Partnership for Peace at the political and military levels, as well as the Eastern Partnership and the Euro-Mediterranean Partnership (Union for the Mediterranean) at the political and economic levels.
The United States forms a North American supranational entity that includes Canada, Mexico, Guatemala, Belize, El Salvador, Honduras, Nicaragua, Costa Rica, Panama, Colombia, Venezuela, Ecuador, the Guianas (Guyana, Suriname and French Guiana) and all the countries of the Caribbean. pool.
All countries not absorbed by the US in South America will form their own organization in the form of a reduced South America, which will be dominated by Brazil.
A kind of bloc of Southwest Asian countries or a supranational structure will be formed from Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iran, Iraq, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, UAE, Oman and Yemen.
A kind of supranational entity will be formed on the Indian subcontinent of South Asia, consisting of India, Sri Lanka (Ceylon), Nepal, Bhutan, Bangladesh, Myanmar (Burma) and Thailand.
The supranational entity will be in Australia and Oceania and will include the Philippines, Malaysia, Singapore, Brunei, Indonesia, East Timor, Papua New Guinea, New Zealand and the Pacific Islands. It will include Australia, and leading role it will play Canberra.
With the exception of North Africa, which will be under the control of the European Union, the rest of Africa will be united under the leadership of South Africa.
The East Asian supranational entity will include Russian Federation, Indo-China, China, the Korean Peninsula, Mongolia and post-Soviet Central Asia. This entity will be dominated by the Chinese and governed from Beijing.
Although the Radio Free Europe article and the two post-war maps can be dismissed as outlandish notions, it is necessary to ask a few important issues. First, where did the author pick up these ideas? Were they broadcast through some seminars held with the indirect support of the US and the EU? Second, what feeds the author's images of the post-World War III political landscape?
In fact, the author adapted to the scheme of dividing Russia according to Brzezinski. The text and maps even include regions of North Africa, the Middle East and the Caucasus, which the European Union considers for itself as a secondary periphery or lining. These areas are even painted in light blue, as opposed to the blue used to represent the EU.
Aside from Radio Free Europe, no one should lose sight of the fact that Japan still lays claim to the Sakhalin Oblast, while the US, EU, Turkey, and Saudi Arabia support separatist movements in Russia's Southern and North Caucasus federal districts. .
Ukrainianism
The Radio Liberty article exudes signs of Ukrainianness, which is worth a moment.
Nations are constructed because they are all dynamic communities that are, in one way or another, constructed and held together by a collection of individuals who form societies. In this sense, they can be called imaginary communities.
On the post-Soviet space and the Middle East, machinations are being played out to deconstruct and reconstruct nations and groups. In sociological or anthropological jargon, this can be called the manipulation of tribalism, and in political jargon, playing out to the end of the Great Game. In this context, for more than a century, Ukrainians in Ukraine have been especially supportive of anti-government elements and anti-Russian nationalist sentiments – first under the Austrians and Germans, later through the Poles and the British, and now under the US and NATO.
Ukrainianism is an ideology that seeks to materialize among the Ukrainian people and introduce into it a new collective imagination or false historical memory, in which they have always been a nation and people, separated from the Russian people, both in an ethnic and civil sense. Ukrainianism is a political project that seeks to negate the historical unity of the Eastern Slavs, the geographic roots and historical background behind the differences between Ukrainians and Russians. In other words, Ukrainians are trying to get rid of the context and forget the process that led to the differences between Ukrainians and Russians.
Russia has always risen from the ashes. The evidence for this is history. Russia will stand, no matter what happens. Whenever the many-faced people of Russia stand together under one banner for their homeland, they break empires. He survived catastrophic wars, invasions and his enemies. Maps and borders may change, but Russia will remain.
In all this current situation with Qatar, I am primarily not interested in the topic of "war with Iran", Trump's agreements in Saudi Arabia, "strike on China", etc. - this is all understandable and obvious more or less to varying degrees.
And not even that - will there now be a World Cup in Qatar in 2022.
And what I see in this is yet another confirmation (I have already written about it ten times, but even smart people sometimes argue) that it is obvious to any genius or even just a literate aristocrat of the spirit of the thesis that it is inevitable in the impending (but still it will be at least ten years, but rather twenty) World War III - Russia again, for the third time - will fight as part of approximately the same Entente spill coalition: Russia + England + USA - against a united continental Western Europe + China .
In World War II, it was Japan, not China, but the essence is the same: someone strong in the East and in the Pacific Ocean; Japan is no longer an interesting player, so instead of it - China.
The logic here is simple and obvious for the World War: in general, such a war itself can only be between more or less equals, otherwise the tasks set before the war cannot be solved - the discharge of all debts, economic stress, the destruction of billions of extra inhabitants of the planet, etc.
"Peripheral wars" do not solve these problems in any way. The poles of power can pretend to compete in wars in the Middle East or in some Vietnam - but this does not solve global issues.
War is valuable in itself, so it cannot be a toy, an imitation and a make-believe. War can only be real, otherwise it is not war.
With absolutely equal opponents. It can't be otherwise real war. And the real one is only to the death, and not "to the first blood," as, for example, between the United States and China. They are not equal opponents. If it's "For Real", then the US wins the war with China in a week. On all fronts: 2,000 (not 10!) real atomic bombs arrive in China, all their satellites are shot down along the way, an economic oil blockade, a diplomatic blockade are set up, all American spies and agents of influence in China are immediately activated, etc. (I deliberately coarsen and narrow everything down to "one week"; it's just that these details are not the topic of this text, I'm just illustrating the difference in weight categories).
Yes, China can respond - and even hurt. But this is a fight to the death, with him the winner is also usually covered in blood and with broken bones. But this is not death, but a fight to the death, this is exactly what those who want to see the Third World War want to see (other options do not solve anything).
And this is the whole of today's China, and even talking about the mythical war of the "Christian world against the Islamic world" is not serious at all: there, if in a serious way, then in general for half an hour. It is if, in a serious way - when, so as not to die yourself and save all of your own - they beat them with everything that they can use.
It is this kind of war that is now needed by those who need it. Not only now specifically, but the last two World Wars were like that - a war for the sake of war, and not to win back some piece of land like Belgium, smelly nests in the Balkans, etc. Well, everyone knows this even without me - imperialist contradictions, unresolved economic tension, overpopulation of the Earth, etc.
And now there are objectively only two equal rivals in the world - the US and the EU. On economic, scientific, cultural and "ideological" aspects (the fact that the EU has somewhat fewer atomic bombs is a theoretically solvable issue; but that is why the war will not be now, but in 10-20 years - and not with single bombs).
So only they can be opponents in the coming war. The rest of the world, subject to the same logic, will join the poles of power only in logical proportion - so that it is approximately 50/50.
Russia now in itself is not a pole, as it was under the USSR with its half of Europe and the rest of the socialist world, including the same China at one time. Not a pole.
But strength, and great strength, of course. Economically - not the same as China. And the economy is decisive here (as in all wars of the last 200 years).
Approximately equal to the US rival is the EU + China, but even stronger. Therefore, here the conclusion about the USA + Russia suggests itself to the fool.
And England, of course. Still, it is still impossible for the British to fight against the British (and this is not only a question of nationality, but also many aspects of interweaving). It is in this that I see the main "Masonic-conspiracy" reason for England's exit from the EU.
Just tell someone about the possibility of "Brexit" three years ago - they would have twisted their fingers at the temple. The same thing - if we were talking two years ago about "The US President will be for an alliance with Russia and for a war with Europe, for example, on the issue of "environmental" (purely economic, of course - "ecology" here is purely a false panel) agreements.
And here it is, clearly and with might and main. Easy and well received.
Yes, but what does Qatar have to do with it, you ask? Very simple. After all, they continue to argue over the aspect "Let the US not fight Europe, it's impossible, these are the closest friends." Type not the same was in the two World Wars. They don't believe. (Yes, I'm already tired of giving historical examples - as it was in previous times with "closest friends").
Well, here's a mega-fresh example for you. Even this morning, those who did not read the news - believed that the backbone of the Sunni Arab rich Middle East and its policies (well, not the backbone, we are not discussing Egypt here, I'm talking about the most-very-very bosses in the political direction, all these financiers of all Arab terrorists, Al Jazeera, etc.) - there was a bunch of Saudi Arabia and Qatar. it different countries, of course, but when they talked "about this" - these two countries were mentioned - without any Bahrain and the United Arab Emirates with Kuwait.
The well-established "union" was absolutely in their heads, they were even mentioned without a comma (but simply with "and"). It would seem that.
And here's to you. A day has not passed - and Qatar is already today the enemy of the backbone of the Arab world, and no one here experiences cognitive dissonance. Like it was.
And so in modern society in everything. And it will be with Europe and the USA. As it was in the first two World Wars.
Worst places:
Israel
When war breaks out in the world, Israel will suffer the most. Israel is dependent on imported food and fuel, and water is also a resource that Israelis often had skirmishes with their neighbors to secure reliable sources of this need. Even in better times, Israel was on the brink of destruction, so when World War 3 kicks off, their main allies, the United States, will be preoccupied with much more than trying to protect a non-strategic piece of land in the Middle East. Israel is also highly dependent on foreign aid, which will cease immediately. The thin strip of desert land with the Israelis will not be able to withstand the harsh political reality of being surrounded by peoples who despise them. This includes Egypt, which has been at war with Israel 5 times; Jordan, which has been at war 3 times; Syria, 5 times; Lebanon and Palestine. These factors, among many others, make Israel one of the worst places in the world in the upcoming third world war.
Russia
Russia is currently involved in two proxy wars against the United States: in Ukraine and Syria, and any of these conflicts could lead Russia into the hot phase of the war against the US and NATO. Russia's involvement in the geopolitical game of chess with us is just the tip of the iceberg. Russia is clearly an unsafe place if World War 3 breaks out due to a Russian trigger, a system called "R dead man's mind" (Note: The "Perimeter" system index URV Strategic Missile Forces - 15E601, in Western Europe and the USA is known as the English Dead Hand, literally "Dead Hand" or "Dead Man's Hand"), which will automatically trigger a mechanism that is linked to every missile in Russia's nuclear arsenal. She is constantly watching Russian territory throughseismic and radioactivity sensors and if even one nuclear explosion occurs in Russia, the system automatically launches all intercontinental ballistic missiles in retaliation against its enemies. This system is designed not only to work if all leadership is destroyed in a nuclear attack, but even if Russian leaders survive nuclear strike, automatic start from "P dead man's hands" cannot be canceled. This means that the majority of the Russian population will, in fact, be doomed to the destructive effect of a nuclear war.
United Kingdom
Thanks to the alliance of the United Kingdom with the US and NATO, it cannot be disputed that the UK will also be involved in the third world war. The trouble is that the UK is extremely vulnerable. The British Isles currently have a much larger population than they can feed themselves and the UK is a net food importer, meaning that the people of the UK will face immediate starvation as they will immediately be cut off from their food supply. The Scottish National Party is now poised to put an end to Britain's Trident nuclear program due to its excessive cost. These attempts to disarm the UK's nuclear stockpile may be smart in peacetime, but may leave the gates open for a nuclear attack on the UK.
China
China is tethered to global shipping lanes, making it dependent on coastal trade to be a prime target for amphibious attacks, airstrikes and nuclear attack. Their military is backed by a massive national project that could theoretically raise an army of up to seven million soldiers. Providing such an army would come at a huge cost to the average Chinese citizen. Even without global conflict, China is still in danger of going into unrest. Threatening pollution threatens China with what they predict will run out of its entire supply of drinking water by 2030, a problem that requires government intervention to address. If the Chinese government weakens or collapses due to global conflict, their pollution problem will go unaddressed and their water supply will dry up. If China is drawn into the third world war, it will bring great misfortune to China.
United States
The US is the biggest candidate for a surprise nuclear strike. US enemies may try to launch a pre-emptive nuclear strike to protect their own countries from nuclear annihilation. This attack would render most of our territory uninhabited. Even people in the Midwest who usually think they're safe...can't escape this fate. This will happen because there are dozens of missile silos in this region, they will be the first priority for destruction in the first atomic strike. The strikes on these mines will be made to destroy the US nuclear arsenal before it can respond. Due to the consequences of a nuclear war, or even a conventional war, we will fragment into smaller regions with different racial and cultural groups, and fight for dominance over the ashes of America. Southern California employs over 20 million people living in a single area with no local food or water sources. Southern California near Mexico with violent drug cartels. If law and order break down during a global conflict, these cartels will devastate the southwestern United States.
Germany
Just like the US, Germany is guided by the NATO collective defense agreement, which means that even if a NATO member like Lithuania is attacked, Germany must start a war in defense of this state. This ensures that Germany is located on the front lines, due to its proximity to potential enemies, which makes Germany an extremely unsafe place during a global conflict. War between the Western powers and Russia with her own allies will also be on German soil.
South Korea
Most likely, the United States will withdraw its soldiers from the Korean Peninsula at the very beginning of the third world war, which will give North Korea a chance to launch an invasion of South Korea. Without the United States, the South Korean army would be largely smaller than the North. Any war between the North and the South will cause the most serious humanitarian crisis. In reality, it doesn't matter who attacks first, north or south, because the small peninsula is guaranteed to be devastated in any conflict, no matter who wins.
Liberia
In 2010, Liberia was ranked as the most dependent country on foreign aid, worldwide. Without this help, Liberia simply cannot survive. The United States is Liberia's largest financial contributor, providing them with $450 million annually. At the start of World War III, the US will have more problems than funding Liberia, leaving Liberians to starve to death.
Solomon islands
After Liberia comes the Solomon Islands, which is the second most dependent country on foreign aid. The global conflict will threaten the disappearance of the lifeline in the form of foreign aid, leaving its population to great suffering. Apart from this economic vulnerability, the islands are also in a very unfortunate location. During World War II, the Solomon Islands had strategic air bases that threatened the populated areas of Australia and New Zealand. During the third world war, it is likely that these islands will again be fought over to be used as an air base and they will be at the forefront of any upcoming world conflict.
Saudi Arabia
For Saudi Arabia, massive oil reserves are its greatest gift, but also its greatest curse. When war breaks out, fuel will become scarce and a major power will attempt to take over the country with its huge oil reserves. Saudi Arabia has a relatively small military and relies more on alliances to stay safe. This decision, unfortunately, also leaves the kingdom in a vulnerable position. The government of Saudi Arabia is also not the most stable in the world, which means the country will fall apart in any devastating conflict. The problems are even deeper because the country is dependent on imports of food, water, consumer goods and manufactured goods, which means that these resources will be in short supply, leading to unrest, starvation and death.
Best Places:
Switzerland
With mountainous terrain, a strong tradition of neutrality, a huge number of bunkers and a heavily armed population, Switzerland has established itself as a safe haven during a bloody past. Europe. Although it borders Germany, France and Italy, which will no doubt go to war with nuclear weapons, Switzerland is protected from these danger zones thanks to the mountains surrounding it. This means that the Swiss can take cover high in the mountains when nukes explode on the ground around their country.
Tuvalu
Tuvalu is an island nation in the middle of the Pacific Ocean which is a very remote and neutral place. The extreme isolation helps the nation remain politically level, and its small population and scarce resources mean that no major power will have any reason to attack the island. It is likely that Tuvalu will simply be ignored when the third World War. Also, unlike many other island states, locals produce and consume primarily their own food and goods, making them uniquely self-sufficient.
New Zealand
New Zealand is one of the most isolated yet developed nations in the world. It has a stable democracy and is not deeply involved in armed conflicts. The highlands of New Zealand could also provide a safe haven at the start of another world war. The country also has enough local food supplies, clean water and fertile soil to sustain itself for quite some time. New Zealand's Peaceful Foreign Policy earned it fourth place in 2015 in the Global Peace Index.
Butane
Despite sharing borders with two potential warlords, China and India, its unique location makes it an excellent hiding place for apocalyptic conflict. Surrounded by the Himalayan mountains, Bhutan is one of the most secluded places in the world with access to the sea. Also, Bhutan does not have diplomatic relations with the United States. In fact, only two states, Bangladesh and neighboring India, have their embassies in the capital of Bhutan.
Chile
Chile is the most stable and prosperous country in South America, ranking above all other Latin American countries in human development. It is protected by the almost impenetrable Andes to the west of its borders. Chile has the least polluted air, due to the constant replenishment from clean Antarctic air. Chile will be much cleaner than the war-torn countries to its north.
Iceland
Iceland is a country so peaceful and neutral that it was number one in 2015 in the Global Peace Index. She does not have land borders with other countries, and far from the majority of the world. When nuclear warheads fall all over the world, it is possible that Iceland will not be touched during the initial conflict. Even in the worst case scenario, the country has mountainous terrain to provide cover.
Denmark
It is likely that as the conflict spreads throughout Europe, Denmark will suffer greatly due to its involvement in NATO, as well as the dangerous proximity of large countries within the European Union. However, this is not entirely true, thanks to one important exception...Greenland. Greenland like Iceland, which means that the people of Greenland will be able to take refuge in the mountains and then try to survive after the third world war.
Malta
Malta is a tiny island nation and is, in fact, a small fortress island. Throughout the history of Malta, empires have tried to take over Malta, which means that invading the island will be very costly. Finally, Malta has a relatively small size that cannot justify spending on a nuclear missile for it, so it is likely that it will simply be ignored by the major players in the third world war.
Ireland
And Ireland is a prosperous and developed state, it does not have strong ties with any of the potential warriors who will participate in a large-scale world war. Ireland leans towards the practice of independence in its foreign policy. As a result, Ireland is not a member of NATO and has a longstanding policy of military neutrality. Under Irish law, in order for Ireland to enter into any external military conflicts, their participation must be approved by the UN, the government and the Irish legislature.
Fiji
The remote island nation of Fiji lies deep in the vast expanses of the Pacific Ocean, which separates the islands from possible invaders. Just like Tuvalu, Fiji has a small population, is neutral in foreign affairs and does not have any resources within its borders to justify an invasion. For hundreds of years, magnificent life has been maintained on the islands and this will probably continue after the World Conflict.
We present to you several maps reflecting the geopolitical dynamics in the context of the global crisis. And as an eyeliner, we publish a report on geopolitics read by Yuri Romanenko in Belarus on November 14, 2012.
The report read at the conference "Belarus at the Crossroads of Integrations" in Minsk on November 14.
Dear colleagues, it is an honor for me to participate in this event. Before proceeding to the consideration of the stated topic, I want to define the definitions.
By the countries of Eastern Europe in this context, I mean Ukraine, Belarus and Moldova.
I set myself three objectives in the course of my presentation.
First - to show the key trends in the world system that will complicate the existence of the countries of Eastern Europe, or make it impossible in the current models that were formed in the 90s and zero years. It will be an analysis of the competitive environment in which our countries are moving.
Second - what motivations have been formed or are being formed among key actors in relation to Ukraine, Belarus and other countries. Why they will radicalize, in what logic.
Third - how the logic that I will show below is already working in relation to Ukraine.
I outlined a number of trends in my big report in December 2011. Therefore, I will not return to the causes of the global crisis, you can see them on Khvila.
I will outline a number of key reasons and consequences arising from this.
First, discrepancy between the economic basis and the political superstructure. The economy has become global, and governance is predominantly local. The consequence is the emergence and deepening of various disproportions that cannot be resolved due to the inability of international institutions to reconcile the conflicting interests of two hundred states.
Second, the managerial crisis, connected with the fact that the main tool for managing large masses - the nation state was formed 200 years ago, and for this humanity went through several technological structures. So the phenomenon of what I call the battle of the online party against the offline party has arisen.
Third, the crisis of the capitalist system due to the lack of space for expansion. The limited space for the expansion of capital has led us to financial crisis 2008, which turned into an economic crisis, today transforming into a geopolitical one.
fourth, the resulting depletion of a wide variety of resources.
Fifth, resulting sharp deterioration of the ecological situation.
sixth, threatening demographic indicators, which a) call into question the ability of the biosphere to withstand such a population b) creating imbalances in the balance between different peoples, giving rise to a lot of conflicts.
Seven, ideological crisis, it is directly related to the crisis of world religions. We see how, on the one hand, Islam is again beginning to spread rapidly around the planet, and, on the other hand, we are witnessing a crisis of Orthodoxy and Catholicism.
These factors have formed a large-scale crisis agenda for humanity. It cannot be solved within the old institutions, both global and local.
A rebuild is required.
What is a restructuring? Restructuring is a conflict of interest causing imbalances. They need to be allowed.
From this follow the key questions: At whose expense will it take place? Whose interests will have to be sacrificed? What goals are to be achieved? What format should it be in? Etc.
In order to correctly answer these questions, you need to understand which actors have these interests, what tools they have and what conflicts exist between these actors.
This is where the fun begins. If the world, as a single system, was controlled entirely from one center, then everything would be much simpler. It would be about optimizing relations within the system. However, the world weather is formed by subjects of different levels whose interests come into conflict with each other.
There are international institutions(financial, security, humanitarian) behind which are the interests of large transnational corporations. They operate globally. Their goal-setting lies in the establishment of uniform norms and standards throughout the planet.
There are states. Some of them operate globally, some regionally, some locally, and some generally exist only on paper.
There are network organizations (humanitarian, environmental, criminal, military, etc.) that operate globally, regionally and locally.
There are ethnic groups who also line up their organizations that extend beyond their base territory. For example, Kurds, Albanians, Nigerians and others.
All of these entities big game there are motivations and conflicts arising from them. We are interested in subjects that are capable of influencing Eastern Europe, and therefore, the life of everyone present.
Who are they?
This is, first of all, western conglomerate, which includes transnational organizations, corporations and their instruments in the form of states such as the United States and the empire of states - Europe, along with their Asian and other allies.
This is China as a state that is an empire whose influence has been steadily expanding over the past 30 years. China shapes around itself asian conglomerate, which can include a pool of allies and strategic partners in Asia, Africa and Latin America. For simplicity, we will refer to this conglomerate as China.
This is Russia, as a state that behaves like an empire, but is not. Russia is dependent on Western financial institutions and the European market and gravitates toward it civilizationally, but is geographically involved in the Asian agenda, which makes it extremely dependent on China. The failure of modernization has weakened Russia's position in the confrontation between the West and China, whose interests are in direct conflict.
What is the difference between their positions?
West- forms standards and is able to impose them on everyone else through various tools, thus turning them into universal ones. The ideological power of the West rests on the economic, and the economic forms the military. The West is currently the only force capable of acting globally in all aspects.
China– how the global workshop forms a global offer in the form of a huge range of goods, which in turn determines its expanding interest in resources. Objectively, for several decades China has been moving in the corridor that was opened to it after the agreements between Mao and Nixon. The growth of the economy has increased the subjectivity of China, at the same time turning it into a serious threat to the West. This threat is existential in nature, since by diverting exhaustible resources to itself, the PRC restricts the West's access to them. China pays for modernization and high growth rates with terrible ecology, social imbalances
Russia does not form anything. She takes the position of a resource jug with nuclear missiles. Resources and missiles are its main asset.
China's motivations– to increase its influence on decision-making at the global level, which will strengthen China's claims for more resources, because without them, further modernization is impossible.
Relations between these subjects will form the way out of the crisis.
What is a way out of the crisis? This establishment of a new world order is better than the old one.
What does the best mean? This means that the contradictions that led to the disorganization of the global system will be eliminated by harmonizing relations between its members, or at the expense of some of its members by weakening or destroying them. A classic example is the Treaty of Yalta in 1945, the Treaty of Westphalia in 1648, and so on. Such treaties fix the new constructions of the world order for the next decades.
What will we get as a result in case of successful resolution of the crisis(by successful resolution I mean avoiding a nuclear war capable of destroying humanity in principle):
- World government or quasi-world government in the form of an international organization with political functions more defined than today's UN. Such an organization will have real levers of influence on the formation of the global agenda and enforcement of its implementation.
- Accordingly, global resource management and the transition to a new technological order.
- New mass management tool. Either through the reformatting of states, or through the formation of continental or subcontinental blocs. Or a combination of one format or another
- The emergence of a new space for capitalist expansion, or the emergence of an alternative and more efficient economic model
- Environmental risk management on a system platform
- Decrease in demographic risks. Or by destroying part of the planet's population during the upcoming cataclysms, or by bringing the birth rate to zero and its strict control.
- The formation of a new worldview may be the beginnings of the formation of a new global religion.
Hence the options for overcoming the crisis:
- Conservative. Trying to change without changing anything fundamentally. Now Europe is following this path. Previously, the USSR followed this path.
- Active-Moderate– try to change the situation globally by removing imbalances in the economy, bringing political institutions into a form adequate to the era, through regional conflicts that will change the balance of power at the global level, through the launch of technologies that will remove or reduce tension at break points.
- Radical- through a global war with the use of all types of weapons, which will radically change the balance of power and impose a model that is beneficial to one of the subjects of the Great Game.
A conservative option is beneficial to China. If there are no sudden shifts in the world, then time plays on it.
This option is also beneficial for Russia, which may try to strengthen its defense power and create a more effective political system than will reduce the threat of internal destabilization that emerged in the winter of 2011-2012.
Second option– beneficial to the Western conglomerate.
The third option is beneficial to the Western conglomerate.
Hence the motivations of the parties:
West- offensive, more precisely, preventive defense.
China- defensive, more precisely, the accumulation of potential in the conditions of the superiority of the forces of the main competitors.
Russia- defensive
By the way, this accurately reflects the ratio of their military potentials.
Here we draw the following intermediate conclusions.
- The crisis creates fundamentally different motivations than in normal times, precisely because problems cannot be solved with the usual tools.
- These motivations are aimed at protecting their interests at the expense of others.
- This causes opposition from Others, which dramatically raises the bar in the Game.
- This drastically increases the importance of security, because in the end life (of people, communities) is the main stake in such a Grand Game.
- If protecting one's interests at the expense of others requires their destruction, they will be destroyed.
- This means that a world war is inevitable in one form or another. As a matter of fact, it is already in the format of destabilization of such regions as the Middle East.
For Eastern Europe, this fundamentally changes the environment in which it has existed for 20 years. Since on the part of subjects with an interest in the countries of the regions, security becomes or will be a key requirement.
This is where the agenda for our countries comes from. It can be listed in order of priority as follows:
A) A sharp increase in the importance of security, which is especially clearly seen in the example of the destabilization of the Middle East and the Maghreb.
B) The ensuing limitation of the space for foreign policy maneuver, since the world centers of power will increase the demands on states like Ukraine or Belarus.
C) A sharp deterioration in the situation on world markets in 2013 due to the exhaustion of the previous tools to resolve systemic distortions in the economies of the core of the world system - the United States, Europe, and China. This will undermine the national economies of the Eastern countries. Europe is getting stronger and stronger.
D) The resulting sharp complication of the political situation, since the established models and balances in the Eastern European countries will be eroded and then destroyed. In the case of Ukraine, this has already practically happened.
E) The destruction of the status quo, chaos, the formation of new state institutions or the loss of subjectivity and the transition to the protectorate of world centers of power.
Destabilization threatens Ukraine the most, since remaining outside the large regional blocs, it is more acutely experiencing the pressure of the crisis, while having limited resource opportunities.
The consequence will be a monstrous tension in 2013 turning into the destabilization of the Yanukovych regime and its collapse.
USA - openly ignore requests for help without fulfilling the political conditions of Washington, and they create a situation that ends with the destruction of the existing regime, unable to exist in a competitive environment.
Europe- we need it ourselves, plus he loves democracy very much, but how are we with it? Well, you know.
China - if he gives money, then only for the purchase of his workers and equipment, and you cannot feed state employees with kickbacks.
World markets? Comrades, there is still no bottom in sight. An epic picture was drawn by the director of Azovstal a week ago: “I state that this market (the world market for rolled metal products) has completely collapsed. Orders are out." At the same time, he predicted that the situation could change radically for the better no earlier than the end of spring 2013. I'll tell you a secret - it won't change, because the factors that created this situation on world markets won't disappear. Let me remind you that 60% of Ukraine's white GDP is formed by exports, where metal accounts for 40% of revenues.
Business? Safely destroyed by the reforms of Yanukovych-Azarov.
Oligarchs? Yes, perhaps, only they remain as donors to the Yanukovych regime. What does it mean? This means a conflict of interest inevitably developing into an inter-clan war.
This forms a new political agenda for 2013-2014.
Its essence.
Firstly, it is necessary to dismiss Yanukovych as a variable that interferes with everyone - the oligarchs, the middle class, state employees.
Secondly, need to remove the threat from the agenda civil war arising from the inability of the authorities to smooth out conflicts in society.
Thirdly, it is necessary to remove the imbalances in relations with the world centers of power - the US, Russia, the EU.
Fourth, it is necessary to remove the imbalances that overturn the economy of Ukraine and social policy.
Fifth, to form a more stable political system, arising from the needs of a new social contract.
Below are three cards.
The first two, developed by colleagues from Rostend.su. In our opinion, they do not quite accurately reflect the essence of the processes, and also exaggerate the speed of the spread of the influence of a number of blocks, underestimate others and overestimate others.
The third map was developed specifically for Khvili Sergei Gromenko
2010-2015
2015-2020
Sergey Gromenko card
