Could the Ukrainian Conflict spark off World War III?

[robespierre1789]

This might be a cliched question, but I can't help thinking that the escalating conflict in the Donbass region could eventually turn into a direct clash with Russian forces (not just russian insurgents and disguised troops), which would in turn lead to chained declarations of war, and ending with clashes between NATO and Russia/China.

Everyone says that economic ties between nations in the XXI Century is precisely what makes war nearly impossible (except for the usual conflicts in Middle East) but I think the situation in Ukraine is out of control.

What do you think?

 

[kittyworker]

Ukraine isn't a part of Nato and I don't think Nato would be willing to go so far as to start World War III protecting a non-member. If Russia were to attack Latvia or Estonia that may be another story as they are both members.

 

[robespierre1789]

Ukraine isn't a part of Nato and I don't think Nato would be willing to go so far as to start World War III protecting a non-member. If Russia were to attack Latvia or Estonia that may be another story as they are both members.

You are right, but the possibility of Ukraine joining NATO has been discussed in many opportunities, though not possible at the moment.

Also, Russian submarines have been sighted in more than one opportunity in Swedish water.

 

[kittyworker]

You are right, but the possibility of Ukraine joining NATO has been discussed in many opportunities, though not possible at the moment.

Also, Russian submarines have been sighted in more than one opportunity in Swedish water.

Russia has land on the Baltic Sea including St. Petersburg so I'm not really all that worried about what happens up there. Again, Sweden is not a member of NATO either. If NATO had to cut off the Baltic it wouldn't be too difficult with the combined force of Denmark, Finland, and Germany. No, most of Russia's naval strength lies along the Arctic and Pacific Oceans.

 

[xTinx]

I have a feeling it will, but that's just my presumption. When a war between two countries erupt, all the neighboring states, as well as states with political and economic treaties with the warring states, are bound to get involved. Their political and economic interests will be jeopardized if they opt out of the war. Secondly, there's such a thing as "reputation" and a lot of superpowers try to bank on it. Countries vying to attain a similar status would not hesitate to display their prowess by engaging in wars that have nothing to do with them. Once a war erupts, it's always the UN's duty to get involved and send out peacekeeping troops. Other countries provide military support out of the goodness of their hearts.

 

[Redheart]

There's not going to be a WW III because everyone knows this will be nuclear war. IF there's going to be a war then the one who makes a preemptive nuclear strike wins the war. So don't expect declarations of war. Wait for the blast to alert you that WW III has began.

 

[orangesunset]

Anything can spark off a world war. Some unknown member of the Austrian-Hungarian royal family getting assasinated in Bosnia sparked off WW1. The event itself didn't spark off the war it was the misunderstandings and over reactions by various countries afterwards.

 

[tournique]

Nuclear wars will not happen as long as there is a mutual fear of total destruction. NATO will also avoid defending a non NATO country because that only gives Russia a reason to get into Ukraine with it's own army.

 

[JulianWilliams]

This might be a cliched question, but I can't help thinking that the escalating conflict in the Donbass region could eventually turn into a direct clash with Russian forces (not just russian insurgents and disguised troops), which would in turn lead to chained declarations of war, and ending with clashes between NATO and Russia/China.

Everyone says that economic ties between nations in the XXI Century is precisely what makes war nearly impossible (except for the usual conflicts in Middle East) but I think the situation in Ukraine is out of control.

What do you think?

No. Ukraine isn't a part of NATO therefore we don't really have any obligation to go in and help them in case of invasion. They will merely be used as a proxy conflict between the West and Russia. Things will not get really hot between NATO and Russia.

 

[BLACKEAGLE]

I don't think it would lead to WW3 as there have been much more hostilities between them in the past and they managed to settle them down peacefully or through proxy wars. Both sides can finish eachother off, so their relations could deteriorate but not to this level.

 

[globulon]

It will take way more than Ukraine to set off World War III. With the looming presence of nuclear weapons, no one really wants a widespread global conflict. Furthermore, that conflict is relatively contained as Russia would not extend its influence into a NATO country. In my opinion, a regional conflict is more likely in the Asian regions considering Pakistan-Indian hostilities or Chinese aggression against its neighbors.

 

[morgan_titan]

I think that although it doesn't seem likely, there's a lot of potential for it. No one wants to start WWIII - or any other large scale conflicts. But world wars have been started over some extremely unlikely reasons, so I can see something happening in the future that triggers a chain reaction [ie: like the assassination of Duke Ferdinand did in what became WWI]. What it will be though, no one can guess.

 

[Gabriel]

I doubt it very much, this is a border/domestic war which probably has been brewing for many years. If there is another World War it will be more likely to be the Middle East where it becomes international. They have come close to resolutions several times already which is a good sign, as negotiations always take a long time.

 

[morgan_titan]

I doubt it very much, this is a border/domestic war which probably has been brewing for many years. If there is another World War it will be more likely to be the Middle East where it becomes international. They have come close to resolutions several times already which is a good sign, as negotiations always take a long time.

I disagree about the Middle East though - that's a "closed" conflict to me. For now anyway. Israel has US backing and is going to take advantage against Lebanon and Syria where they can for more land/removing threats [like the recent strike that's started off the new round of back and forth]. The West is happy to let the Middle East countries pummel each other and not focus too much on the outside. ISIS is the only one throwing a wrench into it, and they are paying dearly.

 

[kestas57]

My opinion is that Putin took Crimea and started the war in Ukraine because he wanted to test how far NATO would go. He can see that he can pretty much get away with occupying territory as long as it belongs to a weak state with the only repercussions being a few sanctions. As for attacking a NATO member, I'm not sure if he would go that far. Maybe if another event diverted the world's attention but that would have to be pretty huge.