Who pushes the world to the third world

We are on the verge of a new world war.

This was stated by the British Chief of Defense Nick Carter.

According to him, there are now several regional conflicts in the world, and the international community miscalculates the risks of their escalation.

“Decision-makers sometimes do not understand the consequences of their actions, which leads to increased tensions.

This means that more and more people are involved (in military conflicts - 

), more and more diverse weapons are being used.

And such a course of events is already difficult to stop, which ultimately leads to a full-scale war, ”the general explained.

And not just a general - Nick Carter is on duty the chief military adviser to the Secretary of Defense and the Prime Minister of Great Britain, so he seems to know what he is talking about.

Is he right?

Strictly speaking, yes.

The third world war is already underway - but not between states, but between ideologies.

The current super-idea - global liberalism - is in a serious internal crisis and is fighting on all fronts with rivals united against it.

Among them are the Russian sovereign democracy, the Iranian Islamic Republic, socialism with a Chinese face, East European national conservatism, and many others - including the American fifth column represented by Trumpism.

In the process of defending its status as a global super-idea, liberalism destroys states (Libya, Ukraine), imposes sanctions against the recalcitrant, incites wars and poisons the lives of millions of people.

But Nick Carter probably still had in mind not ideological, but interstate wars.

He did not specify which ones, but if we are talking about regional conflicts, where the interests of many influential players converge, then these are, of course, Syria, Ukraine, Karabakh, possibly Yemen.

Could the clash of these players there, multiplied by the adventurous actions of some of them, lead to a third world war?

At first glance, it cannot.

Among those influential players are the nuclear powers - Russia, the United States, France.

And since the main conflict lines run not within the nuclear club, but between regional and nuclear countries, no nuclear-free state in a sober mind will ever declare war on a nuclear one and will not do anything that would provoke a violent response from the owners of nuclear weapons.

Therefore, the risks of war are minimized.

However, this theoretical scheme is correct only if all participants reason in a sober mind, reasonably and logically.

The same does not happen - and as a result, as Nick Carter rightly pointed out, there are risks of escalation due to poor decisions or false expectations.

Moreover, in some scenarios, a situation of predetermination may arise - when one action causes a predictable series of other steps leading to a world war.

For example, Turkish President Recep Erdogan very effectively uses the strategy of diplomatic bluffing - he always sharply raises the stakes in the expectation that indecisive counterparts (Greeks, Israelis or French) will retreat without resistance.

This usually happens.

However, if now Russia, Syria and Iran start an operation to legally and logically liberate the Syrian province of Idlib from terrorists, then Erdogan can, as usual, sharply raise the stakes and say that he is not going to leave.

Raise in the hope that Moscow and Tehran will again try to come to an agreement with him.

However, Russia and Iran may not want to come to an agreement, but to punish Erdogan.

For Moscow, it will arise, for example, because of Turkey's actions in Karabakh, the sale of combat drones to Ukraine, as well as too much activity of the Turkish military in Central Asia.

Ayatollahs will want to teach the Turks a lesson for placing Syrian terrorists on the border between Karabakh and Iran, which Ankara has transferred there, and to prevent provocations from which the Iranian army is being drawn into the region.

As a result, the very situation of predetermination may develop.

Russia, Syria and Iran are starting an operation with the expectation that Turkey will leave on its own.

Erdogan, who is well aware of the domestic political consequences of such a withdrawal (especially against the background of the Biden administration coming to power in the United States, aimed at changing the regime in Ankara), can keep his expeditionary force in Idlib and even shoot off the advancing Syrian units.

If Russian and Iranian troops come under attack, the Turks will begin to be seriously punished, which will entail the involvement of the Turkish army in the war - and with it, possibly, the entire NATO.

The situation on the Korean Peninsula, where the DPRK has an agreement on defense with nuclear China, and South Korea has an agreement with the no less nuclear United States, remains hot, though not tense.

So yes, the world is indeed on the brink of war.

And not because the parties have different interests, and not even because politicians cannot agree on compromises and rules of conduct.

The fact is that, as Nick Carter again rightly said, "decision-makers sometimes do not understand the consequences of their actions."

For them, war is not an extreme risk, but a perfectly acceptable political instrument.

And they will consider it as such until they find themselves on the brink of a nuclear apocalypse.

That is why a number of experts believe that only a new Cuban missile crisis will introduce adequacy and sobriety into the world, when all world players will find themselves on the edge of this abyss and see that there is nothing beyond it.

No benefits, no rating, no bank, no buyout - only death.

The author's point of view may not coincide with the position of the editorial board.