What will World War 3 be like? What will the third world. India - Pakistan

Socio-political tension is constantly growing in the world. And some experts predict that everything can result in a global conflict. How realistic is it in the short term?

The risk remains

It is unlikely that today someone is pursuing the goal of unleashing a world war. Previously, if a large-scale conflict was brewing, the instigator always expected to end it as quickly as possible and with minimal losses. However, as history shows, almost all "blitzkriegs" resulted in a protracted confrontation involving a huge amount of human and material resources. Such wars hurt both the loser and the winner.

Nevertheless, wars have always been and, unfortunately, will arise, because someone wants to have more resources, and someone defends their borders, including from mass illegal migration, fights terrorism or demands the restoration of their rights in accordance with with previous agreements.

In the event that countries still decide to get involved in a global war, then, according to many experts, they will certainly be divided into different camps, which will be approximately equal in strength. The cumulative military, primarily nuclear, potential of the powers that hypothetically take part in the collision is capable of destroying all life on the planet dozens of times. How likely is it that the coalitions will start this suicidal war? Analysts say that it is not great, but the danger remains.

Political poles

The modern world order is far from what it was after the Second World War. However, formally it continues to exist on the basis of the Yalta and Bretton Woods agreements of the states of the anti-Hitler coalition. The only thing that has changed is the alignment of forces, which was formed during the period cold war. The two poles of world geopolitics today, like half a century ago, are determined by Russia and the United States.

Russia crossed the Rubicon, and this did not pass without a trace and painlessly for her: she temporarily lost her superpower status and lost her traditional allies. However, our country has managed to maintain integrity, retain influence on post-Soviet space, revive military-industrial complex and acquire new strategic partners.

The financial and political elite of the United States, as in the good old days, under democratic slogans, continues to carry out military expansion far from its borders, at the same time successfully imposing on the leading countries an “anti-crisis” and “anti-terrorist” policy that is beneficial for itself.

AT last years China is persistently wedged into the confrontation between Russia and the United States. The Eastern dragon, while maintaining good relations with Russia, nevertheless does not take sides. Possessing the largest army and carrying out rearmament on an unprecedented scale, he has every reason to do so.

A united Europe also remains an influential player on the world stage. Despite dependence on the North Atlantic Alliance, certain forces in the Old World are in favor of an independent political course. Not far off and reconstruction armed forces European Union, which will be held by Germany and France. In the face of energy shortages, Europe will act decisively, analysts say.

It is impossible not to pay attention to the growing threat posed by radical Islam in the Middle East. This is not only the extremist nature of the actions of Islamic groups in the region, which is growing every year, but also the expansion of the geography and tools of terrorism.

Unions

Recently, we have been increasingly observing the consolidation of various allied associations. This is evidenced, on the one hand, by the summits of Donald Trump and the leaders of Israel, South Korea, Japan, Britain and other leading European countries, and on the other hand, meetings of heads of state within the framework of the activities of the BRICS bloc, which attracts new international partners. During the talks, not only trade, economic and political issues are discussed, but also all sorts of aspects of military cooperation.

The well-known military analyst Joachim Hagopian emphasized back in 2015 that the “recruitment of friends” by America and Russia is not accidental. China and India, in his opinion, will be drawn into the orbit of Russia, and the European Union will inevitably follow the United States. This is supported by the intensified exercises of NATO countries in Eastern Europe and a military parade with the participation of Indian and Chinese units on Red Square.

Sergei Glazyev, adviser to the President of Russia, says that it would be beneficial and even fundamentally important for our country to create a coalition of any countries that do not support militant rhetoric directed against Russian state. Then, according to him, the United States will be forced to moderate its ardor.

Wherein great importance will have what position Turkey will take, which is almost a key figure capable of acting as a catalyst for relations between Europe and the Middle East, and, more broadly, between the West and the countries of the Asian region. What we are seeing now is a cunning game of Istanbul on the differences between the US and Russia.

Resources

Foreign and domestic analysts tend to conclude that a global war could be provoked by the global financial crisis. The most serious problem of the leading countries of the world lies in the close interweaving of their economies: the collapse of one of them will entail serious consequences for others.

The war that may follow a devastating crisis will be fought not so much for territory as for resources. For example, analysts Alexander Sobyanin and Marat Shibutov build the following hierarchy of resources that the beneficiary will receive: people, uranium, gas, oil, coal, mining raw materials, drinking water, agricultural land.

It is curious that, from the point of view of some experts, the status of a universally recognized world leader does not yet guarantee the United States victory in such a war. In the past, NATO Commander-in-Chief Richard Schiffer, in his book 2017: War with Russia, predicted a defeat for the United States, the cause of which would be the financial collapse and collapse of the American army.

Who is first?

Today, the trigger that could set off the mechanism, if not of a world war, then of a global clash, could be the crisis on the Korean Peninsula. Joachim Hagopian, however, predicts that it is fraught with the use of nuclear charges and at first Russia and the United States will not get involved in it.

Glazyev does not see serious grounds for a global war, but notes that its risk will persist until the United States gives up its claims to world domination. The most dangerous period, according to Glazyev, is the beginning of the 2020s, when the West will emerge from the depression, and developed countries, including China and the United States, will begin the next round of rearmament. At the peak of a new technological leap, the threat will lie global conflict.

It is characteristic that the famous Bulgarian clairvoyant Vanga did not dare to predict the date of the start of the Third World War, indicating only that religious strife around the world would most likely become its cause.

"Hybrid Wars"

Not everyone believes in the reality of World War III. Why go for mass casualties and destruction, if there is a long-tried and more effective means - "hybrid war". In the "White Paper", intended for the commanders of the special forces of the American army, in the section "Win in complex world” contains all the comprehensive information on this subject.

It says that any military operations against the authorities primarily imply implicit and covert actions. Their essence is the attack of rebel forces or terrorist organizations (which are supplied from abroad with money and weapons) on government structures. Sooner or later, the existing regime loses control over the situation and leaves its country at the mercy of the sponsors of the coup.

The Chief of the General Staff of the Russian Armed Forces, General Valery Gerasimov, considers "hybrid warfare" a means that is many times superior in results to any open military clashes.

Capital can do anything

Nowadays, not only conspiracy theorists are sure that both world wars were largely provoked by the Anglo-American financial corporations, which extracted fabulous profits from militarization. And their ultimate goal is the establishment of the so-called "American peace".

“Today we are on the verge of a grandiose reformatting of the world order, the instrument of which will again be war,” says writer Alexei Kungurov. It will be a financial war of world capitalism directed mainly against the developing countries.

The task of such a war is to give the periphery no chance for any kind of independence. In underdeveloped or dependent countries, a system of external currency management is established, which forces them to exchange their output, resources and other material values for dollars. The more transactions, the more the American machine will print currencies.

But the main goal of world capital is the "Heartland": the territory of the Eurasian continent, most of which is controlled by Russia. Whoever owns the "Heartland" with its colossal resource base will own the world - so said the English geopolitician Halford Mackinder.

Endless terrorist attacks, ongoing armed conflicts, ongoing disagreements between Russia, the United States and the European Union indicate that peace on our planet is literally hanging by a thread. This situation is alarming, both among politicians and among ordinary people. It is no coincidence that the issue of the start of the Third World War is being seriously discussed by the entire world community.

Expert opinion

Some political scientists believe that the mechanism of war was already launched several years ago. It all started with Ukraine, when a corrupt president was removed from office and the new government in the country was called illegitimate, but simply a junta. Then they announced to the whole world that it was fascist and began to scare one sixth of the land with it. In the minds of the people of the two fraternal peoples, distrust was first sown, and then outright enmity. A full-scale information war began, in which everything was subordinated to inciting hatred between people.

This confrontation was painful for the families, relatives, friends of the two fraternal peoples. It got to the point that the politicians of the two countries are ready to push brother against brother. The situation on the Internet also speaks of the danger of the situation. Various discussion platforms and forums have turned into real battlefields where everything is allowed.

If someone still doubts the likelihood of war, then they can simply go to any social network and see how heated the discussions of topical topics are reaching, from information about oil quotes to the upcoming Eurovision Song Contest.

If it is possible to quarrel two fraternal peoples who shared grief and victories for more than 360 years, then what can we say about other countries. Any nation can be called an enemy overnight, having prepared timely information support in the media and the Internet. So, for example, it was with Turkey.

At present, Russia is testing new methods of war on the example of Crimea, Donbass, Ukraine, and Syria. Why deploy multi-million armies, transfer troops, if you can carry out a "successful information attack", and to top it off, send a small contingent of "little green men". Fortunately, there is already positive experience in Georgia, Crimea, Syria and the Donbass.

Some political observers believe that it all started in Iraq, when the US decided to remove the supposedly undemocratic president and carried out Operation Desert Storm. As a result, the country's natural resources came under US control.

Having made a little “fat” in the 2000s and having carried out a number of military operations, Russia decided not to give in and prove to the whole world that it “got up from its knees”. Hence such “decisive” actions in Syria, in the Crimea and in the Donbass. In Syria, we protect the whole world from ISIS, in Crimea, Russians from Bandera, in the Donbass, the Russian-speaking population from Ukrainian punishers.

In fact, an invisible confrontation between the United States and Russia has already begun. America does not want to share its dominance in the world with the Russian Federation. Direct evidence of this is the current Syria.

Tension in different parts of the world, where the interests of the two countries are in contact, will only grow.

There are experts who believe that the tension with America is caused by the fact that the latter is aware of the loss of its leading position against the backdrop of a rising China and wants to destroy Russia in order to seize its natural wealth. Various mitigation methods are used Russian Federation:

EU sanctions;
lower oil prices;
involvement of the Russian Federation in the arms race;
support of protest moods in Russia.

America is doing everything to repeat the situation of 1991, when the Soviet Union.

War in Russia is inevitable in 2020

This point of view is shared by the American political analyst I. Hagopian. He posted his thoughts on this subject on the GlobalResears website. He noted that there are all signs of preparing the United States and Russia for war. The author notes that America will be supported by:

NATO countries;
Israel;
Australia;
all US satellites around the world.

Russia's allies include China and India. The expert believes that the United States is waiting for bankruptcy and therefore it will attempt to take possession of the wealth of the Russian Federation. He also stressed that some states may disappear as a result of this conflict.

Similar forecasts are given by former head of NATO A. Shirreff. For this, he even wrote a book about the war with Russia. In it, he notes the inevitability of a military confrontation with America. According to the plot of the book, Russia captures the Baltic states. NATO countries come to its defense. As a result, the third World War. On the one hand, the plot looks frivolous and implausible, but on the other hand, given that the work was written by a retired general, the script looks quite plausible.

Who will win America or Russia

To answer this question, it is necessary to compare the military power of the two powers:

Armament	Russia	USA
active army	1.4 million people	1.1 million people
Reserve	1.3 million people	2.4 million people
Airports and runways	1218	13513
Aircraft	3082	13683
Helicopters	1431	6225
tanks	15500	8325
armored vehicles	27607	25782
Self-propelled guns	5990	1934
Towed artillery	4625	1791
MLRS	4026	830
Ports and terminals	7	23
Warships	352	473
Aircraft carriers	1	10
Submarines	63	72
attack ships	77	17
Budget	76 trillion.	612 trillion.

Success in war depends not only on superiority in weapons. According to military expert Y. Shields, the Third World War will not be like the two previous wars. The fighting will take place on computer technology. They will become shorter, but the number of victims will be in the thousands. Nuclear weapons are unlikely to be used, but chemical and bacteriological weapons, as an auxiliary means, are not excluded.

Attacks will be made not only on the battlefield, but also in:

the field of communications;
the Internet;
television;
economy;
finance;
politics;
space.

Something similar is happening in Ukraine now. The offensive is on all fronts. Blatant disinformation, hacker attacks on financial servers, sabotage in the economic field, discrediting politicians, diplomats, terrorist attacks, shutting down broadcast satellites and much more can cause irreparable damage to the enemy along with military operations at the front.

Psychic Predictions

Throughout history, there have been many prophets who predicted the end of mankind. One of them is Nostradamus. As for world wars, he accurately predicted the first two. As for the Third World War, he said that it would happen through the fault of the Antichrist, who would stop at nothing and be terribly merciless.

The next psychic whose prophecies have come true is Vanga. She told future generations that World War III would start with a small state in Asia. The fastest is Syria. The reason for the hostilities will be an attack on four heads of state. The consequences of the war will be horrendous.

The famous psychic P. Globa also said his words regarding the Third World War. His forecasts can be called optimistic. He said that humanity will end World War III if it prevents military action in Iran.

The psychics listed above are not the only ones who predicted World War III. Similar predictions were made:

A. Ilmaier;
Mulchiasl;
Edgar Cayce;
G. Rasputin;
Bishop Anthony;
Saint Hilarion and others

Today, news releases every day broadcast about brutal terrorist attacks, about military operations unfolding in the Middle East and neighboring Ukraine, about heated debates between the heads of developed states. This state of affairs is frightening and more and more often the question pops up in the world community: Will there be a World War 3 in 2018?

Perhaps even now we can try to resolve this dilemma by referring to the forecasts of analysts and great prophets. True, opinions on this matter are ambiguous, so you should not rely entirely on them.

Experienced political scientists are sure that the mechanism of war was launched several years ago, when the overthrow of power in Ukraine took place. The new government did not skimp on harsh statements, and their henchmen tried in every possible way to sow the seed of enmity between the two fraternal peoples.

A full-scale information war began, which incited hatred and contempt in the hearts of former relatives, friends and neighbors. in various forums, social networks and news portals, real “virtual” battles took place, where commentators did not skimp on expressions and each side provided irrefutable facts of the enemy’s guilt.

Even if two fraternal peoples, who for a long time shared victories and defeats among themselves, could come to a serious conflict, then what can we say about other countries that are ready to “splash out” anger and aggression at the first call.

Some political observers insist that World War III began when the US launched Operation Desert Storm, determined to overthrow a supposedly undemocratic president in Iraq. The Storm brought America control of all natural resources countries.

There is a theory that Russia and America are two powerful powers that can become the instigators of the Third World War. It is from them that the danger of a military conflict now emanates, because in those places where their interests are in contact, tension is already being felt.

There are experts who argue that misunderstandings with America arise from the growing ties between China and Russia. The United States understands that it is losing ground and is trying in every possible way to discredit Russia in the eyes of the world community.

Various methods are used to make the Russian Federation weaker:

lower oil prices;
EU sanctions;
bringing Russia into the arms race;
encouragement of mass protests in the Russian Federation.

Thus, America is trying to come to a situation that collapsed the USSR in 1991.

Prophecies of psychics about the Third World War

Throughout the history of mankind, many seers foreshadowed the beginning of the Third World War. Some of them even claimed that this battle would lead to the complete destruction of our race and the emergence of new, unique creatures.

Nostradamus at one time saw the development of two world wars, and regarding the third, he did not give any unambiguous answers. Although he did not deny the fact that a large-scale battle is possible through the fault of the Antichrist, who will be distinguished by cruelty and inhumanity.

In turn, the well-known Bulgarian clairvoyant, indicate that the Third World War will begin with a small state in Asia and spread throughout the planet. Judging by her comments, it will be Syria.

The reason for full-fledged military action will be an attack on the dominant persons of the four developed powers. Vanga said that the consequences of a new war would be terrifying.

Pavel Globa gives more optimistic forecasts regarding the Third World War. He argues that only a timely cessation of hostilities in Iran will prevent the development of a full-scale world war.

Will there be a war in the Russian Federation?

I. Hagopian, an expert and political analyst, is sure that full-fledged preparations for a war between America and Russia are already underway. He published his guesses on the GlobalReasers Internet portal. Hagopian states that in this battle, America will most likely receive support from:

Australia;
NATO countries;
Israel.

At the same time, Russia will find allies among China and India. The expert claims that America is heading towards bankruptcy and in order not to completely impoverish, its government will decide to take possession of the wealth of the Russian Federation. He stressed that as a result of such a military conflict, some countries may completely disappear from the face of the earth.

Similar forecasts were made by former head of NATO A. Shirreff. As proof, he even published a book detailing the course of the battle. The military confrontation will begin with the Baltic States, which Russia decides to "take over."

But this state of affairs will cause discontent among the inhabitants, NATO will support the Baltics and the Third World War will begin. On the one hand, the plot of this book seems fabulous and frivolous, but given the fact that the story is written retired general, the chances of its implementation increase.

In addition to the war outside the state, Russia is also expected to have internal strife. tense economic situation will provoke discontent among the population, mass rallies and robberies will begin. However, this situation will not last long and by the end of 2018, experts say, the state will begin its phased recovery and get out of the crisis hole.

The continuous crises observed around the world make us think about the possibility of a new global conflict. Not risking predicting this event using traditional analytics, Lenta.ru invited people who are professionally involved in describing the future to discuss the topic: science fiction writers.

We offered several domestic authors the same set of questions in order to get a cross-section of opinions on the problem. Sergey Lukyanenko, Kirill Benediktov, as well as Yana Botsman and Dmitry Gordevsky, who work under the common pseudonym Alexander Zorich, kindly sent their answers. We place them in chronological order, in the order in which they were received.

Dmitry Gordevsky, Yana Botsman

On the likelihood of war

Dmitry: As a science fiction writer, I really want to answer that the instigator of the world war will be aliens on big black starships. Of course, they will first destroy all the world's capitals, but then NATO, Russia and China will unite and kill all the invaders. After that, a technocratic utopia and the terraforming of Mars will begin. But we must admit that the likelihood of such a development of events is not very high.

Yana: But other scenarios have a high probability. If we talk about just a "big war", understanding it as a major regional conflict ("democracy against the DPRK", "democracies against Iran", the war between the Gulf monarchies, India against Pakistan, crusade NATO and Russia to Africa and the like), then the probability is close to 100 percent. If we talk about the world war, I would give 60 percent. It is not a fact that this world war will correspond to the classical ideas about it, that is, with the use of a strategic nuclear weapon.

Dmitry: By the way, I think that both the Russian Federation and the PRC are firmly aware of the threat of a world war, and, perhaps, the creation of a Russian-Chinese military-political alliance will be announced this year.

On the possible participation of Russia

Yana: Russia can distance itself from a major regional conflict, especially from the Korean topic. But if we are talking about a world war, then what is a world war without Russia?

Dmitry: Most likely, as in 1941, Russia will defend itself against an attack from outside. Which will almost certainly be aligned with the rebellion within.

Dmitry: Today it is easy to imagine the actions of one side (the aggressor) against the other side in the form of a creeping occupation, perhaps even formally approved by the government of the object of aggression. Well, for example, “international terrorists” have started up in some region, the government itself (or one of the governments - the one that is recognized as the aggressor as “legitimate”) allegedly cannot cope with them and calls a “strong partner” for help. In principle, many episodes of the intervention of the Entente countries against Russia in 1918-1922 looked something like this - that is, you cannot say that the technology is fundamentally new. Another question is that it can be applied at a new qualitative level and used up to the complete dismantling of one or another large state.

Yana: It seems to me that “democracies” simply must have such plans for Russia and China. At the same time, the scale of hostilities can be very serious, with the use of hundreds of aircraft and thousands of tanks, nuclear weapons and the like can be used - but the discursive design will be without the word "war" at all. "Stabilization actions", "mediation efforts", "appeasement" - in that spirit.

Dmitry: But the most curious thing is that an absolutely classic total war is also possible directly from the textbook for the Academy of the General Staff of the 1980s. This is due to the fact that the state apparatus and the military mobilization machine today are basically the same as they were a hundred years ago. And under certain conditions, the most cunning politicians will only have time to command "Machine, start up." And then everything will go just like in the atomic dystopias of the 1950s and 1960s.

Dmitry: The use of tactical nuclear weapons by the United States in a regional war is very likely in the next ten years. One can expect the use of nuclear weapons in the war between India and Pakistan - I don’t know how they formally consider them there - tactical or strategic. It is easy to imagine the use of a bomb by Israel in the Middle East or the Middle East. The full-scale use of strategic nuclear weapons by the United States and the Russian Federation is possible only in the "classic" third world war, which is still relatively unlikely (no more than 25 percent in the next 10 years, in my opinion).

Yana: As for other types of WMD, it seems that officially (that is, on behalf of the government) they can only be used in line with the use of nuclear weapons. In the past 15 years, the Americans have thrown such tantrums around chemical weapons that hardly anyone in their right mind would dare to use them, even in a very large regional conflict.

Yana: It seems that only a “classic” World War III with full-scale use of strategic nuclear weapons can seriously affect the world. In this case, the economic and political role of the United States and the traditionally developed regions of Eurasia will be qualitatively reduced, and Latin America, Arabs, and Indians will get a historical chance.

Dmitry: At the same time, perhaps we will get a pre-Columbian world in which the Caliphate and the Indians will exist for a long time in complete or almost complete isolation from both Americas. Then, of course, the fourth world war is inevitable, in which huge armadas of dreadnoughts will play a key role. Perhaps - sailing or steam. When the new conquistadors under the banner of the Prophet leave Oran, and in Gibraltar they are met by the ocean monitors of the Latin Empire, the fleetophiles of the post-nuclear age will have an unprecedented and exciting spectacle!

Dmitry: We clearly have a case where one can easily issue diametrically opposed judgments. Above, speaking about the sailing dreadnoughts of the Caliphate, I actually already outlined one point of view: technical degradation.

Yana: There is also a scenario in which the third world war itself will become the apotheosis and, so to speak, a global review of fundamentally new technical capabilities. This will happen if the option “Oh, it’s not us, it’s a singularity” is adopted for conducting military operations with decisive goals against Russia or China. To do this, armadas of various combat drones will first be created and a full-fledged global missile defense system will be put into operation. Then the forms of actions of the army of robots will be worked out on some serious regional adversary (for example, in Iran). Then in "Hour H" suddenly a certain Skynet "will start by itself" fighting against Russia exclusively with the help of robots.

Of course, such a scenario goes beyond the ten-year horizon that we were talking about.

Sergey Lukyanenko

On the likelihood of war

I rate the likelihood of a "big war" quite high. Unfortunately, in the world, firstly, a lot of contradictions have accumulated different plan, the resolution of which by the method of "big war" can be perceived as the most logical.

Secondly, the great world powers (including but not excluding the USA, Russia, China, Germany, Britain, etc.) have lost the memory of the horrors of war, which was a deterrent throughout the second half of the 20th century.

Thirdly, quite a lot of forces have appeared, both state and anti- or quasi-state (primarily global terrorism), which are interested in global war as a means of achieving their interests and breaking the existing world order. More likely, " big war"will be the result of these accumulated contradictions, which will be used by the interested forces if the great powers do not resist, hoping to take advantage of the situation in their favor.

On the possible participation of Russia

In one form or another, unfortunately, we cannot but participate. The main thing for us is that this form should be as close as possible to the participation of the United States in World War II - "on foreign territory, with little bloodshed, looking like a tempting place for the flight of minds and capital."

On the shape of a possible war and new forms of hostilities

I would suggest the term "mosaic war" or "mosaic warfare". That is, it is quite possible that two thirds of Europe or two thirds of the Middle East will blaze - while in the remaining unaffected enclaves there will be a completely peaceful and even emphatically prosperous life. I repeat: our task as a country is to be one of such territories in order to become a beneficiary of the post-war world, like Switzerland or the United States in World War II.

On the possible use of weapons of mass destruction and its consequences

The use of WMD is almost inevitable, at least at the level of a "dirty bomb", improvised poisonous substances, the destruction of strategic infrastructure facilities (dams, nuclear power plants, chemical plants). Unfortunately, until it comes to this and humanity is collectively horrified (for all the falsity of such an insight), the war will not be stopped. Moreover, it will most likely be stopped by the great powers with the help of the same WMD or carpet bombing.

On the consequences of a possible war in general

Oddly enough, there will be no special consequences for civilization. This war is unlikely to elevate the Arab world or Southeast Asia as a whole. If it does not come to a global war, then the leaders will not change, but only change places within the top ten. But there will be an inoculation against war for the next half century.

Will a possible new war be an impetus to the development of civilization, like the First and Second World Wars, or will it cause degradation?

Of course, it will become an impetus to the development, including art, science, technology, and even philosophy. There is nothing good in this, but humanity does not know how to grow up except through crises and murders. Of course, if it does not come to a global nuclear war. There won't be much choice here: degradation, radical demolition of the existing civilizational model, a complete change of leaders. However, humanity will survive in this case. Humans are very adaptable creatures.

Kirill Benediktov

On the likelihood of war

Unfortunately, I regard the probability of a “big war” in the next decade as high. It is clear that making such forecasts is a little dishonest - if suddenly the war does not happen, you can always say with a light heart: "Well, I was wrong, but how glad I am about this." But I'm not sure that the situation can generally be described in such terms. The mistake here can only be in terms - in three years, five years, ten, fifteen or twenty big war will still happen.

This will happen, firstly, because of the growing competition for the resource base - primarily for the Arctic, and secondly, because of the increasing pressure that the conditional West is experiencing (this concept in this case includes both Russia and China) from the side of the Islamic world. Islamic terrorism was not born yesterday, but at least half a century ago, but now it has grown stronger and acquired quasi-state forms. In a sense, the "big war" is already underway - and not only in Syria and Iraq, but also on the streets of European cities, in Russia and the United States.

If we talk about a world war, then its instigators, most likely, will still be traditional states, and not quasi-state entities. To speculate about which state will decide on this, in my opinion, is incorrect. There is now the only superpower on the planet that can take the risk of starting a new "big war", and there is no reason to assume that this situation will change in the next ten years. The problem is not who exactly will start the war, but whether events will develop according to a predetermined plan or get out of control, causing a “domino effect”.

Of the global scenarios, the most dangerous seems to be a possible conflict between the United States and China, the prerequisites for which have already been laid: the deployment of American THAAD missile defense systems in South Korea, the long-term conflict around the Spratly Islands (in which the United States formally does not take part), around the Diaoyu Islands (Senkaku) in the East China Sea and, most importantly, around the artificial islands created by China in the South China Sea. These islands were created by expanding the territory of reefs and small islands - and not because China lacks land, as is sometimes thought. Around each artificial island are territorial waters (12 miles) and a 200-mile exclusive economic zone. According to the UN Convention on Shipping - at least in its Chinese interpretation - the free movement of fleets is impossible in the 200-mile zone foreign countries. Cunning China has placed these artificial islands in such a way that compliance with the letter of the Convention will deprive the US fleets of the ability to move freely between the Indian and Pacific Ocean in a straight line, they will have to go through Australia.

The United States, as a thalassocracy, that is, a power whose power rests primarily on ocean fleets, is unlikely to agree with such a limitation of its capabilities. From here, in fact, the legs grow from the concept of "Pacific containment of China", adopted by Washington back in the days when Mrs. Clinton was Secretary of State. It is unlikely that China considers the scenario of war with the United States as desirable, but for it the protection of these islands is not only a matter of economic prestige, but also of geopolitical survival. And if somewhere in the South China Sea there is a large-scale clash between the US Navy and China, it is not at all excluded that this will lead to a third world war.

Another scenario that cannot be ignored is a strike on Iranian nuclear facilities, carried out either jointly by the Israeli Air Force and the United States, or only by the Israeli Air Force with the diplomatic support of Washington. This scenario was very likely during the second term of Bush Jr., then it seemed to have ceased to be relevant in connection with the "Iranian detente" under Obama, but now, unfortunately, it is again becoming a working one due to Donald Trump's extremely negative attitude towards Iran and its nuclear program. However, Russia has every chance to use its political influence to prevent such a scenario.

On the possible participation of Russia

If it is just a "big war" - say, a war on the Korean Peninsula, even with the use of nuclear weapons, then I sincerely hope that Russia will be able to limit itself to the role of a mediator-peacemaker. Vladimir Putin managed to refuse the very persistent proposal of George W. Bush to join the coalition during the second Gulf War (2003). If the war takes on a global scale, no one will be able to sit out.

Before Donald Trump's victory in the US elections, the risk of a new global conflict in the European theater of operations was quite high - in any case, real. Tensions were deliberately escalated along the entire length of the Baltic-Black Sea arc, where - in the softest underbelly of Russia - the puppet formation "Ukraine" has been rotting and tearing up for three years now. Forceful scenarios of seizing the Kaliningrad enclave from Russia were considered.

However, those players who were willing to play military map, were defeated (perhaps temporarily), and the current administration is not too interested in spending a lot of money on destabilizing the situation along Russia's western borders. Therefore, at least for the next four years, Russia can breathe easy. And the best thing is to use the respite provided to further build up its military and economic potential, because sooner or later, I repeat, humanity cannot avoid a global war.

On the shape of a possible war and new forms of hostilities

None of the wars of this century was like the wars of the 20th century. The further into the future, the less familiar will be the forms that war takes, although its essence, goals and objectives will remain unchanged: to defeat the enemy, destroy his military potential, take control of his resource base, impose his will on the enemy. In the case of the United States, it is worth adding another important motivation: maintaining a dominant position in the world.

Local wars will continue to be fought mainly by proxy, "cannon fodder", as is happening now in the Donbass or in Syria. The intervention of the great powers will be mainly pinpoint, while they will evade direct confrontation as much as possible. As for the "big war", it will be a war of cruise missiles and drones. Ten years from now, near-Earth space may become a new theater of operations, and the target will be satellite constellations that provide navigation, communications and the Internet. At the end of last year, Elon Musk filed an application with the US Federal Communications Commission for a project to send 4,500 spacecraft weighing 386 kilograms into space. The operation of this constellation of satellites will allow every inhabitant of the Earth to use the Internet at speeds up to 1 Gb / s. Therefore, the withdrawal of such a constellation will mean a kind of “power outage” in entire regions of the planet.

The war in the Arctic will most likely be fought by small groups troops special purpose, in some cases without identification marks - something like the notorious "green men". Due to the nature of the theater of operations, where a raid by a special forces group is enough to destroy a localized enemy base, such groups can perform their tasks and dissolve in “white silence”, leaving no traces and making it impossible to put forward claims to any particular side.

On the possible use of weapons of mass destruction and its consequences

Theoretically, there are no barriers to this, but just as there are no barriers to the use of "dirty bombs", which, it is claimed, can be assembled almost in a garage and available to advanced terrorists - and not a single such terrorist attack during the existence of a nuclear The program, thank God, did not happen. The use of nuclear weapons is possible as a last resort, when a regime that possesses such weapons decides to lay out the “last argument of the kings”, realizing that it has nothing more to lose.

Maybe Kim Jong-un is capable of this, although he does not give the impression of a gloomy maniac a la Hitler or Pol Pot, seeking to take as many people as possible with him to hell. In addition, just Kim Jong-un may well do without nuclear weapons: his artillery, located along the North-South demarcation line, is enough to wipe Seoul with all its 25 million inhabitants from the face of the earth. And the United States is well aware of this - it is no coincidence that just these days the 8th US Army stationed in Seoul is being redeployed to Pyeongtaek - this is 70 kilometers south of the capital.

The use of strategic nuclear weapons in a large-scale military conflict will most likely spell the end of civilization as we know it. That is why NW should be considered not as a weapon, but rather as a "great pacifier". As for other weapons of mass destruction, judging by the attempts to use them in Syria and Afghanistan, they cannot be compared with nuclear weapons, and it is irrational to rely on them in a global war. Worst of all is the scenario in which TNW falls into the hands of such enemies of Western civilization as ISIS. In this case, events may become uncontrollable.

On the consequences of a possible war in general

A major war will inevitably have an impact on the world economy, which, according to many experts, is at an impasse and has exhausted all of its development potential. The end of World War II gave birth to the Bretton Woods system, the end of the Cold War was marked by the Washington Consensus. World War III will almost certainly lead to a reorganization of world trade and financial markets, but what will this new system Nobody can predict right now. Possibly the Beijing Agreement.

Will a new war give impetus to the development of civilization, like the First and Second World Wars, or will it cause degradation?

It depends on whether it will be used in the third world strategic nuclear weapons or whether it will be conducted by conventional (or unusual, but non-nuclear) means. In the first case, we are waiting for new Dark Ages, in the second - a sharp breakthrough into the future, comparable, perhaps, with the technological breakthrough of 1944-1969.

It is true that wars generally give a powerful impetus to the development of technology. Even Heraclitus in the VI century BC postulated: “War is the father of everything and the king of all; war is generally accepted, enmity is the law, and everything arises through enmity. The space race between the USSR and the USA, as a result of which the USSR was the first to launch a man into space, and the Americans were the first to land on the moon, was a direct product of the Cold War and a kind of spectacle, the purpose of which was to show a potential adversary that he was defenseless from a blow from space.

Interestingly, in the early 1980s, when Reagan launched the star wars”(SOI), well-informed Americans came to the Soviet Union, trying to convey to the leadership of the USSR the true goals of this program: the development of new technologies, in particular, laser welding of metals in a vacuum. If we discard all the ideological and propaganda nonsense surrounding the SDI program, it could be turned into a platform for the joint development of a new technological order with production facilities in orbit, especially since laser welding technology was originally based on the developments of Soviet scientists. Unfortunately, for a variety of reasons this was not done. Propaganda won over common sense.

We offered several domestic authors the same set of questions in order to get a cross-section of opinions on the problem. Your answers were kindly sent Sergey Lukyanenko, Kirill Benediktov, as well as Yana Botsman and Dmitry Gordevsky operating under a common alias Alexander Zorich. We arrange them in chronological order, in the order in which they were received.

Dmitry Gordevsky, Yana Botsman

Dmitry: As a science fiction writer, I really want to answer that aliens in big black starships will become the instigator of the world war. Of course, they will first destroy all the world's capitals, but then NATO, Russia and China will unite and kill all the invaders. After that, a technocratic utopia and the terraforming of Mars will begin. But we must admit that the likelihood of such a development of events is not very high.

Yana: But other scenarios have a high probability. If we talk about just a “big war”, understanding it as a major regional conflict (“democracy against the DPRK”, “democracies against Iran”, the war between the Gulf monarchies, India against Pakistan, the crusade of NATO and Russia in Africa, etc.), then the probability is close to 100 percent. If we talk about a world war, I would give 60 percent. It is not a fact that this world war will correspond to the classical ideas about it, that is, with the use of strategic nuclear weapons.

Dmitry: By the way, I believe that the threat of a world war is firmly realized both in the Russian Federation and in the PRC, and, perhaps, the creation of a Russian-Chinese military-political alliance will be announced this year.

Yana: Russia can distance itself from a major regional conflict, especially from the Korean topic. But if we are talking about a world war, then what is a world war without Russia?

Dmitry: Most likely, as in 1941, Russia will defend itself against an attack from outside. Which will almost certainly be aligned with the rebellion within.

Dmitry: Today it is easy to imagine the actions of one side (the aggressor) against the other side in the form of a creeping occupation, perhaps even formally approved by the government of the object of aggression. Well, for example, “international terrorists” have started up in some region, the government itself (or one of the governments - the one that is recognized as the aggressor as “legitimate”) allegedly cannot cope with them and calls a “strong partner” for help. In principle, many episodes of the intervention of the Entente countries against Russia in 1918-1922 looked something like this - that is, you cannot say that the technology is fundamentally new. Another question is that it can be applied at a new qualitative level and used up to the complete dismantling of one or another large state.

Yana: It seems to me that the "democracies" are simply obliged to have such plans for Russia and China. At the same time, the scale of hostilities can be very serious, with the use of hundreds of aircraft and thousands of tanks, nuclear weapons and the like can be used - but the discursive design will be without the word "war" at all. "Stabilization actions", "mediation efforts", "appeasement" - in that spirit.

Dmitry: But the most curious thing is that an absolutely classic total war is also possible directly from the textbook for the Academy of the General Staff of the 1980s. This is due to the fact that the state apparatus and the military mobilization machine today are basically the same as they were a hundred years ago. And under certain conditions, the most cunning politicians will only have time to command "Machine, start up." And then everything will go just like in the atomic dystopias of the 1950s and 1960s.

Dmitry: The use of tactical nuclear weapons by the United States in a regional war in the next ten years is very likely. One can expect the use of nuclear weapons in the war between India and Pakistan - I don’t know how they formally consider them there - tactical or strategic. It is easy to imagine the use of a bomb by Israel in the Middle East or the Middle East. The full-scale use of strategic nuclear weapons by the United States and the Russian Federation is possible only in the "classic" third world war, which is still relatively unlikely (no more than 25 percent in the next 10 years, in my opinion).

Yana: As for other types of WMD, it seems that officially (that is, on behalf of the government) they can only be used in line with the use of nuclear weapons. In the past 15 years, the Americans have thrown such tantrums around chemical weapons that hardly anyone in their right mind would dare to use them, even in a very large regional conflict.

Yana: It seems that only a “classic” third world war with the full-scale use of strategic nuclear weapons can seriously affect the world. In this case, the economic and political role of the United States and the traditionally developed regions of Eurasia will be qualitatively reduced, and Latin America, Arabs, and Indians will get a historical chance.

Dmitry: At the same time, perhaps we will get a pre-Columbian world in which the Caliphate and the Indians will exist for a long time in complete or almost complete isolation from both Americas. Then, of course, the fourth world war is inevitable, in which huge armadas of dreadnoughts will play a key role. Possibly sailing or steam. When the new conquistadors under the banner of the Prophet leave Oran, and in Gibraltar they are met by the ocean monitors of the Latin Empire, the fleetophiles of the post-nuclear age will have an unprecedented and exciting spectacle!

Dmitry: Before us is clearly the case when one can easily issue diametrically opposed judgments. Above, speaking about the sailing dreadnoughts of the Caliphate, I actually already outlined one point of view: technical degradation.

Yana: There is also a scenario in which the third world war itself will become the apotheosis and, so to speak, a global review of fundamentally new technical capabilities. This will happen if the option “Oh, it’s not us, it’s a singularity” is adopted for conducting military operations with decisive goals against Russia or China. To do this, armadas of various combat drones will first be created and a full-fledged global missile defense system will be put into operation. Then the forms of actions of the army of robots will be worked out on some serious regional adversary (for example, in Iran). Then, in "Hour Hour", all of a sudden, a certain Skynet "itself will begin" hostilities against Russia exclusively with the help of robots.

Of course, such a scenario goes beyond the ten-year horizon that we were talking about.

Sergey Lukyanenko

I rate the likelihood of a "big war" quite high. Unfortunately, in the world, firstly, a lot of contradictions of various kinds have accumulated, the resolution of which by the “big war” method can be perceived as the most logical.

Thirdly, quite a lot of forces have appeared, both state and anti- or quasi-state (primarily world terrorism), which are interested in a global war as a means of achieving their interests and breaking the existing world order. Most likely, the "big war" will be the result of these accumulated contradictions, which will be used by the interested forces if the great powers do not resist, hoping to take advantage of the situation.

In one form or another, unfortunately, we cannot but participate. The main thing for us is that this form should be as close as possible to the participation of the United States in World War II - "on foreign territory, with little bloodshed, looking like a tempting place for the flight of minds and capital."

I would suggest the term "mosaic war" or "mosaic warfare". That is, it is quite possible that two-thirds of Europe or two-thirds of the Middle East will blaze - while in the remaining unaffected enclaves there will be a completely peaceful and even emphatically prosperous life. I repeat: our task as a country is to be one of such territories in order to become a beneficiary of the post-war world, like Switzerland or the United States in World War II.

The use of WMD is almost inevitable, at least at the level of a "dirty bomb", improvised poisonous substances, the destruction of strategic infrastructure facilities (dams, nuclear power plants, chemical plants). Unfortunately, until it comes to this and humanity is collectively horrified (for all the falsity of such an insight), the war will not be stopped. Moreover, it will most likely be stopped by the great powers with the help of the same WMD or carpet bombing.

Oddly enough, there will be no special consequences for civilization. This war is unlikely to elevate the Arab world or Southeast Asia as a whole. If it does not come to a global war, then the leaders will not change, but only change places within the top ten. But there will be an inoculation against war for the next half century.

Kirill Benediktov

Unfortunately, I regard the probability of a “big war” in the next decade as high. It is clear that making such forecasts is a little dishonest - if suddenly the war does not happen, you can always say with a light heart: "Well, I was wrong, but how happy I am about this." But I'm not sure that the situation can generally be described in such terms. The mistake here can only be in terms - in three years, five years, ten, fifteen or twenty big war will still happen.

This will happen, firstly, because of the growing competition for the resource base - primarily for the Arctic, and secondly, because of the increasing pressure that the conditional West is experiencing (this concept includes both Russia and China in this case) from the Islamic world. Islamic terrorism was not born yesterday, but at least half a century ago, but now it has grown stronger and acquired quasi-state forms. In a sense, the "big war" is already underway - and not only in Syria and Iraq, but also on the streets of European cities, in Russia and the United States.

Photo: Zentralbild / DPA / Globallookpress.com

Of the global scenarios, the most dangerous seems to be a possible conflict between the United States and China, the prerequisites for which have already been laid: the deployment of American THAAD missile defense systems in South Korea, the long-term conflict around the Spratly Islands (in which the United States formally does not take part), around the Diaoyu Islands (Senkaku) in the East China Sea and, most importantly, around the artificial islands created by China in the South China Sea. These islands were created by expanding the territory of reefs and small islands - and not because China lacks land, as is sometimes thought. Around each artificial island are territorial waters (12 miles) and a 200-mile exclusive economic zone. According to the UN Convention on Shipping - at least in its Chinese interpretation - in the 200-mile zone, the free movement of fleets of foreign states is impossible. Cunning China has placed these artificial islands in such a way that compliance with the letter of the Convention will deprive the US fleets of the opportunity to move freely between the Indian and Pacific Oceans in a straight line, they will be forced to go through Australia.

The United States, as a thalassocracy, that is, a power whose power rests primarily on ocean fleets, is unlikely to agree with such a limitation of its capabilities. From here, in fact, the legs grow from the concept of "Pacific containment of China", adopted by Washington back in the days when Mrs. Clinton was Secretary of State. It is unlikely that China considers the scenario of a war with the United States as desirable, but for it the protection of these islands is not only a matter of economic prestige, but also of geopolitical survival. And if somewhere in the South China Sea there is a large-scale clash between the US Navy and China, it is not at all excluded that this will lead to a third world war.

If it will be just a "big war" - say, a war on the Korean Peninsula, even with the use of nuclear weapons, then I sincerely hope that Russia will be able to limit itself to the role of an intermediary peacemaker. Vladimir Putin managed to refuse the very persistent proposal of George W. Bush to join the coalition during the second Gulf War (2003). If the war takes on a global scale, no one will be able to sit out.

Before Donald Trump's victory in the US elections, the risk of a new global conflict in the European theater of operations was quite high - in any case, real. Tensions were deliberately escalated along the entire length of the Baltic-Black Sea arc, where - in the softest underbelly of Russia - for three years now the puppet formation "Ukraine" has been rotting and tearing up. Forceful scenarios of seizing the Kaliningrad enclave from Russia were considered.

However, those players who were ready to play the war card have been defeated (perhaps temporarily), and the current administration is not very interested in spending a lot of money to destabilize the situation along Russia's western borders. Therefore, at least for the next four years, Russia can breathe easy. And the best thing is to use the respite provided to further build up its military and economic potential, because sooner or later, I repeat, humanity cannot avoid a global war.

None of the wars of this century was like the wars of the 20th century. The further into the future, the less familiar will be the forms that war takes, although its essence, goals and objectives will remain unchanged: to defeat the enemy, destroy his military potential, take control of his resource base, impose his will on the enemy. In the case of the United States, it is worth adding another important motivation: maintaining a dominant position in the world.

The war in the Arctic will most likely be fought by small groups of special forces, in some cases without identification marks - something like the notorious "little green men". Due to the nature of the theater of operations, where a raid by a special forces group is enough to destroy a localized enemy base, such groups can perform their tasks and dissolve in “white silence”, leaving no traces and making it impossible to put forward claims to any particular side.

Theoretically, there are no barriers to this, but just as there are no barriers to the use of "dirty bombs", which, it is claimed, can be assembled almost in a garage and available to advanced terrorists - and not a single such terrorist attack during the existence of a nuclear The program, thank God, did not happen. The use of nuclear weapons is possible as a last resort, when a regime that possesses such weapons decides to lay out the “last argument of the kings”, realizing that it has nothing more to lose.

Maybe Kim Jong-un is capable of this, although he does not give the impression of a gloomy maniac a la Hitler or Pol Pot, seeking to take as many people as possible with him to hell. In addition, just Kim Jong-un may well do without nuclear weapons: his artillery, located along the North-South demarcation line, is enough to wipe Seoul with all its 25 million inhabitants from the face of the earth. And the United States is well aware of this - it is no coincidence that just these days the 8th US Army stationed in Seoul is being relocated to Pyeongtaek - this is 70 kilometers south of the capital.

The use of strategic nuclear weapons in a large-scale military conflict will most likely spell the end of civilization as we know it. That is why NW should be considered not as a weapon, but rather as a "great pacifier". As for other weapons of mass destruction, judging by the attempts to use them in Syria and Afghanistan, they cannot stand comparison with nuclear weapons, and it is irrational to rely on them in a global war. Worst of all is the scenario in which TNW falls into the hands of such enemies of Western civilization as ISIS. In this case, events may become uncontrollable.

A major war will inevitably have an impact on the world economy, which, according to many experts, is at an impasse and has exhausted all of its development potential. The end of World War II gave birth to the Bretton Woods system, the end of the Cold War was marked by the Washington Consensus. World War III will almost certainly lead to a reorganization of world trade and financial markets, but no one can now predict what this new system will be called. Possibly the Beijing Agreement.

It depends on whether it will be used in the third world strategic nuclear weapons or whether it will be conducted by conventional (or unusual, but non-nuclear) means. In the first case, we are waiting for new Dark Ages, in the second - a sharp breakthrough into the future, comparable, perhaps, with the technological breakthrough of 1944-1969.

Interestingly, in the early 1980s, when Reagan launched the Star Wars (SDI) program, well-informed Americans came to the Soviet Union, trying to convey to the Soviet leadership the true goals of this program: the development of new technologies, in particular, laser welding of metals. in a vacuum. If we discard all the ideological and propaganda nonsense surrounding the SDI program, it could be turned into a platform for the joint development of a new technological order with production facilities in orbit, especially since laser welding technology was originally based on the developments of Soviet scientists. Unfortunately, for a variety of reasons this was not done. Propaganda won over common sense.