To question whether we are actually in the midst of a New World Order?

[Falmer]

As above (at the risk of sounding tin foil hat) and if we're not, what the hell is going on in the world, what's causing it?

Sorry but that’s crap, the British and US military has not been updated. They spent the last 16 years fighting a load of Shepard’s in Japanese pickup trucks. In that time Russia has advanced its military enough to be a worthy adversary.

Er, you do realise the Russian army hasn't been sitting idle don't you? There's been the whole Chechnya and Georgia stuff and lately Syria.

They have NOT been seriously upgrading their troops. A lot of units are still kitted out with Soviet era arms.

They only had 1/7th of the military budget of the US and that is even less since the collapse of the rouble.

They are NOT a credible military threat to the West in any shape or form.

Yes agreed the Russian army has been busy. They have been gaining more relevant combat experience than we have.

Updated military equipment doesn’t mean much. A well trained battle experienced army which has already operated in the climate and terrain of a future battle, would fair better than a high tech army with no experience.

Besides you are falling victim to the first rule of war. Never underestimate your enemy.

Updated military equipment doesn’t mean much. A well trained battle experienced army which has already operated in the climate and terrain of a future battle, would fair better than a high tech army with no experience.

Oh yeah, because Western armies have been twiddling their thumbs for the last two decades?

Besides you are falling victim to the first rule of war. Never underestimate your enemy.

You assess your enemy. And any person with glancing military knowledge knows the Russian army is a bit shit and they don't have the money to improve it. Even Putin knows it FFS!

Incidentally, I find it very racist and imperialist, this insistence our political system is best and must be imposed at all costs. Even when the countries concerned aren't keen.

Democracy, with all its problems, is still the best political system, yes. Would you like to live under a Chinese, Russian, or Venezuelan system?

BTW, the US has a markedly defective democratic system. It's not fully democratic is a President can win an election without a majority of the votes. But I digress.

They have a creaking and old military which they can't afford to upgrade and they KNOW that they are not a match with the US and Europe so they won't take us on.

And yet, they've taken Crimea and nobody moved a muscle.

They don't need conventional armies. For one they still have a huge nuclear arsenal. And a large army.

Oh yeah, because Western armies have been twiddling their thumbs for the last two decades?

No they haven’t they have been busy fighting a battle rather than preparing for the next battle.

Anyway why does it matter? We are more likely to fight the North Koreans, that’s going to be a hard fight.

Would you like to live under a Chinese, Russian, or Venezuelan system?

I wouldn't mind living in China actually. Venezuela is nominally democratic and got where it is via democratic processes. I wouldn't like to live in Russia but that's because they're nasty to the gays. And they are nominally democratic too. You can vote for anybody you like as long as it's Vladimir. I quite fancy him. Especially when he's on his horse.

Anyway why does it matter? We are more likely to fight the North Koreans, that’s going to be a hard fight.

We're not going to fight N Korea because China has made it very clear they will back them. They're also reigning Kim Jong Un in too. They'll let him make some noise but they won't let him fire a missle at a population. Because China has made it clear if he does they won't back him so the US would have a free run at him.

See, this whole China having power thing isn't so bad.

We are more likely to fight the North Koreans, that’s going to be a hard fight.

It would be over in a matter of hours if China does not get involved, we (the UK) would not need to get involved, its the humanitarian crisis after it that's the problem.

I wouldn't mind living in China actually.

Why?

You do realise that you probably wouldn't be able to post on MN, to start with, don't you?

No they haven’t they have been busy fighting a battle rather than preparing for the next battle.

So to sum up, when it suits your purposes war is 'gaining experience' when it doesn't, it's 'not preparing'. And when you're claiming the Russian army has skilled up it's dangerous, but when the US do it, it's irrelevant and no advantage.

Right. Well that makes sense.

BTW, the US has a markedly defective democratic system. It's not fully democratic is a President can win an election without a majority of the votes. But I digress.

That has been the rules of the game, it is set up so densely populated states cannot dictate to other less populated ones.

BUt as you say, thats a whole different argument.

We're not going to fight N Korea because China has made it very clear they will back them.

See, this whole China having power thing isn't so bad.

No, I don't see it.

Millions of people are starving, and risk being killed just for speaking out against all powerful Kim.
But China protects the North Korean regime. They're great, really.
They and Russia have given NK nuclear weapons expertise. Fantastic.

So to sum up, when it suits your purposes war is 'gaining experience' when it doesn't, it's 'not preparing'. And when you're claiming the Russian army has skilled up it's dangerous, but when the US do it, it's irrelevant and no advantage.

No that’s not what I am saying. What I am saying is that combat experience in Afghanistan (Army Vs Shepherd) is not relevant to a modern WW3 conflict (Army Vs Army)

It would be over in a matter of hours if China does not get involved, we (the UK) would not need to get involved, its the humanitarian crisis after it that's the problem.

Yes to the Massive humanitarian crisis. But I don’t think 1 million indoctrinated conscripts will lay down weapons in hours. I think it would be more like the invasion of Japan that the US feared in WW2.

Millions of people are starving, and risk being killed just for speaking out against all powerful Kim.
But China protects the North Korean regime. They're great, really.
They and Russia have given NK nuclear weapons expertise. Fantastic.

The Chinese are perhaps a little more circumspect than the US because they've seen the destruction and futility of US attempts at regime change. You only need to look at Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Iran etc, etc, etc to see how that works out.

And he is useful to them. He is a card they hold in their hand which keeps the US in check and stops the US being wankers and killing a hell of a lot more people than Kim Jong Un could ever dream of. It's pragmatic. Besides, it's nothing that the US and Europe don't do with our useful tyrants like the Saudis. Don't kid yourself that we're in any way better. And we were also instrumental in the arming of world reknowned beacon of stability Pakistan.

No that’s not what I am saying. What I am saying is that combat experience in Afghanistan (Army Vs Shepherd) is not relevant to a modern WW3 conflict (Army Vs Army)

But then Russias experience in Chechnya and Syria and Georgia would be irrelevant too. You keep contradicting yourself.

Re: N Korea. It does have the potential to be another Iraq or Afghanistan. But it's just not going to happen. For a start, the entire world is getting a bit pissed off with the US playing moral policeman and going in and fucking things up worse than they were before. If they did it in N Korea, China would take them out and they'd fucking deserve it.

The Chinese are perhaps a little more circumspect than the US because they've seen the destruction and futility of US attempts at regime change.

That's not why the Chinese are more circumspect. While the US and UN are busy with NK, they are less likely to turn their eyes to the Chinese regime. As it suits Russia to have an active rogue state.

The US are, of course, serious culprits in many unstable regions. But it has always been a two player game. And on the other side were totalitarian communist regimes backed by Russia.

It becomes more complicated when oil is in the picture. Sadly, quite a lot of international politics has been driven by energy lobbies as well as weapons lobbies.

But, overall, I still prefer a democratic regime 1000x over a non-democratic one. And I'd be happy to support anyone fighting to have one.

That's not why the Chinese are more circumspect. While the US and UN are busy with NK, they are less likely to turn their eyes to the Chinese regime. As it suits Russia to have an active rogue state

Well, I did point out out the pragmatic approach in my second para, but you appear to have ignored it. I'm also not sure why not wanting America to attack you is a bad thing?

It becomes more complicated when oil is in the picture. Sadly, quite a lot of international politics has been driven by energy lobbies as well as weapons lobbies.

Oil is hugely declining in importance and even SA is preparing for it becoming obsolete. It's not 2005. There was a 'shale revolution' in the US which doubled it's oil yields, caused a massive drop in prices and means that they will have enough until renewable sources take over completely.

But, overall, I still prefer a democratic regime 1000x over a non-democratic one. And I'd be happy to support anyone fighting to have one.

That's an incredibly naive viewpoint. I don't think the US has ever managed to successfully impose democracy. Look at the fallout from the Arab Spring and the messes they've left in the ME. Problem is, you often end up with something worse than the problem you had in the first place.

And, yes, it is racist and imperialistic to insist we should be able to impose our form of government worldwide.

Oil is hugely declining in importance and even SA is preparing for it becoming obsolete.

They are preparing indeed, but as it dwindles, the more precious the reserves become. The good ones.

What I pointed out was that the Chinese weren't more circumspect because they watched the US. They just are. They play the long game much more than the US does.

That's an incredibly naive viewpoint. I don't think the US has ever managed to successfully impose democracy. Look at the fallout from the Arab Spring and the messes they've left in the ME. Problem is, you often end up with something worse than the problem you had in the first place.

I didn't say they did. Did I?
I clearly saw the problems they'd have going to Iraq in the first place.

And, yes, it is racist and imperialistic to insist we should be able to impose our form of government worldwide.

I never insisted we should be able to impose any form of government, did I?

Even so, it would be imperialistic but not racist. Get your insults correct.

If you ask most people they'd rather live under a democratic regime. One that works, not an unstable or fake democracy. Who prefers not to have choices?

Regime change is not about imposing democracy, but rather taking power from oligocracies or despots.
The problem is that for democracy to flourish, it requires a democratic culture. Hardly any democracy has been implemented easily. In any country. In western countries we've had to fight for it. We've had to adapt. We've had to go through cycles of dictatorships, civil war, etc. Democracy isn't easy.

It's naive (ah!) to think that countries who have not been used to democracy can smoothly go from a despotic regime to a democracy without turmoil. Even if it looks like several steps back when turmoil happens.

I never insisted we should be able to impose any form of government, did I?

But, overall, I still prefer a democratic regime 1000x over a non-democratic one. And I'd be happy to support anyone fighting to have one.

Supporting revolutions for people you think is pretty much imposing it. And often has unpleasant consequences: see ISIS.

People you think are in favour of democracy that should have said.

Supporting revolutions for people you think is pretty much imposing it. And often has unpleasant consequences: see ISIS.

How is supporting the same as imposing?

And how do you get ISIS there? Please explain.

By your reckoning, Mandela should never have been supported. No sanctions to SA.

Something which makes me feel more positive about the way the world is changing - and I agree this is scary - is watching basically anything which the late Hans Rosling presented. He just has a wonderful way of presenting statistics and contradicting things we all seem to take totally for granted as facts and presentng reality with a positive spin. He was fantastic and I keep hoping Gapminder are going to put out more stuff - though I doubt they'll top him as a presenter.

If you want somewhere to start with it try the BBC presentation he did, Don't Panic. But if you don't have an hour, put Hans Rosling into Youtube's search function and just watch anything he's done where the title takes your fancy.