However, it's possible a Trump presidency and fractured EU might lead to a perfect storm for some kind of global conflict in a few years. I think still a low chance, but it does almost sound like the beginning chapter of a history book.
At this point yes.
But what about 10, 15, 50 years from now on?
My opinion is that the chances of a war are far greater in a Europe of nations vs a Europian union vs a Europian nation.
I really hope Germany, France, Italy and the rest take a notice on the wake up call and transform this to an opportunity for tighter integration.
And Greece too. Get your shit together Greece!
>However, it's possible a Trump presidency and fractured EU might lead to a perfect storm for some kind of global conflict in a few years.
If and when a large subset of NATO states are dysfunctional, it will definitely create opportunities. It's like with rot - rotten things don't stay put they spread rot around.
You have all been listening to nonsense media way too much in my opinion.
What is certain is that the (nationalistic) political class will use this situation to its advantage. Viewed through historical lenses, this is not exactly good news. But that does not lead de facto to war.
Why would we grab part of Baltics or Poland? Crimea has strategic importance. Most of the Baltics - does not.
And Poland in the current state of affairs is more valuable as a partner, not as an emeny (despite our history of mutual distrust and wars)
That sound almost too easy. If we are lucky, we could eventually see this in a blockbuster Hollywood movie before it really happens.
You're right, there's little chance of a war between any of the EU (or soon to be former EU) countries. And, more importantly, there's no foreseeable reason for there to be a war.
But, not to put too fine a point on it, there also can't be a war for one other reason: Nobody but Putin has much in the way of armed forces. Things could get really ugly if Putin decided to, e.g. invade the Baltics.
I did some quick checking. Here's an example: Germany's current unified armed forces, the Bundeswehr, have 178,000 active soldiers.[1] In WW II, Germany's army (just the army) had 12,000,000 active soldiers in 1944.[2]
For today's EU, war would be more of a dalliance than serious business. And that's a good thing.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bundeswehr [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_Army_(Wehrmacht)
Germany doesn't need an invasion force, just a defense aided by dozens of other countries by treaty. It is hardly a surprise it has a fraction of it's WW2 army.
The mood in the USA is turning more inward. There is less appetite for NATO. The sentiment is moving more toward: if the Germans don't want to be learning to speak Russian, then they should be paying for more of their own defense. But they're not:[1]
in terms of share of German GDP, military expenditures remain average at 1.2% and below the NATO recommendation of 2%.
I'm personally astonished at how little of an Army Germany has today. Especially considering that just a few years earlier, Eastern Germany was studying Russian in school and was a large component of the Warsaw Pact.
Poland is quite afraid of Putin. But Germany seems to have adopted a "meh" attitude toward the whole situation. They probably think that if they sell enough BMWs and Mercedes to Russia that everything will turn out OK. And probably it will.
Edit: Germany doesn't need an invasion force, just a defense aided by dozens of other countries by treaty.
Just want to add that I think you're wrong about this. There is a world of difference between large integrated forces, such as the US V Corps and VII Corps in Germany during the Cold War, and what exists in NATO today.
Nowadays, some of those "dozens of other countries" would contribute what, perhaps a battalion or two of combat troops? Not the same as when VII Corps deployed from Germany to Iraq and defeated the Iraqis in the first Gulf War. Not the same as when V Corps deployed from Germany to Iraq and defeated the Iraqis in the second Gulf War. Both those Corps have been deactivated. Nothing took their place.
Total US force in NATO was 67,000 in 2015. Not as big as one might think.
Here's a "semi-official" NATO statement about force levels: Some 25 per cent of NATO members do not have an air force, 30 per cent have no naval force or maintain a navy with less than 600 sailors, and 50 per cent are fielding an active army of less than 20,000 soldiers. NATO is an Alliance of unequals [2]
Finally, the other side is now run by an ambitious, intelligent, charismatic leader in Vladimir Putin. It's no longer led by Boris Yeltsin the drunken bum, and hasn't been since 1999.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bundeswehr [2] http://www.nato.int/docu/review/2015/Also-in-2015/europe-def...
I agree NATO is an alliance of unequal partners. The US definitely spends above 2% GDP on .mil, and as NATO is mostly controlled by the US (and was always intended to be). I think it is reasonable to assume they will be on the hook in the event of a major invasion.
I tried to quickly find the numbers, but had no luck. It was 100,000 in 1931 (scaled back from WW I) and was supposed to be tripled through recruitment before Hitler started conscription.
That table has nothing older than 1939, but the number in 1939 was still pretty impressive.
I also got confused, the 12,000,000 peak is directly comparable to the recent 178,000 since "Wehrmacht" was the previous name for the complete "unified" armed forces, not just the army.
1939: 4,722,000+
1940: 6,600,000+
1941: 8,154,000+
1942: 9,580,000+
1943: 11,280,000+
1944: 12,070,000+
1945: 9,701,000+Before Hitler broke the Versailles treaty in 1935, the German army was limited to only 100,000 members -- fewer than today. It took less than a decade to mobilize to the extent you describe. It happened then, it can happen today.
Honestly - I'm afraid of this development.
- A blitzed economy coupled with increased nationalism... ring any bells? I'm obviously guessing about the economy, but it's not unlikely.
- Russia. A dissolving Europe is going to look... let's say "interesting" to a certain Mr. Putin.
I agree with you that the chances are low, but they are definitely higher than yesterday.
That's my real fear - a lot of people voted for Brexit because of the situation with immigration and that's not really going to change. So next time around I see more extreme right wing government (I'm having waking nightmares of Farage in a BoJo cabinet) that will take "measures" to deal with immigrants...
His behavior in Eastern Ukraine says it for him. His saber ratting about the Balkans says it for him.