Before respective days at the 20th gathering of the Communist organization of China Xi Jinping announced that his state would never relinquish its rights to Taiwan, he demands his union with China "right" and does not exclude the usage of force for this purpose. At the same time, Xi Jinping announced that the mediate Country was launching a broad arms program to make his army 1 of the most crucial in the world. Although this has not been said explicitly, it is hard not to admit that China is preparing to resolve Taiwan's issue on an armed basis and openly challenges the United States, which is the protector of this country, although, paradoxically, theoretically, they do not recognise it.
At the same time, the Ukrainian-Russian armed conflict is developing. possibly readers remember that I did not believe that this war would come and that Russia would attack Ukraine. I didn't believe it due to the fact that I thought the Russian army wasn't prepared for this war. Without the announcement of mobilization, the Russians were incapable to gather forces larger than 180 1000 soldiers on the front, and it was a figure far besides tiny for the state the size of Ukraine. And I was right: the Russian army started this war without mobilization, or numerically unprepared for a full-scale conflict. Putin either hoped for a fast Blitzkrieg (as they want some), or the operation was only meant to be a show of force, for example to provoke a coup in Kiev or to force the Ukrainian government to compromise on the designation of borders and authoritative resignation of aspirations to NATO (I agree to this view). First the Ukrainian counter-offensive, and then the announcement in Russia of partial mobilization showed that whatever the Kremlin's plan was (we can only speculate about it), it failed. Most likely in winter or spring, we are facing a large war involving many 100 1000 armies on both sides.
In connection with these events, as well as many insignificant events, it is increasingly written and talked about the beginning of planet War III, which would start before our eyes. To tell you the truth, I find planet War III not very fortunate. planet War is associated with trenches and battles on land and in the air, cutting across continents, large battles of the sea, etc. specified a future is improbable to endanger us, although of course nothing can always be ruled out. The braking origin is that major players have atomic weapons, which threatens to transform conventional warfare into atomic weapons. atomic weapons were besides specified a braking origin during the Cold War, and that was the only reason why American soldiers and Soviets did not fight any direct battle. This is where the foster wars were fought (proxy wars), by means of non-nuclear-powered Allied States troops or between atomic powers against non-nuclear but nuclear-assisted. These are wars in Vietnam, Korea or Angola. That is why present the Americans are so eager to arm and fund Ukraine, but so that not 1 soldier in American uniform fights a uniformed Russian soldier. If I am correct, only erstwhile in the past of the planet there has been a direct clash of 2 atomic powers, and it was the Indian-Pakistan War (1971), rapidly completed, mainly due to the force of the full world, terrified of seeing atomic mushrooms.
For this reason, the beginning of the conflict of planet regulation between the United States and Eurazia (Russia + China) should be considered not as planet War III but alternatively as Cold War II. And it's likely to be like the first cold war: foster wars while avoiding the direct confrontation of atomic powers. As in the First Earth War, the essence of the conflict will besides be to divide the planet into 2 – utilizing German geopolitics – “great spaces”, namely Atlantic and Euro-Asian. Both sides will launch a violent arms race, mobilising their economies towards a war race. And the result of the conflict may not be born from any war Victoria, but from the weakening of 1 block that will not be able to bear any further costs, recognizing its failure. I personally like China, which, thanks to its strategical alliance with Russia, has complemented their top shortcomings, namely access to Siberian natural materials.
What does this mean for Poland? I will not say that the worst option possible, due to the fact that specified would be the atomic war, which would gotta end in annihilation of Poland as countries through which supplies from the West to Ukraine pass through. But this is not a very pink possible for our country. Personally, I do not anticipate Russia, despite our support for Kiev, to openly attack the NATO state, as this would actually endanger the outbreak of planet War III and the threat of atomic war. Rather, we are threatened to become a "east flank of NATO" permanently, with all the disastrous consequences. For generals, politicians and businessmen, we will be a country exposed to participation in the first line in a possible planet War III. Businessmen do not invest in these areas of higher risk. In my opinion, the war in Ukraine can proceed for many years, fueled by Americans on the 1 hand and Chinese on the other. In this situation, the problem of multi-million-dollar immigrant waves can become a permanent problem, leading to the liquidation of the national state and replacing it with multi-ethnic ones, along with all this disastrous consequences. These refugees will should be financially supported for years. Additionally, we will financially support the army of Ukraine. If we combine this with the projected outflow of investments looking for safer places, then we will be facing permanently low or zero growth and inflation. We will become a zero-growth zone, struggling with immigrants and building networks in the event of the outbreak of planet War III.
Adam Wielomski
