Megatrend: No Risk of Major War

Aktuellt, Debatt, English, Geopolitik, Historia, Okategoriserade, Utrikespolitik

There is war and rumours of war. And still there are nuclear weapons around to ”obliterate” us. But is there really a risk of major world in the world today? No, I’d say, not in the least. The war trend is going down. The zeitgeist is essentially peaceful. The war-mongering, even by seemingly sane commentators, has to stop.

There is war and rumours of war. The Powers That Be indeed seem bent on starting the Third World War. But the current zeitgeist is against a major war to break out. Also, the US-EU-Russia-China deal with Iran, 14 July, 2015, was a way toward a calming down of the global situation. For instance, in this treaty Iran promises not to acquire nuclear arms – and these arms they gave up trying to build already in 2003, according to a National Intelligence Estimate from 2007 (”Iran, Nuclear Intentions and Capabilities”).

So peace will prevail. All the internet pundits prophesying ”war this, war that” are way out of line. Also, in the long perspective, the level and intensity of wars has gone down since 1945. The late 1990s saw another turn for the better. The war situation deteriorated a bit in the 2010s; that’s true. The Ukraine and Syria conflicts have had many deaths. But the war situation of today is not anywhere near that of the 1970s and 1980s.

 

Numbers

Hereby some numbers to back up my claims. For instance, in 2013 two (2) significant civil wars were ongoing, Syria and Congo. I call that, overall, a peaceful world. My opinion is supported by a report from the peace researcher Peter Wallensteen, published in July 2012. My reading of Wallensteen is based on a Dagens Nyheter article by Anders Bolling from 6/9 2012. Bolling’s article may be somewhat biased. The headline is, on the basis of the big picture given in the article, misleading. The title is ”Minskande krigstrend bröts” = ”Declining war trend broken”.

I mean, that statement might be true in itself. But this was only about the development of 2010-2011. Looking at the period after 1950, the wars have both become less frequent and less bloody. In all, this declining war trend continues.

Bolling’s article focuses on the negavtive aspects of the report, blowing them up. It’s true that the number of armed conflicts increased in 2011. ”The Arab Spring” with the focal point in Libya was behind the increase. But generally, Bolling writes, the trend is pointing downward. In the long term, it’s obvious that we live in a more peaceful world after the Cold War ended: ”In recent decades, the number of armed conflicts in the world has shown a clearly declining tendency.” [Bolling, translated by me]

This is worth remembering. In 2010-2011 Wallensteen and his researchers at the Uppsala Conflict Data Program UCDP could note an increase. Wallensteen thinks that this is a trend, the trend of peace processes and agreements ”may be threatened.” I disagree. Of course, Wallensteen doesn’t say that we’re going back to the Cold War. And this is what we have to remember: the Cold War isn’t coming back. This is an important factor when taking a look at the world of today.

I mean it like this: in my crystal ball I can’t see that the great powers would suddenly begin to openly threaten each other with nuclear arms again. And overall, the armed forces of the world are too small for a new cold war. The conflicts that used to rage over the whole world, they occurred more or less in the context of this former great power conflict. They were incited by the United States and the Soviet Union in order to sell arms to the contestants. This large-scale arms trafficking and ”assistance in the form of weapons” doesn’t exist anymore, at least, nowhere near the same levels as in the 1980s. Having, among other things, this in mind, I am an optimist.

 

Wallensteen Optimist

In the topical article Bolling also says that Wallensteen, overall, is an optimist: ”At the same time he emphasizes that the level is still far below the darkest years of the early 1990s, when almost 53 armed conflicts raged.” You should also remember that Wallensteen mathematically counts the number of conflicts, all of which have at least 1,000 dead. But there is another criterion available in making these trend estimates: the number of dead in battle in each of the conflicts. And this, in studying the global war situation, is a number which has plummeted dramatically. This, according to Bolling, researchers in Canada has stated. They say the number of dead in battle by conflict decreased by 90% between the 1950s and the 2000s.

This is a staggering figure. And a compelling figure. This must be considered when discussing our world and its supposed bellicosity. You must see the big picture. To believe in a return to a warlike world à la the 1950s, with bloody conflicts in Korea, the Middle East and Africa, or believing that we get back conflicts as the Vietnam War, Afghanistan 1979-89, the war Iran-Iran at the same time or that Central America would become a war scene as it was in the 80s – this is totally irrelevant. It’s a pessimism that’s somewhat silly.

 

No Nukes

Indeed, silly? But what about nuclear arms then? They are still around. And they may be used. And a single atomic bomb going off could trigger a nuclear deluge because of misunderstanding. – To this I say: nonsense. This is defeatist nihilism, advocated by Chaos People having chaos inside.

Since 1945 the so-called nuclear threshold is insurmountable. There won’t be a nuclear war.

But then the war-mongering Cassandra might say this, as for the scenario of these times being so peaceful, as I claim: Before the First World War the world was also peaceful, the wars were few and far between and distant. The all hell broke loose 1914-1918, getting an even moore bloody reprise in 1939-1945. OK I say to this, but the zeitgeist is totally different now. Since after 11/11 2011 we reportedly live in the Sat Yuga of peace, harmony and spirituality. The preceeding era was Kâli Yuga where wars, so to speak, went with the territory.

 

Sat Yuga

You might ask: Sat Yuga is here, eh? But overall, like domestically, we still see strife and violence. – OK I say, The Powers That Be use every means of instigating Chaos. Like mass-immigration to white countries. But overall I think we do live in the Sat Yuga – an era realized, an era essentially coming true, by each one of us acknowledging the Inner Light of our beings. I mean, we must still fight the NWO. We must 24/7 advocate the ideals of co-nationalism, self-reliance and self-determination, the right of every people to exist in its place of origin. We must fight. But ”when fighting demons, beware that you don’t become a demon yourself” as Nietzsche said. Spiritually, Sat Yuga won’t be realized until we, each one of us, affirm our Inner Light.

Sat Yuga is here and it will be an overall reality when we acknowledge our beings as Responsible Men. When we stop regurgitating the war propaganda of the NWO.

How can I be so sure about this, then? Am I some last court of appeal for the metaphysical truth of the world situation? No. I’m merely making an en estimate in the grey area between contemporary events, pol-sci studies and my impression of the look and feel of it all – the zeitgeist.

 

The Dawning of a New Era

The old-school era of wars is over. My guess is that hyper war, the kind of war where two states attacked each other with everything they had – that form of war is history. Vietnam was such a war, Korea another. And in the 1980s such a war raged between Iran and Iraq. Later, in 1990-91, the UN Alliance in Kuwait staged a war against Iraq in a similar hyper-war scenario. A few such wars have occurred since then (Iraq 2.0, Georgia). But now it’s probably over. Until about 2007 the US threatened to attack Iran. And I know, some Americans even talk about doing it today. But the current, autumn 2015 talk of ”attacking Iran,” is absolute nonsense. It will never come about. The window of opportunity for this and any hyper war, big league-attack-scenario anywhere in the world, is closed forever. Libya 2011 was the last show of this kind.

The US defence forces have been cut in half by the current president. Russia (and China) may have more troops available than the US, but the sentiment that allowed hyper war simply doesn’t exist anymore. Overall it’s a peaceful world and the civil wars that are raging are manageable. The current battles in the Middle East are not equal to the Battle of Stalingrad. A tank knocked out by an ISIS rebel is not a major battle of the Kursk type. But this you are led to belive by mainstream media. And pundits and media players, even those of the dissenting, critical kind, should stop repeating these NWO war memes. They should stop scaring people with saying that World War III is looming.

 

Layman Outlook

Personally, I can be said to be a layman in this area of conflict estimate. This doesn’t mean that I’m a frivolous observer. I was born in 1965. Since at least 1980, I’ve observed the world and reflected on the wars being waged. Earlier than that, I had some knowledge of the US war in Vietnam. I never saw it on TV, but I do remember television images of the abandoned capital of neighboring Cambodia, Phnom Penh, in 1975, which was a conflict in the same context. China’s attack on Vietnam in 1979 and the Soviet foray into Afghanistan in the same year, are in my memory still clear, as well as the media reporting of 1983 from the Falkland Islands and Grenada. Not to speak of Desert Storm in 1991 and what, before and after, has occurred in the Middle East. And in 1984-85 I served in the Swedish Army as an NCO, seeing the Cold War from ringside.

So I would argue that I, for being a layman in this subject – peace and conflict research, strategic outlooks, foreign and security policy – I have a specific, non-professional but unmistakable background. Thereto I hold a BA in Indology, I’m a freelance writer and author of the novels ”Antropolis” and ”Camouflage” and bios on Jünger and Wagner. I’ve been published in innumerable magazines and anthologies and on Motpol I’ve blogged since 2011. And what I overall see, with the main support of Wallensteen’s study and the esoteric theory of Sat Yuga having begun, is that we now live in an essentially peaceful world, about to become a wholly peaceful and prosperous world in every sense. We’re not there yet but for the future we have to acknowledge our personal beings of light as part of the situation. There are no ”random observers” anymore. Everything that we do, every sentiment, every word, counts in building Sat Yuga, the coming Golden Age.

 

Addenda: a list, given by Dagens Nyheter (ibid), on ”the average number of deaths on the battlefield by conflict and years”:

 

1950-1959: 9,800

1960-1969: 6,000

1970-1979: 7,000

1980-1989: 5,200

1990-1999: 2,200

2000-2007: 1,100

Pin It
  • sten line

    Det är livsfarligt att stämpla risken för kärnvapenkrig som försumbar. En vätebomb på tjugo megaton skulle inte lämna några ruiner i centrala New York — den skulle förånga all bebyggelse på Manhattan. Sedan ett halvsekel tillbaka är världen full av dessa vapen. Det har inträffat åtskilliga incidenter med dem och kontrollsystemen som omgärdar dem; att inget riktigt allvarligt har skett är ett under. Kanske står vi under någon form av kosmiskt beskydd med tanke på hur litet som egentligen måste till för att rubba den famösa terrorbalansen och starta ett globalt termonukleärt krig, ett krig som skulle förvandla vår planet till en gravplats för otaliga människor och djur och ett obeskrivligt helvete för dem som hade oturen att överleva. Hotet om förintelse är och förblir verkligt. Ju mindre detta hot tas på allvar, desto större blir det.

  • MICKEYM0USE

    Allt vad DN skriver måste man ta med en nypa salt.
    Att det bara dött 1100 pers mellan 2000-2007 är fel. Om man lägger till 000 så kan det stämma. Mellan 1990 och 1999 så verkar man inte tagit hänsyn till de flera tusen som togs ihjäl i Srebenitza.

    I övrigt hoppas jag du har rätt Lennart.

    Tyvärr är krafterna för ett Eternal War starkare än vad man tror.
    Nästa år är det valår i USA och då lär Israel igen sätta igång en offensiv med död och förintelse som följd.
    Hetsen mot Ryssland lär fortsätta och precis som folket 1914 glömt hur skönt det var att slippa krig efter 1815 så har vår generation glömt 1945.

  • Daidalos

    ”There is war and rumours of war”, inte alltid.

    Ibland kan det vara precis tvärtom.

    Så här skrev den gamle generalen och diplomaten Curt von Stedingk i ett brev till greve Sparre om lugnet i Frankrike 1786.

    ”Nyheterna härifrån är ej särdeles intressanta. Allt andas den djupaste fred. Den franska ministärens fredliga politik kommer att inverka på hela Europa, och vi kommer att i evighet förbli överstar. Man talar om nya pålagor, och sådana behövs nog, om ej nya lån skall upptagas, för att betala de genom kriget (mot engelsmännen i Amerika) uppkomna skulderna. De som spekulerar i statspapper, något som blivit lika vanligt här som i England, lever i ovisshet och oro. Eljest går allt sin gilla gång. Parisarna är icke mindre än förr jordens lyckligaste folk.”

    Tre år senare gjorde detta lyckliga folk uppror och revolution.

    ”Peace in our time”, som den brittiske premiärministern Neville Chamberlin yttrade 1938 när han återvände hem efter att ha sålt ut Tjeckoslovakien till Hitler.

    Om man kan lära någonting av historien så är det att när politiker och andra makthavare talar om fred så betyder det ibland att kriget inte är långt borta.

    Jag hoppas att jag har fel.

    • Citatet i sig, ”war and rumours of war”, kommer från Bibeln, Matthew 24:6: ”You will hear of wars and rumours of wars.”

      Det blir inte storkrig. Jag har hävdat det sedan 2012 och kommer att fortsätta hävda det. Jag lever i Sat Yuga, vissa andra tycks dröja i Kâli Yuga. Men men, det är ett fritt land, var och en får bli salig på sin fason.

  • stepstone

    First of all, this reads like a Google-translated article from another language than english. It should have been proof read so we can share it in english language communities without shaming ourselves.

    Case in point:

    ”To believe in a return to a warlike world à la the 1950s, with bloody conflicts in Korea, the Middle East and Africa, or believing that we get back conflicts as the Vietnam War, Afghanistan 1979-89, the war Iran-Iran at the same time or that Central America would become a war scene as it was in the 80s – this is totally redundant. It’s a pessimism that’s somewhat silly.”

    What on earth does that too long sentence really mean? Redundant? Look up the word redundant in a dictionary and you’ll find it’s completely out of place here. And that’s just one example of many.

    Second:

    ”But the current, autumn 2015 talk of ”attacking Iran,” is absolute nonsense. It will never come about. The window of opportunity for this and any hyper war, big league-attack-scenario anywhere in the world, is closed forever. Libya 2011 was the last show of this kind.”

    It’s a mighty short period from 2011 to this day to conclude the 2011 attack on Libya was the last of that sort of attack. And while the negotiations visavi Iran seems to be going at least somewhere at this point in time there are many spolilers who have an interest in derailing that agreement – so I wouldn’t be so quick to rule out armed conflict in that arena.

    • Thank you for your comment. Now I’ve changed ”redundant” to ”irrelevant”.

      • John Morgan

        I would tend to agree that there is a lot of awkward phrasing and
        unclear meanings in this article, as well as tense problems. Nothing
        that couldn’t be fixed with some editing, however. I didn’t have time to
        go over it in detail but I also caught four misspellings: poiting,
        insitigating, contestans, defaitist.

        • OK, I’ll check the article once again as for misspellings etc.

  • John Morgan

    I’m curious, where did you get the idea that Satya Yuga has begun? I lived in India for 5 years, much of which time I was living at a Hindu (Gaudiya Vaishnava) ashram, and I was always told that Kali Yuga began approximately 5,000 years ago, following the Battle of Kuruksetra, and still has 427,000 years to run. Other schools of Vedic thought have slightly different start dates for it and have varying ideas about how long it will last, but during my travels there the belief that we are currently in Kali Yuga seemed pretty universal among Hindu teachers and scholars.

    • I don’t remember where I got it from, actually. But it’s a theory that seems to fit with what I see.

      Conversely, to estimate that Kâli Yuga has another 427,000 years to run to me seems like the most dejectedly defeatist outlook possible.

      • John Morgan

        Well, the dates come from scripture, and the interpretation that Kali-yuga is 432,000 years long, with the current yuga having begun 5,000 years ago, is a quite common one in India. The Bhagavata Purana describes very specific things that will happen when Kali-yuga nears its ends, which includes humans losing the ability to understand what God is as well as the use of language, and it also mentions that men will begin raising human children for food. Those things haven’t occurred yet. If it’s any consolation, however, the Brahma Vaivarta Purana says that there is a 10,000-year ”golden age” within Kali-yuga, which isn’t as great as Satya yuga but which offers much greater opportunities than are available during the rest of Kali-yuga. The Gaudiya Vaishnavas say that this period began with the appearance of Lord Caitanya 500 years ago, which means that it has 9,500 more years to run. That’s some metaphysical consolation.

  • Sirion

    Correct me if I’m wrong, but your conclusions appear to be based primarily on some mystic/religious vision of yours, rather than rational analysis. Not that it would necessarily make them any less valid.

    Here’s a quote from one of your other comments on the subject: ”Jag har kontakt med Traditionen. Och jag är Varafilosofins sista domstol i den Palearktiska regionen. Därför är jag så säker på min sak.”

    Please elaborate, in Swedish if you wish.

    • My current metapolitical activities are a combination of rational analysis, informed estimate and preaching. This I fully admit, as the last court of appeal of Seinsphilosophie in the Palearctic region and beyond.

      I mean, what other Seinsphilosophe are there today, then? Jünger, Evola, Guénon are long dead. But if you have some names that can challenge me to the title, please post them.