There. He Said It: Ukraine Crisis Could Spark “World War III”



Jon Queally writes at Common Dreams:

Ukraine’s interim Prime Minister Arseny Yatseniuk did not mince words on Friday as he invoked the possibility that the crisis in Ukraine could quickly spiral out of control and spark a Third World War.

“The world has not yet forgotten World War Two, but Russia already wants to start World War Three,” Yatseniuk told his cabinet in remarks broadcast live from Kiev. “Attempts at military conflict in Ukraine will lead to a military conflict in Europe.”

Tensions in the former Soviet-bloc country returned to high levels on Thursday following assaults on outposts manned by pro-Russian Ukrainians in the east by special forces sent by the Kiev government. At least five people were reported killed in one clash.

That incident and other movements by Ukraine soldiers against those in the east demanding referendums to decide their future political affiliations spurred Russian President Vladimir Putin to say that further violence would result in unspecified “consequences.”

At the diplomatic level, the situation continues to deteriooriate as Russian, U.S., and Ukraine officials trade threats as the detente reached in Geneva last weeks begins to rapidly fade.

“The West wants — and this is how it all began — to seize control of Ukraine because of their own political ambitions, not in the interests of the Ukrainian people,” said Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov in response to new threats of sanctions coming from the Obama administration.

Read more here.

33 Comments on "There. He Said It: Ukraine Crisis Could Spark “World War III”"

  1. Liam_McGonagle | Apr 26, 2014 at 10:34 am |

    WWIII does seem inevitable now, but honestly I can’t imagine anybody but ignorant peasants are enthusiastic for it. I think even Putin, Obama and Yatseniuk only see it as a last ditch effort to prop up the failing system of state authority. It feels like a couple of drunks in Black River Falls, Wisconsin getting into a bar fight over some dragged out old skank.

  2. It would probably more likely be the second Cold War than World War III. The US and USSR both used the cold war to inflate their military budgets and build the worlds most largest and technology advanced war machines the world had ever seen and also they used it to mass a nuclear arsonal capable of destroying the world many times over again.

  3. Catholicon | Apr 26, 2014 at 1:26 pm |

    …… he is ever sooooo cryptic, little wonder the crypto was placed their unelected…..
    his presence in the Vatican shall not be forgotten by me either……
    ynetnews. com/articles/0,7340,L-3342999,00.html

  4. Ukraine’s stance is hypocritical.

    First, they didn’t like the pro-Russian government, so they overthrew it by violent force. Europe applauds this. The Ukraine people decided their own fate.

    Then, those people who are pro-Russian. Decide they don’t like that and decide to secede. This other part of the Ukraine population decided their own fate.

    And this is then vilified somehow.

    Both groups started from the same situation of not being content with their government and both groups violently opposed their government because in both cases, their government ignored them.

    And 1 is good and the other is bad.

    If Crimea seceding is illegal, then overthrowing the pro-Russian Ukraine government was also illegal.

    • While I see what you are saying and partially agree I doubt every person in the country waa happy with leaving russia just like I doubt every person in Crimea was happy with them seceding.

      And I find it ironic when people say “seceding is illegal” especially if they live in the United States. It was “illegal” for us to secede from Britain, but we felt it was the right thing to do and in our best interest so we did it. It also is a typical statist conformist government tit sucking mentailty to have, considering if I consider what the country is doing to be not ok morally and its laws to be unjust and I can convince enough people of the same thing then we can and will secede.

    • Liam_McGonagle | Apr 27, 2014 at 2:16 pm |

      I have to say that your blind indifference to the actual, proven malfeasance of Yanukovich is a bit striking. I don’t have much faith that Yatseniuk would have been much better, but to cherry pick facts to falsely paint this as primarily an ethnic problem is exactly what BOTH sides want you to do.

      Good governance is impossible when people waste their time with bullsh*t ethnic garbage. That stuff is for ignorant peasants. Which I guess is just as well, because it’s them that are going to do most of the dying.

      • Woobniggurath | Apr 27, 2014 at 5:08 pm |

        Not to mention that removing a government is materially different from a territory seceding from a state.

        And BTW, the ignorant peasants in the U S eat up that ethnic bullshit too. That’s why we prefer them ignant. Got to have some kind of ring through your bull’s nose.

  5. Craig Bickford | Apr 26, 2014 at 3:48 pm |

    Ah the answer to all our problems. Occupy and unruly citizens causing issues? WWIII. A Ponzi scheme called central banking causing issues? WWIII. Hybrid socialist/corporate cleptocracy making everyone nervous? WWIII. It seems this will solve everyone’s problems, and lucky for us the whole fake war or new cold war is being fabricated now in Ukraine. Enjoy the ride sheep, you asked for it by not taking back your world, now you will get your medicine and you will like it.

    • This will be a proxy war if it erupts in Ukraine. They aren’t about to torch the whole planet. It’s bad for profits. They bogged down Russia in Afghanistan for a decade through proxy Jihad, and they will try it again in Ukraine. They have enough neo-nazi fanatics willing to go to the front lines that US forces will not be needed. This will weaken Russia and demonize them, as the propaganda blitz has made clear.

      It could always go south though, and turn into the end of Dr. Strangelove.

    • Liam_McGonagle | Apr 27, 2014 at 2:19 pm |

      Yeah, but in a sense it really is what the people wanted. The fact that most of the people are pig-ignorant dumbf*ck peasants doesn’t change that fact.

      I see it as essentially the same problem in America. We know what is required for good governance. But only an insignificant fraction of the people actually want good governance. Most of them just want to be part of an engaging drama.

      So what’s the solution? FORCE democracy on people who don’t want it? Is that even a conceptual possibility?

      We were just born in an era that decided it didn’t need us.

  6. “The world has not yet forgotten World War Two, but Russia already wants to start World War Three,”

    Israel, Suez, Korea, Vietnam, moon landing, Rock & Roll, Irish Troubles, cold war, Punk, Rap, Berlin Wall, end of Apartheid, cell phones, Internet, 9/11, Afghanistan, Iraq x2 ,.. let us catch a breath Vlad.

    • Haha ya I was thinking the same thing.

      Oh damn russia please dont ruin this 70 plus years of world peace and utopia we have had since world war 2.

  7. “The West wants — and this is how it all began — to seize control of Ukraine because of their own political ambitions, not in the interests of the Ukrainian people,” said Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov in response to new threats of sanctions coming from the Obama administration.

    Not often I agree with a statement issued by a Russian government official. But there you have it.

  8. Number1Framer | Apr 27, 2014 at 1:35 am |

    Not being much of a history buff myself, I do not believe historians all agree on any particular date or event as being the “official” beginning of WWII. Polish annexation? The first Nazi bombing of France or England? Japan jumping into the fray? All debatable.

    Same for WWIII. US invading Iraq? Disclosure of worldwide US surveillance? Russia annexing Crimea? In my personal view, WWIII has been going on since September 12th 2001.

    • Woobniggurath | Apr 27, 2014 at 5:00 pm |

      Not so much debatable. Germany invades Poland Sep. 1, 1939.

      • Number1Framer | Apr 27, 2014 at 5:36 pm |

        Are you sure you can’t push it back to the event that pushed Germany to invade? Wasn’t really a “world” war at that point was it?

        My point is that everything is just one cascading series of interrelated events. There is no “it just started yesterday.” Perhaps this commotion with Russia, Ukraine, and the west is just another event in a third global war that actually began the day the first brick was laid for the Berlin Wall.

      • misinformation | Apr 28, 2014 at 3:15 am |

        It’s only not debatable if history is what USA school textbooks say. Amongst anyone who actually studies history, it is quite debatable. Many would say that WWII started with WWI and so on.

        • Woobniggurath | Apr 28, 2014 at 3:29 pm |

          World War II Started when Poland was invaded. Of course the pre-game included the Austrian anschluss, the Czechoslovakian annexation, the Reichstag fire, the beer hall putsch, and ultimately, the railcar where Versailles was signed. But of course that’s not ultimate. The Franco Prussian war set up the cultural dynamics that led to WWI, and probably had roots going at least back to the Thirty Years War.

          In order to speak about history we arbitrarily seperate significant events and give them definitions. It is, obviously, just a cognitive tool. Yet it is a universal convention, and if you want to sound educated, you should know what the convention is.

          No nation’s educational milieu is perfect. I have studied exclusively within the U.S. and yet I flatter myself that I have managed to develop a level of Understanding which allows me to begin to scrape lightly through the common superficial understanding of history, and see how weblike all the connections in human history are.

          Nonetheless, look it up anywhere in the world, what we now call World War 2 began with the German invasion of Poland and ended with the capitulation of the German and then Japanese high commands. Respect the terminology. If we do not use commonly understood definitions we develop a chaos of misunderstood communication. As Kong Fuzi said, “The first thing is the rectification of names.”

          • misinformation | Apr 28, 2014 at 11:34 pm |

            Though I understand, I disagree with your premise. Save for the first sentence, the entirety of your first paragraph only bolsters my point. WWII was not started with the invasion of Poland. You and I both understand that history is far more complex than “starting” and “ending” points.

            If I feel like being lazy, I’ll accept if someone wants to start from the invasion of Poland or, more likely, I won’t even be involved in that conversation in the first place. I see no need to perpetuate a lazy path to understanding history because it’s acceptable by the status quo. The, “Hitler invaded Poland so the good guys have to do something” meme is lazy at best and dangerous in the extreme.

            Definitions change all the time, both as knowledge, in and of itself as well as an understanding of complexity increases. It’s far more useful in a conversation to define terms within that specific instance. As some other guy has said and I often repeat, “It’s importand to define terms”.

            I have no need to “want to sound educated”. That agenda is of no interest to me. My education of a subject will reveal itself outside of my desire to sound this way or that. And convention is not necessarily high on my priorities list either.

          • Woobniggurath | Apr 29, 2014 at 1:48 am |

            A war is when nations start shooting.

          • misinformation | Apr 29, 2014 at 1:52 am |

            You must not be familiar with the US government’s propensity for starting wars on nouns – drugs, poverty, homelessness, accounting, etc. 😉

          • Woobniggurath | Apr 29, 2014 at 1:58 am |

            Plenty shootin there.

          • You heard of a little something called the “cold war?”

  9. VaudeVillain | Apr 27, 2014 at 10:36 am |

    There is certainly the possibility that Russia will launch a full scale military incursion through the Ukraine. It would be a steamrolling, and at the end there would be a choice: stop, or keep rolling into Poland. Historically, the latter has been a much more popular choice. Poland being a member of NATO, doing so would formally put us into WWIII.

    Other possibilities exist as well, but this is the one really being discussed. Ukraine is not actually important enough to the West for anyone to do anything in the open about it. Given the positions right now, the first salvo of open warfare will almost have to come from Russia, China, or a Mideast bloc probably centered around Iran… the US and Euro powers simply have far less to gain from doing anything that would make things hot.

    As somebody living within visual range of multiple strategic targets and well within the blast radius of a major metropolitan area, I take comfort in knowing that I almost certainly won’t die a slow and wasting death if it comes. Just a bright light and the momentary sensation of intense heat before either instant incineration or, if I’m really lucky, participation in a fusion event.

    • Liam_McGonagle | Apr 27, 2014 at 2:13 pm |

      I don’t see how Russia could stop. The sheer financial ruinous cost of the thing would marinate in peoples’ minds and it would escalate into a geometrically larger domestic problem than the one a Ukranian war was designed to stifle in the first place. There’s no such thing as a “limited war.”

      • VaudeVillain | Apr 28, 2014 at 12:22 am |

        Basically, yeah.

        I also think of it, fundamentally, as a case of blue balls. Russia tromps all over Ukraine, realizes that it just wasn’t very hard to do, and then is left wondering what to do with all of their strapping soldiers and shiny weapons newly arrived on the Polish border and itching for a real fight. Historically, the answer is invade Poland and see if they can make it over to high five/sucker punch the Prussians.

        • misinformation | Apr 28, 2014 at 3:23 am |

          I don’t buy this at all. Putin isn’t insane. Invading Poland would be insane. He just needs to maintain his only warm water naval port (with the possibility of a little spill over – a little) at Sevastopol.

          NATO has been encroaching on Russia for nearly 20 years and, outside of Georgia, the Russian gov’t has hardly batted an eye. I tend to agree with those that say, both NATO and Putin know how this is going to turn out already.

          Of course, there’s always some “rogue” element that could change everything but I don’t believe any “major powers” are on the cusp of a hot war.

          • VaudeVillain | Apr 28, 2014 at 10:18 am |

            I’m hoping he doesn’t, and I agree it would be a bad move, but it is hardly outside the realm of possibility or even particularly insane. Between NATO and the EU, Russia is being put into a stranglehold, and running out of time to escape.

          • Woobniggurath | Apr 29, 2014 at 1:57 am |

            And yet, some shooting with a good friendly enemy, not some fucked up religio-racial thing, might look really attractive to parties in control of the USsr and RusSIA. I do not, however, believe Germany will let itself get dragged in, and that’s the keystone.

  10. Woobniggurath | Apr 27, 2014 at 5:11 pm |

    Lets all keep our brave troops and drones in mind and join Donnie and Dick in a singalong of that new classic of our time, “A Nuclear War Can be Winnable!”

Comments are closed.