Maps of a possible third world war. US plans for Russia after World War III

The future of Russia, or the future of many "Russies", many weakened and divided states, as Washington and its NATO allies see it, is demographic decline, deindustrialization, poverty, the absence of any defensive capabilities and the exploitation of the natural resources of its hinterlands.

Russia's place in the plans of the Empire of Chaos

The collapse of the Soviet Union was not enough for Washington and NATO. The ultimate goal of the United States is to prevent the emergence of any alternatives to Euro-Atlantic integration in Europe and Eurasia. That is why the destruction of Russia is one of their strategic goals.

Washington's goals were workers and were pursued during the fighting in Chechnya. They were also seen in the crisis that erupted with the Euromaidan in Ukraine. In fact, the first step to break Ukraine and Russia was a catalyst for the collapse of the entire USSR and the cessation of any attempts to reorganize it.

The Polish-American intellectual Zbigniew Brzezinski, who was the national security adviser to US President Jim Carter, actually advocated the idea of destroying Russia through its gradual disintegration and decentralization. He formulated the condition that “a more decentralized Russia would not be so susceptible to calls to unite into an empire.” In other words, if the United States divides Russia, Moscow will not be able to compete with Washington. In this context he states the following: “Russia, organized on the principle of a free confederation, which would include the European part of Russia, the Siberian Republic and the Far Eastern Republic, would be easier to develop closer economic ties with Europe, with the new states of Central Asia and with the East, which would thereby accelerate the development of its own Russia."

These ideas are not limited only to the offices of some isolated scientists or individual thought factories. They have the support of governments and even trained supporters. Below is the reasoning of one of them.

American state media predict the balkanization of Russia

On September 8, 2014, Dmitry Sinchenko published an article about the division of Russia “In anticipation of the Third World War. How the world will change." Sinchenko participated in Euromaidan, and his organization, the All-Ukrainian Initiative “Rukh of Power Makers”, among other foreign policy goals, supports ethnic nationalism, the territorial expansion of Ukraine at the expense of the majority of neighboring countries, giving new impetus to the pro-American Organization for Democracy and Economic Development - GUAM (Georgia, Ukraine, Azerbaijan and Moldova), joining NATO and going on the offensive with the aim of defeating Russia. Let us note that the inclusion of the word “democracy” in the name of GUAM should not mislead anyone - GUAM, as the inclusion of the Republic of Azerbaijan in it proves, has nothing to do with democracy, but with balancing Russia in the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS).

Sinchenko's article begins with a story about the history of the expression "axis of evil", used by the United States to denigrate its enemies. It talks about how George W. Bush Jr. coined the phrase in 2002, bringing together Iraq, Iran and North Korea, as John Bolton expanded the “axis of evil” to include Cuba, Libya and Syria, as Condoleezza Rice included Belarus, Zimbabwe and Myanmar (Burma), and then At the end, Sinchenko proposes that Russia should be added to the list as the world's main rogue country. He even proves that the Kremlin is involved in all the conflicts in the Balkans, the Caucasus, the Middle East, North Africa, Ukraine and Southeast Asia. He further accuses Russia of hatching plans to conquer the Baltic states, the Caucasus, Moldova, Finland, Poland and, even more absurdly, two of its close military-political allies, Belarus and Kazakhstan. Judging by the title of the article, he even claims that Moscow is deliberately seeking a third world war.

This reading is not distributed on US-allied corporate networks, but it is published directly on media owned by the American state. This forecast was published by the Ukrainian service Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, which is an American propaganda tool in Europe and the Middle East that helps overthrow governments.

What is appalling is that the article attempts to make the likely scenario of a new world war look decent. Disgustingly, without taking into account the use of nuclear weapons and weapons of mass destruction that will begin in Ukraine and in the world, the article paints a deliberately false but comfortable picture of a world corrected by a major global war. Radio Liberty and the author are essentially telling the Ukrainian people “the war will be good for you,” and that after the war with Russia there will be some kind of utopian paradise.

The article also fits very well into the contours of Brzezinski’s forecast regarding Russia, Ukraine and the Eurasian continent. It predicts the division of Russia, with Ukraine part of an enlarged European Union that includes Georgia, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Israel, Lebanon and Denmark's North American dependency of Greenland. In addition, he controls a confederation of states in the Caucasus and the Mediterranean - the latter could be a Union of the Mediterranean, which would cover Turkey, Syria, Egypt, Libya, Tunisia, Algeria, Morocco and the Moroccan-occupied Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic, or Western Sugar. Ukraine is represented as an integral part of the European Union. In this regard, Ukraine appears to be located in the US-allied Franco-German-Polish-Ukrainian corridor and on the Paris-Berlin-Warsaw-Kyiv axis, the creation of which Brzezinski advocated in 1997 and which Washington would use to challenge the Russian Federation and its allies in the CIS.

Reshaping Eurasia: Washington's maps of the division of Russia

As stated in the Radio Liberty article, any bipolar rivalry between Moscow and Washington will end after World War III with the division of the Russian Federation. Clearly contradicting herself, she argues that a truly multipolar world will only exist when Russia is destroyed, but she also makes it clear that the United States will be the most important world power, even if Washington and the European Union are weakened by the results of a predicted major war with the Russians .

The article is accompanied by two maps, which generally show the redrawn Eurasian space and the outlines of the world after the destruction of Russia. At the same time, neither the author nor his two maps recognize territorial changes on the Crimean Peninsula and depict it as part of Ukraine, not the Russian Federation. Here are the changes made to the geography of Russia, from west to east:

The Russian region of Kaliningrad will be annexed by Lithuania, Poland or Germany. In any case, it will become part of the enlarged European Union.

Eastern Karelia (Russian Karelia) and currently a federal subject of the Republic of Karelia within the Northwestern Federal District, together with the federal city of St. Petersburg, the Leningrad region, the Novgorod region, the northern two thirds of the Pskov region and the Murmansk region, is separated from Russia with the formation of a pro-Finnish country. This territory could be completely absorbed by Finland, which would lead to the creation of Greater Finland. Although the Arkhangelsk region is indicated in this article as part of this isolated territory, on the map it is not included in it (probably due to an error made in the map).

The southern districts of the Pskov region (Sebezhsky, Pustoshkinsky, Nevelsky and Usvyatsky) from the Northwestern Federal District and the westernmost districts of the Smolensk region (Demidovsky, Desnegorsky, Dukhovshchinsky, Kardymovsky, Khislavichsky, Krasninsky, Monastyrshchinsky, Pochinkovsky, Roslavlsky, Rudnyansky, Shumyachsky, Smolensky , Velizhsky, Yartsevsky and Ershichsky), as well as the cities of Smolensk and Roslavl, from the Central Federal District were annexed to Belarus. Dorogobuzhsky, Kholm-Zhirkovsky, Safonovsky, Ugransky and Elninsky districts of the Smolensk region, apparently, will be further highlighted on the map as a new border between Belarus and Russia, which is planned to be cut.

The North Caucasus Federal District of Russia, consisting of the Republic of Dagestan, the Republic of Ingushetia, the Kabardino-Balkarian Republic, the Karachay-Cherkess Republic, the Republic of North Ossetia-Alania, the Stavropol Territory and Chechnya, is separated from Russia in the form of the Caucasus Confederation, under the influence of the European Union.

The Southern Federal District of Russia, formed from the Republic of Adygea, Astrakhan Region, Volgograd Region, Republic of Kalmykia, Krasnodar Territory and Rostov Region, is completely annexed by Ukraine. This creates a common border between Ukraine and Kazakhstan and cuts off Russia from the energy-rich Caspian Sea, as well as direct southern access to Iran.

Ukraine will also annex the Belgorod, Bryansk, Kursk and Voronezh regions from the most populous federal district and region - the Central Federal District.

Siberia and the Russian Far East, namely the Siberian Federal District and the Far Eastern Federal District, are cut off from Russia.

The text states that the entire territory of Siberia and most of the territory of the Russian Far East, consisting of the Altai Republic, Altai Territory, Amur Region, Republic of Buryatia, Chukotka, Jewish Autonomous Region, Irkutsk Region, Kamchatka Territory, Kemerovo Region, Khabarovsk Territory, Republic of Khakassia, The Krasnoyarsk Territory, the Magadan Region, the Novosibirsk Region, the Omsk Region, the Primorsky Territory, the Republic of Sakha, the Tomsk Region, the Republic of Tyva and the Trans-Baikal Territory will either turn into several independent states under Chinese dominance, or, along with Mongolia, will become new territories of the People's Republic of China. The map clearly depicts Siberia, most of the Russian Far East, and Mongolia as Chinese territory. The exception is the Sakhalin region.

Russia loses the island of Sakhalin (Sakharin and Karafuto in Japanese) and the Kuril Islands, which form the Sakhalin region. These islands are annexed to Japan.

On his own web page, Sinchenko posted his article from Radio Liberty a few days earlier, on September 2, 2014. There are also the same maps that are attributed to Radio Liberty. However, on Sinchenko’s personal page there is another picture worthy of mention - this is a picture in which all the countries bordering it from Russia, like from a large dish, are cheerfully cutting off pieces for themselves to eat.

Mapping the New World Order: the world after World War III?

The second map is a map of the planet after the Third World War, divided into several supranational states. The only exception is Japan. The second map and its supranational states can be described as follows:

As already mentioned, the European Union has expanded and controls its outlying areas in the Caucasus, South-West Asia and North Africa. This is the implementation of the NATO Mediterranean Dialogue and the Partnership for Peace at the political and military levels, as well as the Eastern Partnership and the Euro-Mediterranean Partnership (Union for the Mediterranean) at the political and economic levels.

The United States forms a North American supranational entity that includes Canada, Mexico, Guatemala, Belize, El Salvador, Honduras, Nicaragua, Costa Rica, Panama, Colombia, Venezuela, Ecuador, the Guianas (Guyana, Suriname and French Guiana) and all Caribbean countries. swimming pool

All countries not absorbed by the USA in South America will form their own organization in the form of a smaller South America, in which Brazil will dominate.

A kind of South-West Asian bloc or supranational structure will be formed from Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iran, Iraq, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, UAE, Oman and Yemen.

On the Indian subcontinent of South Asia, a kind of supranational entity will be formed, consisting of India, Sri Lanka (Ceylon), Nepal, Bhutan, Bangladesh, Myanmar (Burma) and Thailand.

The supranational entity will be in Australia and Oceania, and will include the Philippines, Malaysia, Singapore, Brunei, Indonesia, East Timor, Papua New Guinea, New Zealand and the Pacific Islands. It will include Australia and Canberra will play a major role.

With the exception of North Africa, which will be under the control of the European Union, the rest of Africa will be united under the leadership of South Africa.

The East Asian supranational entity will include the Russian Federation, Indochina, China, the Korean Peninsula, Mongolia and post-Soviet Central Asia. In this formation, the Chinese will occupy a dominant position, and it will be controlled from Beijing.

While the Radio Free Europe article and the two post-war maps may be dismissed as far-fetched ideas, there are some important questions to ask. Firstly, where did the author pick up these ideas? Were they broadcast through some seminars held with indirect support from the US and EU? Secondly, what fuels the author’s images of the political landscape after World War III?

In fact, the author adapted to the scheme of the division of Russia according to Brzezinski. The text and maps even included areas of North Africa, the Middle East and the Caucasus, which the European Union considers for itself as a secondary periphery or spacer. These areas are even shaded in a light blue as opposed to the blue used to represent the EU.

Radio Free Europe aside, no one should lose sight of the fact that Japan still lays claim to the Sakhalin region, and the US, EU, Turkey and Saudi Arabia support separatist movements in the Southern and North Caucasus federal districts of the Russian Federation .

Ukrainian

The Radio Liberty article exudes signs of Ukrainianness, which is worth dwelling on briefly.

Nations are constructed because they are all dynamic communities that are, in one way or another, constructed and held together by a collective of individuals who form societies. In this sense, they can be called imagined communities.

In the post-Soviet space and the Middle East, machinations are being played out with the goal of deconstructing and reconstructing nations and groups. In sociological or anthropological jargon this can be called manipulation of tribalism, and in political jargon it can be called playing to the end of the Great Game. In this context, for more than a hundred years, Ukrainians in Ukraine have been particularly supportive of anti-government elements and anti-Russian nationalist sentiments - first under the Austrians and Germans, later through the Poles and British, and now under the US and NATO.

Ukrainianism is an ideology that seeks to materialize among the Ukrainian people and introduce into it a new collective imagination or false historical memory, in which they have always been a nation and people, separated from the Russian people, both in an ethnic and civil sense. Ukrainianism is a political project that seeks to deny the historical unity of the Eastern Slavs, the geographical roots and historical background that lies behind the differences between Ukrainians and Russians. In other words, Ukrainians are trying to get rid of the context and forget the process that led to the differences between Ukrainians and Russians.

Russia has always risen from the ashes. History is evidence of this. Russia will stand no matter what happens. Every time the many-sided people of Russia stand together under one banner for their homeland, they smash empires. He survived catastrophic wars, invasions and his enemies. Maps and borders may change, but Russia will remain.

And as a summary, we publish a report on geopolitics, read by Yuri Romanenko in Belarus on November 14, 2012.

Dear colleagues, it is an honor for me to participate in this event. Before starting to consider the stated topic, I want to decide on definitions.

By Eastern European countries in this context I mean Ukraine, Belarus and Moldova.

I set myself three goals during my presentation.

First- show key trends in the world system that will complicate the existence of the countries of Eastern Europe, or make it impossible in the current models formed in the 90s and 2000s. This will be an analysis of the competitive environment in which our countries are moving.

Second- what motivations have formed or are being formed among key actors in relation to Ukraine, Belarus and other countries. Why will they radicalize, in what logic?

Third- how the logic that I will show below already works in relation to Ukraine.

I outlined a number of trends in my large report in December 2011. Therefore, I will not return to the causes of the global crisis; you can watch them on Khvila.

I will outline a number of key reasons and resulting consequences.

First, discrepancy between the economic base and the political superstructure. The economy has become global, and management is predominantly local. The consequence is the emergence and deepening of a variety of imbalances that cannot be resolved due to the inability of international institutions to reconcile the conflicting interests of two hundred states.

Second, management crisis, connected with the fact that the main instrument for controlling large masses - the national state - was formed 200 years ago, and during this time humanity went through several technological structures. Therefore, the phenomenon of what I call the struggle of the online party against the offline party has arisen.

Third, the crisis of the capitalist system due to the lack of space for expansion. The limited space for capital expansion led us to the financial crisis of 2008, which grew into an economic crisis, today transforming into a geopolitical one.

Fourth, the associated depletion of a wide variety of resources.

Fifth, resulting from this sharp deterioration of the environmental situation.

Sixth, threatening demographic indicators, which a) call into question the ability of the biosphere to withstand such a large population b) creating imbalances in the balance between different peoples, giving rise to a lot of conflicts.

Seventh, an ideological crisis, it is directly related to the crisis of world religions. We see how, on the one hand, Islam is once again beginning to rapidly spread across the planet, and, on the other hand, we are observing a crisis in Orthodoxy and Catholicism.

These factors have formed a large-scale crisis agenda for humanity. It cannot be resolved within the framework of old institutions, both global and local.

Rebuilding is required.

What is perestroika? Perestroika is a conflict of interests that causes imbalances. They need to be resolved.

This raises key questions: At whose expense will it take place? Whose interests will have to be sacrificed? What goals must be achieved? In what format should it take place? Etc.

To correctly answer these questions, you need to understand what subjects have these interests, what tools they have, and what conflicts exist between these subjects.

This is where the fun begins. If the world, as a single system, was controlled entirely from one center, then everything would be much simpler. We would be talking about optimizing relationships within the system. However, global weather is shaped by subjects at various levels whose interests conflict with each other.

There are international institutions(financial, security, humanitarian) behind which are the interests of large transnational corporations. They operate globally. Their goal-setting lies in establishing uniform norms and standards throughout the planet.

There are states. Some of them operate globally, some regionally, some locally, and some generally exist only on paper.

There are network organizations(humanitarian, environmental, criminal, military, etc.), which operate globally, regionally and locally.

There are ethnic groups, who also build their organizations that extend beyond their home territory. For example, Kurds, Albanians, Nigerians and others.

All these subjects of the big game have their own motivations and conflicts arising from them. We are interested in subjects who are able to influence Eastern Europe, and therefore, the life of everyone present.

Who are they?

This is, first of all, western conglomerate, which includes transnational organizations, corporations and their instruments in the form of states such as the United States and the empire of states - Europe, along with their Asian and other allies.

This is China, as a state that is an empire, whose influence has been steadily expanding over the past 30 years. China is forming around itself Asian conglomerate, which can include a pool of allies and strategic partners in Asia, Africa and Latin America. For simplicity, we will call this conglomerate China.

It's Russia, as a state that behaves like an empire, but is not one. Russia depends on Western financial institutions, the European market and gravitates toward it civilizationally, but is geographically involved in the Asian agenda, which makes it extremely dependent on China. The failure of modernization has weakened Russia's position in the confrontation between the West and China, whose interests are in direct conflict.

What is the difference between their positions?

West- forms standards and is able to impose them on everyone else through various tools, thus turning them into universal ones. The ideological power of the West rests on economic power, and economic power shapes military power. The West is currently the only force capable of acting globally in all aspects.

China- how a global workshop creates a global offer in the form of a huge range of goods, which in turn determines its expanding interest in resources. Objectively, China has been moving for several decades in the corridor that was opened to it after the agreements between Mao and Nixon. Economic growth has increased China's subjectivity, while simultaneously turning it into a serious threat to the West. This threat is existential in nature, since by switching exhaustible resources to itself, the PRC limits the West’s access to them. China pays for modernization and high growth rates with terrible ecology and social imbalances

Russia does not form anything. It occupies the position of a resource bin with nuclear missiles. Resources and missiles are its main asset.

China's motivations- increase its influence on decision-making at the global level, which will consolidate China’s claims to more resources, because Without them, further modernization is impossible.

The relationship between these actors will shape the path out of the crisis.

What is the way out of the crisis? This is the establishment of a new world order better than the previous one.

What does best mean? This means that the contradictions that led to the disorganization of the global system will be eliminated through the harmonization of relations between its members, or at the expense of some of its members by weakening or destroying them. A classic example is the Yalta Peace of 1945, the Treaty of Westphalia of 1648, and so on. Such agreements fix new designs of world order for the next decades.

What will we get as a result if the crisis is successfully resolved?(by successful resolution I mean avoiding a nuclear war that could destroy humanity in principle):

A world government or quasi-world government in the form of an international organization with political functions more defined than today's UN. Such an organization will have real leverage in shaping the global agenda and enforcing its implementation.
Accordingly, global resource management and the transition to a new technological order.
New crowd management tools. Either through the reformatting of states, or through the formation of continental or subcontinental blocs. Either combining one or another format
The emergence of a new space for capitalist expansion, or the emergence of an alternative and more effective economic model
Environmental risk management on a system platform
Reducing demographic risks. Either by destroying part of the planet's population during the upcoming cataclysms, or by bringing the birth rate to zero and strictly controlling it.
The formation of a new worldview, perhaps the beginnings of the formation of a new global religion.

From here Options for overcoming the crisis:

Conservative. Trying to change without fundamentally changing anything. Now Europe is following this path. Previously, the USSR followed this path.
Active-moderate- try to change the situation globally through removing imbalances in the economy, bringing political institutions into shape adequate to the era, through regional conflicts that will change the balance of power at the global level, through the launch of technologies that will relieve or reduce tension at breaking points.
Radical- through a global war using all types of weapons, which will radically change the balance of power and impose a model beneficial to one of the subjects of the Great Game.

The conservative option is beneficial to China. If there are no sharp changes in the world, then time is on its side.

This option is also beneficial for Russia, which may try to strengthen its defense power and create a more effective political system, thereby reducing the threat of internal destabilization that emerged in the winter of 2011-2012.

Second option

Third option- beneficial to the Western conglomerate.

Hence the motivations of the parties:

West- offensive, or more precisely, preventive defense.

China- defensive, or more precisely, the accumulation of potential in conditions of superiority of the forces of the main competitors.

Russia- defensive

By the way, this accurately reflects the ratio of their military potentials.

Here we draw the following intermediate conclusions.

A crisis creates fundamentally different motivations than in normal times, precisely because problems cannot be solved with conventional tools.
These motivations are aimed at protecting one's interests at the expense of others.
This causes opposition from Others, which dramatically raises the bar in the Game.
This dramatically increases the importance of security, because ultimately the lives (of people, of communities) are the main stake in such a Grand Game.

If protecting one's interests at the expense of others requires their destruction, they will be destroyed
This means that world war is inevitable in one form or another. As a matter of fact, it is already taking place in the format of destabilizing regions such as the Middle East.

For Eastern Europe, this fundamentally changes the environment in which it has existed for 20 years. Because on the part of subjects with an interest in countries and regions, security becomes or will be the key requirement.

This is where the agenda for our countries arises. It can be listed in order of priority as follows:

A) A sharp increase in the importance of security, which is especially evident in the example of the destabilization of the Middle East and the Maghreb.

B) The resulting limitation of space for foreign policy maneuver, since world centers of power will increase demands on states like Ukraine or Belarus.

C) A sharp deterioration in the situation on world markets in 2013 due to the exhaustion of the previous tools to resolve systemic imbalances in the economies of the core of the world system - the USA, Europe, China. This will undermine the national economies of the Eastern countries. Europe is getting stronger and stronger.

D) The resulting sharp complication of the political situation, since established models and balances in Eastern European countries will be eroded and then destroyed. In the case of Ukraine, this has already practically happened.

E) Destruction of the status quo, chaos, formation of new state institutions or loss of subjectivity and transition to the protectorate of world centers of power.

Ukraine is most threatened by destabilization, since, remaining outside the large regional blocs, it experiences the pressure of the crisis more acutely, while having limited resource capabilities.

The consequence will be monstrous tension in 2013, leading to the destabilization of the Yanukovych regime and its collapse.

Power is resources. Power both gives resources and consumes them.

Power depends on three key variables - legitimacy in the eyes of the people, legitimacy in the eyes of elites, legitimacy in the eyes of external actors

Does Yanukovych have any legitimacy?

The people - no.

The elite is no longer there.

Centers of world power - no.

Where can I get resources?

Almost nowhere anymore.

Russia is twisting its arms.

USA- they openly ignore requests for help without fulfilling Washington’s political conditions, and they create a situation that ends with the destruction of the existing regime, which is unable to exist in a competitive environment.

Europe- we need it ourselves, plus he loves democracy very much, but how is it with us? Well, you know.

China- if he gives money, it’s only for the purchase of his own workers and equipment, and you can’t feed state employees with kickbacks.

World markets? Comrades, the bottom is still not visible there. The director of Azovstal painted an epic picture a week ago: “I state that this market (the global rolled metal market) has completely collapsed. Orders have disappeared." At the same time, he predicted that the situation could radically change for the better no earlier than the end of spring 2013. Let me tell you a secret - it will not change, because the factors that created this situation on world markets will not disappear. Let me remind you that 60% of Ukraine’s white GDP is formed through exports, where metal accounts for 40% of revenues.

Business? Safely destroyed by the Yanukovych-Azarov reforms.

Oligarchs? Yes, perhaps, they are the only ones who remain as donors to the Yanukovych regime. What does it mean? This means a conflict of interests inevitably develops into an inter-clan war.

This forms a new political agenda for 2013-2014.

Its essence.

Firstly, Yanukovych needs to be dismissed as a variable that interferes with everyone - the oligarchs, the middle class, public sector employees.

Secondly, it is necessary to remove from the agenda the threat of civil war arising from the inability of the authorities to smooth out conflicts in society.

Third, it is necessary to remove imbalances in relations with the world centers of power - the USA, Russia, the EU.

Fourth, it is necessary to remove the imbalances that are upsetting the Ukrainian economy and social policy.

Fifthly, to form a more stable political system arising from the needs of a new social contract.

On March 31, 2013, in Kyiv at 15-00, a new report by Yuri Romanenko will be held, dedicated to the aggravation of the crisis, as well as the problem of Ukraine’s geopolitical choice in the current situation. The report will take place at Kyiv, st. Olesya Gonchara, 79. cafe of the Bravo theater. Additional information will be posted on Khvila and our social media pages.

Below are three cards.

The first two, developed by colleagues from Rostend.su. In our opinion, they do not accurately reflect the essence of the processes, and also exaggerate the speed of spread of the influence of a number of blocks, underestimate others and overestimate others.

The third map was developed specifically for Khvyli by Sergei Gromenko; it will be used during Yuri Romanenko’s report

Worst places:

Israel

When war breaks out in the world, Israel will suffer the most. Israel depends on imports of food and fuel, as well as water, a resource over which the Israelis have often clashed with their neighbors in order to secure reliable sources of this need. Even in the best of times, Israel was on the brink of destruction, so when World War III began, their main allies, the United States, would have much more to worry about than trying to defend a non-strategic piece of land in the Middle East. Israel is also extremely dependent on foreign aid, which will immediately stop. The thin strip of desert land with the Israelis will not be able to withstand the harsh political reality of being surrounded by peoples who despise them. This includes Egypt, which has been at war with Israel 5 times; Jordan, which was at war 3 times; Syria, 5 times; Lebanon and Palestine. These factors, among many others, make Israel one of the worst places in the world for the upcoming third world war.

Russia

Russia is currently involved in two proxy wars against the United States: in Ukraine and Syria, and any of these conflicts could lead Russia into the hot phase of a war against the United States and NATO. Russia's participation in a geopolitical game of chess with us is just the tip of the iceberg. Russia is definitely an unsafe place if the third world war breaks out due to the Russian trigger, a system called "R" dead man's clue" (Note: The “Perimeter” system, the Strategic Missile Forces air defense index is 15E601, in Western Europe and the USA is known as the English Dead Hand, literally “Dead Hand” or “dead man’s hand”), which will automatically trigger a mechanism that is linked to every missile in Russia's nuclear arsenal. She constantly monitors Russian territory throughseismic and radioactivity sensors and if even one nuclear explosion occurs in Russia, the system automatically launches all intercontinental ballistic missiles in retaliatory strike against its enemies. This system is designed not only to operate in the event that the entire leadership is destroyed in a nuclear attack, but even if the Russian leaders survive the nuclear attack, the automatic launch from "R" dead man's skills" cannot be canceled. This means that the majority of the Russian population will, in essence, be doomed to the ravages of nuclear war.

United Kingdom

Thanks to the United Kingdom's alliance with the US and NATO, it cannot be disputed that Great Britain will also be involved in the third world war. The trouble is that Britain is extremely vulnerable. The British Isles currently has far more population than it can feed itself, and the UK is a net importer of food, meaning that the people of the UK will face immediate famine as they will be immediately cut off from their food supplies. The Scottish National Party is now poised to put an end to Britain's Trident nuclear program due to its excessive cost. These attempts to disarm the UK's nuclear stockpile may be smart in peacetime, but could leave the gates open to a nuclear attack on the UK.

China

China is tethered to global shipping lanes, making it dependent on coastal trade to be a prime target for amphibious attacks, airstrikes and nuclear attack. Their military is backed by a massive national project that could theoretically amass an army of up to seven million soldiers. Providing such an army would come at a huge cost to the average Chinese citizen. Even without a global conflict, China is still in danger of falling into unrest. The rampant pollution threatens China to run out of its entire supply of drinking water by 2030, according to their projections, a problem that requires government intervention to solve it. If China's government weakens or collapses due to global conflict, their pollution problem will go unaddressed and their water supply will dry up. If China gets involved in World War III, it will bring great misfortune to China.

United States

The US is the largest candidate for a surprise nuclear strike. US enemies may attempt a pre-emptive nuclear strike to protect their own countries from nuclear annihilation. This attack would make most of our territory uninhabitable. Even people in the Midwest who usually think they're safe... won't be able to escape this fate. This will happen because there are dozens of missile silos in this region; they will be the first priority targets for destruction in the first atomic strike. Attacks on these silos will be done to destroy the US nuclear arsenal before it can respond. Due to the consequences of nuclear war, or even conventional war, we will fragment into smaller regions with different racial and cultural groups, and will fight for dominance over the ashes of America. In Southern California, more than 20 million people live in one area with no local food or water sources. Southern California near Mexico with brutal drug cartels. If law and order breaks down during a global conflict, these cartels will devastate the southwestern United States.

Germany

Just like the US, Germany is guided by the NATO collective defense agreement, which means that even if a NATO member like Lithuania is attacked, Germany must go to war in defense of that state. This ensures that Germany is positioned on the front line due to its proximity to potential enemies, making Germany an extremely unsafe place during a global conflict. The war between the Western powers and Russia with its own allies will also take place on German soil.

South Korea

Most likely, the United States will withdraw its soldiers from the Korean Peninsula at the very beginning of the third world war, which will give North Korea a chance to launch an invasion of South Korea. Without the United States, the South Korean army will be largely smaller than the North's. Any war between North and South would cause a grave humanitarian crisis. In reality, it doesn't matter who attacks first, north or south, because the small peninsula is guaranteed to be devastated in any conflict no matter who wins.

Liberia

In 2010, Liberia was ranked as the most dependent country on foreign aid in the entire world. Without this help, Liberia simply cannot survive. The US is Liberia's largest financial supporter, providing them with $450 million annually. At the start of World War III, the US would have more problems than financing Liberia, leaving Liberians facing starvation.

Solomon islands

After Liberia comes the Solomon Islands, which is the second most dependent country on foreign aid. Global conflict will threaten to remove the lifeline of foreign aid, leaving its population to suffer greatly. Apart from this economic vulnerability, the islands are also in a very unfortunate location. During World War II, the Solomon Islands had strategic air bases that threatened populated areas of Australia and New Zealand. During the Third World War, it is likely that these islands will again be fought over, to be used as an air base and they will be on the front line of any upcoming world conflict.

Saudi Arabia

For Saudi Arabia, its massive oil reserves are its greatest gift but also its greatest curse. When war breaks out, fuel will become scarce and a major power will attempt to take over the country with its vast oil reserves. Saudi Arabia has a relatively small army and relies more on alliances to keep itself safe. This decision, unfortunately, also leaves the kingdom in a vulnerable position. The Saudi Arabian government is also not the most stable in the world, which means the country will fall apart in any destructive conflict. The problems are even deeper because the country is dependent on imports for food, water, consumer goods and manufactured goods, meaning these resources will be in short supply, leading to unrest, famine and death.

Best places:

Switzerland

With mountainous terrain, a strong tradition of neutrality, a huge number of bunkers and a heavily armed population, Switzerland has proven itself to be a safe haven during its bloody past. Europe. Although it borders Germany, France and Italy, which will undoubtedly fight with nuclear weapons, Switzerland is protected from these danger zones thanks to the mountains that surround it. This means that the Swiss can take refuge high in the mountains when nuclear weapons explode on the ground around their country.

Tuvalu

Tuvalu is an island nation in the middle of the Pacific Ocean, which is a very remote and neutral place. The extreme isolation helps the nation remain politically even, and its small population and negligible resources mean that no major power would have any reason to attack the island. It is likely that Tuvalu will simply be ignored when the third world war begins. Also, unlike many other island nations, local people produce and consume primarily their own food and goods, making them uniquely self-sufficient.

New Zealand

New Zealand is one of the most secluded but developed Nations in the world. It has a stable democracy and is not deeply involved in armed conflicts. New Zealand's mountainous terrain could also provide refuge at the outbreak of another world war. The country also has enough local food supplies, clean water and fertile soil to sustain itself for quite some time. New Zealand's peaceful foreign policy earned fourth place in the 2015 Global Peace Index.

Butane

Despite sharing borders with two potential warlords, China and India, its unique location makes it an excellent hideout for an apocalyptic conflict. Surrounded by the Himalayan mountains, Bhutan is one of the most secluded landlocked places in the world. Bhutan also does not have diplomatic relations with the United States. In fact, only two countries, Bangladesh and neighboring India, have their embassies in the capital of Bhutan.

Chile

Chile is the most stable and prosperous country in South America, ranking above all other Latin American countries in human development. It is protected by the almost impenetrable Andes to the west of its borders. Chile has the least polluted air, due to the constant replenishment of clean Antarctic air. Chile will be much cleaner than the war-torn countries to its north.

Iceland

Iceland is a country so peaceful and neutral that it was number one in 2015 in the Global Peace Index. It has no land borders with other countries, and is far from the majority of the world. As nuclear warheads fall around the world, it is possible that Iceland will be spared the initial conflict. Even in the worst case scenario, the country has mountainous terrain to provide shelter.

Denmark

It is likely that as the conflict spreads across Europe, Denmark will suffer greatly due to its involvement in NATO, as well as the dangerous proximity of large countries within the European Union. However, this is not entirely true, thanks to one important exception...Greenland. Greenland like Iceland, which means that the population of Greenland will be able to take refuge in the mountains and then try to survive after the third world war.

Malta

Malta is a tiny island nation and is essentially a small island fortress. Throughout Malta's history, empires have tried to take over Malta, meaning that invading the island would be very costly. Finally, Malta is relatively small in size which cannot justify the expense of a nuclear missile for it, so it will probably simply be ignored by the major players in World War III.

Ireland

And Ireland is a prosperous and developed state, it does not have strong ties with any of the potential warriors who will participate in a large-scale world war. Ireland tends to practice independence in its foreign policy. As a result, Ireland is not a member of NATO and has a long-standing policy of military neutrality. According to Irish law, in order for Ireland to enter into any external military conflicts, their participation must be approved by the UN, the government and the Irish legislature.

Fiji

The remote island nation of Fiji lies deep in the vast expanse of the Pacific Ocean, which separates the islands from would-be invaders. Simply, like Tuvalu, Fiji has a small population, is neutral in foreign affairs and does not have any resources within its borders to justify an invasion. For hundreds of years, the islands have maintained excellent life and this will likely continue after the World Conflict.

Russia's place in the plans of the Empire of Chaos

American state media predict the balkanization of Russia

On September 8, 2014, Dmitry Sinchenko published an article about the division of Russia “Waiting for the Third World War. How the world will change.” Sinchenko participated in Euromaidan, and his organization, the All-Ukrainian Initiative "Rukh of Power Makers", among other foreign policy goals, supports ethnic nationalism, the territorial expansion of Ukraine at the expense of the majority of neighboring countries, giving new impetus to the pro-American Organization for Democracy and Economic Development - GUAM (Georgia, Ukraine, Azerbaijan and Moldova), joining NATO and going on the offensive with the aim of defeating Russia. Let us note that the inclusion of the word “democracy” in the name of GUAM should not mislead anyone - GUAM, as the inclusion of the Republic of Azerbaijan in it proves, has nothing to do with democracy, but with balancing Russia in the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS).

Sinchenko's article begins with a story about the history of the expression "axis of evil", used by the United States to denigrate its enemies. It talks about how George W. Bush Jr. coined the phrase in 2002, bringing together Iraq, Iran and North Korea, just as John Bolton expanded the "axis of evil" to include Cuba, Libya and Syria, as Condoleezza Rice included Belarus, Zimbabwe and Myanmar (Burma), and then At the end, Sinchenko proposes that Russia should be added to the list as the world's main rogue country. He even proves that the Kremlin is involved in all the conflicts in the Balkans, the Caucasus, the Middle East, North Africa, Ukraine and Southeast Asia. He further accuses Russia of hatching plans to conquer the Baltic states, the Caucasus, Moldova, Finland, Poland and, even more absurdly, two of its close military-political allies, Belarus and Kazakhstan. Judging by the title of the article, he even claims that Moscow is deliberately seeking a third world war.

Reshaping Eurasia: Washington's maps of the division of Russia

As stated in an article by Radio Liberty, any bipolar rivalry between Moscow and Washington will end after the Third World War with the division of the Russian Federation. Clearly contradicting herself, she argues that a truly multipolar world will only exist when Russia is destroyed, but she also makes it clear that the United States will be the most important world power, even if Washington and the European Union are weakened by the results of a predicted major war with the Russians .