Backwash of World War 3

The first and second world wars rearranged boundaries all across the world, but nowhere more so than in Europe. And if it happened again, the situation would very certainly be just as difficult—and maybe not only in Europe. Check out today's unbelievable narrative to discover how the world will look after World War 3! 🚨🤯🥶🥵🚨

Borders were rearranged all over the world during the first and second world wars, but nowhere more so than in Europe. After World War I, many nations rearranged their borders, largely in retaliation against Germany. In addition, after World War II, the United States and the Soviet Union's two empires fought for control of the continent in a tug-of-war that saw some nations, like Prussia, completely disappear. They divided the continent's territory between their two blocs and even divided Germany in half with a large wall in the middle. And if it happened again, circumstances would probably be difficult once more, perhaps not just in Europe. Let's start by taking a look at the tale of the tape. Although we do not know when or how World War III will start, we can make assumptions about who will be on each side.

The United States and its NATO allies, which also include Canada, the United Kingdom, France, and nearly the entire European Union, will likely be in charge of the main forces on one side. Asian allies of the west, such as Japan, South Korea, India, and Taiwan, will join them. Israel and Saudi Arabia are also likely to be steadfast supporters of this cause in the Middle East, though they might play a more subdued role due to financial and security concerns. Australia and New Zealand are also likely to support this bloc, despite the fact that they are far from the action. The other side may have fewer members, but it will still have some strong players. The overwhelming favorite to start World War 3 is likely Russia, whose invasion of Ukraine sparked a significant regional conflict and whose aggressive actions and remarks toward NATO have everyone worried about an escalation.

They are largely economically and diplomatically isolated, but that won't be the case if it develops into a larger conflict. The two nations see themselves as the alliance against US dominance of the world, and any World War III would likely see these two Great Powers in firm agreement, despite China's recent retreat from reflexively supporting the war in Ukraine. A small number of strong nations, including North Korea, which possesses nuclear weapons, and possibly Pakistan, would join them. Pakistan and India have a fierce rivalry, and Pakistan is likely to lean more toward China than India. Russia's staunchest ally in the ongoing conflict has been nuclear-capable Iran, and they are likely to gain a few more allies abroad in the form of Belarus, Syria, and Venezuela. And it is almost certain that a new world will emerge after a conflict between these two blocs. What the world looks like after World War III will depend on two questions. The first is the potential use of nuclear weapons.

Putin makes a nuclear threat roughly every ten minutes, but since 1945, no nation has used nuclear weapons in a military conflict. Everyone is extremely apprehensive about firing the first shot because it might trigger a missile exchange that will end the world. With their combined nuclear arsenals, the US, Russia, and China could theoretically threaten one another with nuclear war. It's possible that there wouldn't be any borders at all in some countries, or even all of them, if a missile is fired and it results in a larger nuclear exchange. Even if Earth avoids nuclear annihilation, there are still many questions to be resolved. While a full nuclear exchange between the largest countries may be less likely, a more constrained nuclear exchange between rivals like India and Pakistan may be more likely. For starters, the borders would undoubtedly change depending on who wins the war. The United States' side is by far the favorite, just as in previous World Wars.

They possess the largest nuclear arsenal, the most potent aircraft carriers, the most advanced military hardware, and the strongest economic ties. Although it is extremely unlikely, the United States and NATO may find themselves to be their greatest adversaries. The American bloc's eventual withdrawal from the conflict, as they did in Vietnam, is what Russia and China's bloc are most likely hoping for by wearing down their adversary. If they did that, Russia and China would likely have relatively free reign. Putin would probably succeed in reuniting Ukraine, after which he would probably turn his attention to the other nations that gained independence in the wake of the fall of the Soviet Union, both in Europe and central Asia. He would start with the nations outside of NATO, but there is no assurance he would continue there. It's likely that a full invasion of NATO territory would start a new conflict, so it's more likely that he would be content with restoring the nation's former glory.

However, given the likelihood that another round of fighting will soon begin, this may only be the calm before the storm. Asia could be the same. Since it first began to ratchet up tensions decades ago, China has had one major objective: capturing Taiwan and making it a part of its empire. For China, this is a source of great pride, and if a larger conflict broke out, this would probably be their first strike. In particular, Vietnam, Japan, and South Korea are among the nations that could be in danger because they are close to China. This, however, would probably only occur in the improbable scenario of a total victory where the American forces are routed, so it is more probable that in a negotiated settlement, China would be annexing portions of other nations. They would probably take advantage of this chance to permanently stake a claim to the South China Sea and retake more Indian territory in the Himalayas.

Some of the small island nations in the Pacific, which could serve as important beachheads in a Pacific war, may be the most likely nations for them to completely conquer. However, it is much more likely that things will turn out differently. The majority of analysts think that the US-NATO alliance has significantly more organization and firepower than the Russia-China alliance, and that any conflict that doesn't turn into a full nuclear exchange would probably be in their favor. The main issue is whether Russia and China can end the conflict amicably or if they will fight to the bitter end. That would significantly affect whether or not the boundaries of the world were dramatically rearranged. If Russia and China are allowed to avoid the embarrassment of a full surrender, the odds are good that they might be allowed to slink away with what they had before the war, if not what they were actually holding at its conclusion. Which side wants peace more, and what they're willing to give up for it, are the deciding factors.

Let's start by examining the regions whose borders are unlikely to change. South America may be the safest place on earth to be during World War 3, as there's a good chance it won't be involved at all. While some of them have made contentious pro-Putin remarks, the majority of South America's countries are led by mainstream left-wing figures, and almost all of them have positive diplomatic and economic ties with the US. Additionally, none of them have militaries equipped for global conflict and are likely to approach the conflict in an isolationist manner. Venezuela is the lone exception, run by the ferocious autocrat Nicolas Maduro, though his rule is under threat from an ongoing power struggle, and Juan Guaido is recognized by a number of nations. So far, Maduro has maintained his position of authority through force. Maduro lacks much firepower and is unlikely to send his small military halfway around the world to support his allies, despite the fact that he is widely regarded as a staunch ally of Putin and an enemy of the US.

And since they had no involvement in the fighting, the winners are probably going to let Maduros Venezuela remain the resident crazy uncle of South America. And the circumstances are probably quite similar to those in the north. Unlike South America, North America is going to be directly involved in the war, with two NATO members taking up the majority of its land area. The United States only experienced a few attacks off its coasts during the first two World Wars, most notably in Hawaii, and it is also far away from the likely major fronts in the conflict — two enormous oceans away, to be exact. Today, missiles make it much simpler to attack anywhere in the world, but even though you can hit the US, it still isn't any simpler to conquer. Due to their size, the United States and Canada would probably be the last nations invaded. Then there is Mexico, which, despite occasionally having tense relations with the US, is also not likely to oppose it in a war.

There won't be another Zimmerman Telegram here, so things will probably stay the same in North America. And yet another continent is able to sigh with relief. The borders of Africa were largely drawn by colonial powers over the last few centuries, and many of the countries didn't even gain their independence until the mid-20th century. Given that many of them have spent centuries having their fates decided by outside forces, they aren't viewed as major military competitors today. They are nevertheless evolving into a center of economic growth. Due to their mistrust of the western powers, many countries are making economic deals with China, but it's unlikely that any of them would have the military might or desire to support them in a war. While it's possible that China's presence in these states -- particularly Djibouti, where China has a military state -- could pull Africa in more directly, it's unlikely that redrawing any borders in Africa would be a priority for the winners.

Everywhere else will see the changes, which could be very significant. Across the world, there might be smaller conflicts that would boil over in the middle of World War III, and each one would likely end with some significant changes to the world's borders. Probably the least significant would be a potential clash between India and Pakistan, concentrated in the Kashmir region. It's likely that India would be aligned with the US and NATO, while Pakistan is aligned with China, but it's not guaranteed that either party would get directly involved in the larger war. In times of increased global conflict, however, a shooting war between the two nations is possible because they are already on the verge of war in good times. But how much would this change on the ground? The odds are that at the end of the war, assuming neither country had been thoroughly defeated (which is unlikely given that both are major regional nuclear powers), the victors of the war would lean heavily on India and Pakistan to settle this conflict via a peace treaty once and for all.

While India's faction would be likely to win the war, that doesn't mean that India would necessarily win this skirmish, and even if they did, that doesn't necessarily mean that they would get everything they wanted out of the deal. The world would likely be more concerned with settling the conflict for good, and that would mean finding a deal that both sides could sign, even if no one was happy with it. But would either country want to take more than just Kashmir? It's unlikely, as unlike other countries with long-standing conflicts, India and Pakistan don't lay claim to each other. Quite the opposite, in fact—they are glad to be rid of each other. The Partition of India, and later the Partition of Pakistan that led to the creation of Bangladesh, were bloody affairs intended to fend off far worse bloodshed. Today, Pakistan is almost entirely Muslim while India has a strong Hindu majority, and neither country wants to turn back the clock and become a massive melting pot again, no matter who is in charge.

So any border changes here are likely to be focused on security issues and border regions. The same can't be said for other conflicts. It's one of the most intractable conflicts in the world—the ongoing cold war, and occasionally hot war, between Israel and its Arab and Muslim neighbors. Since 1948, there have been multiple wars aimed at destroying the Israeli experiment. All failed and over the decades Israel has made peace or at least coexistence agreements with many of them. Egypt and Jordan are now unlikely to participate in any attack against Israel, but the same can't be said for Israel's northern neighbor, Syria. Not only is it still run by a ruthless enemy of Israel, Bashar Al-Assad, but Israel still possesses a section of Syria it claimed after the 1967 war—the Golan Heights.

And Israel is about to get a new government, featuring its former right-wing leader, who is now backed up by far-right coalition partners, meaning relations could deteriorate with all its neighbors. And there is another element that could make this conflict boil over in a hurry. Syria is involved in a brutal civil war, with Russia backing Assad's regime. That means Russian troops are present in Syria and largely keep the militant groups from shooting down at Israeli territory. It's a key reason why Israel has been hesitant to contribute too much to Ukraine's defense, for fear of Putin unleashing his forces in retaliation, but they may not have that choice in a larger war. If Putin uses Syria to launch a proxy war on Israel, Israel is likely to give the okay for retaliatory strikes and maybe a full invasion of Syria. The same might happen with Hezbollah-controlled Lebanon, next door, where border skirmishes are common.

This is a small-scale conflict, and unless Russia or its regional ally Iran decides to get directly involved, Israel is likely to win decisively. And that could mean a major change in the Middle East. Israel has been pushed to give back much of the land it took from surrounding countries in past wars, such as the Sinai Peninsula to Egypt, but it always came through one circumstance: peace deals. Without any such deal with Syria, Israel has steadfastly held on to the Golan Heights for security reasons, and it's likely a new conflict would mean taking more mountain regions from Syria and Lebanon. While this isn't likely to get Israel into a new occupation quagmire like other war claims it made after the 1967 war, it could significantly increase the small country's territory and lead to it becoming more of a regional power. But in another country, it could be all or nothing.

The Korean peninsula is a tale of two countries, divided since the Korean War. While it started as a military dictatorship, today capitalist South Korea is a thriving democracy with a rich tech and entertainment sector and close relations with the United States. It would be a key part of the Asian front, along with Japan and Taiwan. Meanwhile, to the north, North Korea is still under the same clan of Communist rulers that took control of the country, and much of the country lives in extreme poverty. It is closely aligned with China, although even the Chinese Communist Party tends to view the Kim clan as unpredictable wild cards. The difference is never starker than when looking at a lighting map of the two countries. And after seventy years, the two Koreas are no closer to peace. In fact, neither country even acknowledges the other as a legitimate country. Both claim to be the rightful rulers of the entire Korean peninsula, and while an armistice has held until now, nuclear-armed North Korea continues to provoke its neighbors.

It's entirely possible that a shooting war could begin between the two countries amid World War III. It's unlikely that South Korea would start the war, and it's also not clear if China would want North Korea to make a move on its southern neighbor—but Kim Jong-Un may just see the world going to war and decide there is no better chance to make his move. And in a full conflict between the Koreas, there is only one major question. Would North Korea pull the trigger on nuclear weapons? If it targets Seoul, the odds are strong that Seoul's allies would target Pyongyang with everything they had in retaliation. That could leave both Koreas a wasteland—and leave the entire peninsula as valuable real estate for its neighbor China. But if it remains a conventional war, the odds are it will still be a long and bloody one. The two countries have among the biggest armies per capita in the world, thanks to extensive conscription. And if it goes on long enough, it's likely that both countries allies will get in on the conflict. But is a unified Korea even possible?

It's unlikely because the systems of government are so radically different that it would be nearly impossible to incorporate them. North Korea would never be able to subjugate all of South Korea's population after decades of freedom, except in a case where its faction had essentially taken over the world. And while South Korea talks a big game about North Korea being part of its territory, it's not clear if they're up to the task of taking in tens of millions of citizens who have been raised in a cult-like environment with absolute loyalty to the leader. In fact, the most likely solution to the conflict might come from a third party.

The odds are that China would be watching the conflict carefully, encouraging and funding their North Korean allies but making sure they don't go too far. And if it looks like Kim Jong-Un is about to become the first person to use nuclear weapons in the conflict, Chinese troops could easily launch a sneak attack from the north, decapitate the North Korean regime, take control of the area in the name of stabilizing the situation, and expand their territory while mostly being seen as a savior.

Certified. You're definitely going to miss out.

Make sure to always be updated. Possibly daily. 😁