How seriously should you take all these horror scenarios? Expert Dan Smith classifies the danger for Blick: Now the British also expect ‘war like in the 20th century’.

class=”sc-cffd1e67-0 iQNQmc”>

After Germany and Sweden, the British are now also warning of a war in Europe. Army Chief Patrick Sanders (57) compares the situation in Ukraine with 1914 and 1937 and calls on the British to prepare for a war on the scale of the conflicts of the 20th century.

Sanders said at a tank exhibition in London that the same mistakes should not be repeated in Ukraine if the significance of the crises before the two world wars was not recognized. “This war is not just about the black soil in the Donbas or about the restoration of a Russian empire, but about the political, psychological and symbolic defeat of our system and our way of life.”

How seriously should we take all these warnings? Dan Smith (72), director of the Sipri peace research institute in Stockholm, assesses the situation.

Blick: Ministers and army leaders of various countries warn of war in Europe. Do you also paint black like that?
Dan Smith: No. A lot of it is rhetoric. Government members are trying to encourage people to keep up with the changing situation. We are in a place where we felt safe for good reasons and now the situation has changed. I think the rhetoric is exaggerated in some cases.

How great do you consider the danger of war in Western Europe?
We are still a long way from Western Europe becoming involved in a major war. I think a lot has to go wrong first.

It is said that Russia would attack the Baltic states first…
The Russian government would be taking a major risk if it took military action against NATO members. If there were more hostilities, I would expect more sabotage and disinformation in the first place.

Why are so many conflicts and wars breaking out around the world right now?
Several factors come together. Since Russian politics changed in 2008, the Kremlin appears much more confident and assertive in international politics. The economic crisis of 2007/2008 and the economic consequences of the corona pandemic also play a role. Added to this are the pressures of climate change, especially climate change. We are experiencing some kind of perfect political, socio-economic and ecological storm of which we, the world, are the victims.

Which conflict do you consider the most dangerous?
The most devastating impact globally would be a conflict that has not yet become open war and hopefully never will. I mean the conflict over Taiwan. The two superpowers, the US and China, could come into direct conflict here.

What about Ukraine and the Middle East?
Of course, the war in Ukraine also poses enormous dangers to the world, where one of the parties involved has a nuclear arsenal. In addition to war victims, this war can also lead to enormous environmental damage and famine. I also think that the Gaza war is extremely dangerous. It could escalate in the region and have a significant impact on global trade. The great danger is that wars in one place can cause wars in other places.

You have been involved in peace research for years. Tell me, how do you get out of such messy situations like in Ukraine?
I wish I could pull a solution out of a hat. But there is no THE solution. The only option is to change the nature of the problem, minimize it and live with it as best you can. Opportunities for change include creating a mutually damaging stalemate that encourages both sides to talk to each other. However, a change of opinion or a change of leadership in one or both countries can also lead to an outcome.

So there is little choice but to wait?
Time is actually a very important factor. And there is a general need for more pragmatic, balanced and secure relations between the West and Russia. Several issues need to be addressed, such as how to deal together with a new pandemic, how to fight crime and climate change and how to prevent the destabilization of border regions between Europe and Russia.

What will it take to achieve and maintain lasting peace on earth?
We were well on our way to this between 1990 and 2010. By our calculations, global military spending has fallen from $1.5 trillion to about $1 trillion in 2000. It has now risen to over $2.2 trillion. At the time, disarmament and peace agreements were being reached at an unprecedented pace. The reason for this was that the UN and the UN Security Council could act relatively uniformly after the Cold War.

And today?
With the many UN organizations we actually have a good starting point. Now we need to find a way for the West and China to reach a pragmatic relationship; Russia should also be involved. I’m not saying we should be friends. But if we come closer together in a working relationship, the world will change.

Do you think Switzerland would also be in danger in the event of a war?
Switzerland is in a geostrategically quite secure position – especially after the border of Europe’s main opponent has moved east. But if a conventional or nuclear war were to break out in Europe, Switzerland would be affected in a way that would be much, much more profound than was the case in World War II.

Sweden was considered a neutral country, but is now joining NATO. How do you assess Switzerland’s neutrality?
There are different types of neutrality. It can mean withdrawing, distancing yourself, not caring about anything. But it can also mean that you feel involved and concerned about international law. I see Switzerland as a football referee who is involved, involved and according to the rules.

How can a person, how can I personally contribute to peace?
The tone has become more aggressive, especially due to social media. An algorithm ensures that we push each other up in bubbles with other angry people. It’s worth dealing with your own feelings and thinking about how you can build a bridge to other people who are having problems or have a different perspective. As an individual I cannot save the world, but I can do my part.

Source: Blick