World War III | FULL INTERVIEW: New York's WBAI Radio Talks to Dr. Matthew Alford
Gaza, Ukraine, And Why The Second Half Of 2024 Is The Most Dangerous Period Humanity Has Ever Faced
ARTS Express: In your Substack, you mentioned that bookies gave a 4% chance of a nuclear attack by the end of June. Now the assassination attempt on Trump, do you think this risk has increased?
Matthew Alford: On the attempted Trump murder, I think it indicates how precarious the MAGA movement is. It’s really all built around Trump’s personality cult, following a much more rudderless Tea Party movement from the 2010s. Does the incident increase the chances of nuclear war? Only if a follow-up is successful - Trump is the better candidate for global stability. He’s still bad news, the more so if he chooses the sort of swamp creatures he did last time for his cabinet - but one might hope he learned lessons from employing the likes of Pence, Pomeo, and Bolton. Biden is a double threat - I never know if he’s going to press the button or keel over on it.
In parallel, Ukraine recently admitted to making assassination attempts on Russia’s President - not that the media seems remotely interested. Imagine if they get “lucky”. Who would replace Putin and how might they react when trying to cement their power? Powerful states, such as Britain and Russia, have explicit written doctrines saying they will use nuclear weapons if their territorial integrity or sovereignty is violated - murdering the President would surely fit that criteria.
Plenty of talking heads say Russia will never use nukes because of deterrence or whatever. Such views are simplistic to the point of being deceitful. Of course Putin won't suddenly nuke London just if we kill a few of their soldiers. But they would go up the “escalation ladder” - a concept well understood in the Cold War - and during that tit-for-tat somebody somewhere might think they’re better off exploding a nuke to establish “escalation dominance”. As Sean Connery says in the classic crime movie The Untouchables: "You wanna know how to get Capone? They pull a knife, you pull a gun. He sends one of yours to the hospital, you send one of his to the f***ing morgue.”
ARTS Express: Your comparison of Biden to a 'Homelander from Wish' suggests a deep cynicism about his administration's foreign policy. Can you elaborate on how Biden's track record in Iraq, Libya, and Afghanistan might inform his approach to current conflicts and the risk of a wider war?
MA: I actually just asked Chat GPT this precise question. It replied by saying that Biden “voted for the Iraq war as a Senator and his experience there reinforced his reluctance to engage in prolonged military commitments that can lead to indefinite conflict”. I then asked the question about NATO’s war in Libya and it said as Vice President he supported the war on Libya and his experiences there reinforced his reluctance to engage in prolonged military commitments that can lead to indefinite conflict. Then I asked about Afghanistan and it said…. well guess what!
ARTS Express: Drawing on historical examples, such as the near-misses during the Cold War, you discuss the precarious nature of avoiding nuclear war. With current technological advancements and the volatility of international relations, do you believe we're better or worse equipped to handle such crises today?
MA: The technological system as a whole remains the same as those in the great Cold War movies, Failsafe, The Day After, and War Games - and the only way to win is not to play the game.
We know at least two occasions where individuals during false alarms - subsequently scorned by the state for their heroism - successfully stared down powerful colleagues who had actually instigated nuclear launches.
In her new book Nuclear War, Annie Jacobson reveals that inside the President's nuclear “briefcase” is a piece of laminated plastic just like a Denny’s menu, from which the president chooses weapons and targets in the 6 minutes he is told he must decide. A main meal that truly turns the stomach - and inside out, literally.
ARTS Express: You mention that commentators claiming the Third World War has already started are not helpful. In light of recent escalations and NATO's increasing involvement in Ukraine, how close do you believe we are to an actual world war? What historical parallels do you see, if any?
MA: World War III is when the great powers keep killing each others’ soldiers because they believe they can’t afford to back down - that’s how the First World War got real on the ground, as Austria-Hungary bombed Belgrade in the dead of night on 28th July 1914, a week prior to Germany’s invasion of Belgium.
If 2,000 French troops go to Ukraine as President Macron wants, the Russians will kill a bunch of them and it’s hard to see how this won’t invite retaliation. It’s similarly hard to see how F-16 fighter jets from Holland won’t lead to combat deaths between NATO and Russia when they are deployed in the coming weeks.
At the same time, the US has recently permitted Ukraine to use missiles on Russian soil, ostensibly just to take out Russian weapons systems, but in practice already causing scores of civilian casualties in Crimea and smashing an nuclear early warning system.
Back in 2022, the Russians came close to killing 30 British RAF personnel in a surveillance plane after a jet misinterpreted an order - remarkably, the only reason they failed is because the jet’s missile jammed in its bay.
Perhaps at such a point of crisis, public opinion would turn, my colleague thinks. Photos of coffins flying to Delaware or Royal Wootton Bassett draped in our national flags. Such images led to US withdrawal from Somalia in 1993, so he says. But the two things are just not the same - the US couldn’t care less about Somalia. Over Russia, China, Iran, can you really see Biden, Blinken, Austin, Sullivan backing down? Bill Burns of the CIA, maybe. But you’re really on a loaded coin toss by that point. If they were to cave in, it’d be the end of American global domination - done, goodbye. I think they’d choose to scuttle into their scummy little bunkers as they escalate - and the enemy would do the same. Then we’re into August 1914 but on a global scale - and with nuclear weaponry. What do you think the Kaiser would have done that first month as the bodies piled high?
Ukraine isn’t the only flashpoint. Gaza is a humanitarian disaster - nearly 100% of the buildings there have been bombed. The UN says it would take 100 lorries fifteen years to clear the rubble. But beyond that, Netanyahu looks set to enter a full-scale war with Hezbollah in Lebanon, which is being billed by both sides as a war “with no restraint”. Hezbollah has ten times the firepower it did back in 2006, their last major war. If Netanyahu goes ahead, it ain’t just gonna be a couple thousand dead - it’ll look like Gaza but on both sides of the fence, with a good chance of drawing in Iran directly. Which is why both Iran and Israel so carefully calibrated their military responses in April this year to ensure there was no further retaliation. Hard to see such courtesy in a war “with no restraint”.
The entire planet has just entered the most dangerous few months since the demise of the dinosaurs, which is particularly unfortunate because I have just started on a fantastic diet.
ARTS Express: In your piece 'When Chickens Fly To Kiev,' you criticise Western leaders for sabotaging peace talks between Ukraine and Russia. Do you believe there is still a viable path to peace, or have these opportunities been irrevocably lost due to such interventions?
MA: Yes, there is usually a path to peace if you’re dealing with a rational actor - though Ukraine will never have better terms than it did in April 2022 when Russia had offered to withdraw to pre-invasion lines.
Was Russia sincere back then? The Ukrainian chief negotiator thought so. Everyone interviewed for the Foreign Affairs article - and for an earlier one written by the hawkish Fiona Hill - seemed to think so.
Who doesn't think so? From what I can tell it’s people who haven't read the piece and/or were badly bullied at school, namely Piers Morgan who dismissed it without evidence on his show and blathered on about punching bullies in the face. Stick to badgering spoilt aristocrats, please, Piers.
ARTS Express: General Sir Patrick Sanders recently warned about the 'new axis powers' of Russia, China, and Iran, likening them to a greater threat than the Nazis. How do you view these comparisons, and what does history teach us about the risks of such alliances and the rhetoric surrounding them?
MA: There is always a contingent of bluff old men with dicky tickers who imagine invaders lurking everywhere. And the media loves all their crazy forecasts: “General Predicts Putin will Lose Everything He Gained Since 2014”; “Putin Has Gone Crazy”; “Sickly Putin will die VERY Soon” and “End Could Be Near, Says Spy Chief”. Any of that happened this past two and a half years? Nope.
The US and UK are two of the safest countries in the world, separated by water, but simultaneously we’re the most fearful of attack - probably because we’re so violent ourselves.
China and Iran are not expansionist powers, never have been. Of course they have the ability to project power but they are not looking to take swathes of territory. Russia has taken territory on its borders but to call it imperialist is a joke in comparison to actual imperialism. And while not claiming to be an expert on Russia, it is blatantly obvious that it’s mainly motivated by standard security concerns and the threat of diminishment any great power would feel - understandably given that last time they trusted the West their economy fell to bits for 10 years.
ARTS Express: Slovak PM Robert Fico's statement that Ukraine joining NATO would guarantee World War III reflects a significant concern. How do you assess the likelihood of NATO's expansion triggering a larger conflict, and what steps could be taken to mitigate this risk?
MA: I think World War III is guaranteed well before we ever admit Ukraine to NATO, which is years away by even the most “optimistic” prediction.
I’d point out though that there isn’t a “significant concern” about war among the chattering classes. The front cover of The Economist recently asked: “What will WW3 mean for investors”? It’s an absurd question. There cannot be a Third World War. Investors would be carbonised with the rest of us.
ARTS Express: Mark Fisher, in his writings on capitalist realism, argued that it is easier to imagine the end of the world than the end of capitalism. In the context of the current geopolitical climate, do you see a connection between capitalist imperatives and the drive towards conflict?
MA: There is a connection to imperialism but so what? Capitalism could be fine without the mad drive for war. In fact, that is what Trump is going for - a world of slick investors and gaudy shopping malls. Sounds gross. But it’s better than 24,000 miles of no man’s land.
US foreign policy is sometimes so bonkers it can’t be explained by economic systems and I see nothing particularly wrong with the free market - I'd just like it to be a bit less like an arms bazaar and a bit more like a jumble sale.
ARTS Express: Given your advocacy for treaties and a massive anti-war movement, what do you believe are the most effective strategies for individuals and groups to influence policymakers and reduce the risk of a global conflict?
MA: I would say “raise hell” but our governments are already set to do that - quite literally. Let’s raise something else, out in the streets. I don't know if you’ve ever been to Heaven but with all of those trumpets it is very busy, very fun, and very, VERY loud.
'Threads' was the scariest nuclear movie.
Sending foreigners to Ukraine makes them a primary target, as was proven, again, recently.