If World War 3 breaks out, missiles will fall on these countries first due to..., safest countries will be...
Currently, the world is going through a very tense phase, with the recent deadly conflict between Iran and Israel, which, if it further escalates, has the tendency to shake the entire global system. Both countries are openly threatening each other, and neither of them is ready to step back. Amid all this, people have started talking about the possibility of World War III.
Israel has recently carried out several airstrikes on Iran and has made it clear that military action will continue until all the nuclear bases of Iran are destroyed. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has stated that his government is not ready to back down. Meanwhile, Iran has also threatened to retaliate, which has made the situation seem to be getting worse.
Meanwhile, the United States is openly supporting Israel. But if America decides to join the conflict supporting Tel Aviv, then this war will not be limited to any regional boundary. This is the reason why the fear of World War III is deepening across the world. Russia's Warning – The Third World War has started
Russian Army's top general, Alaudinov, has said that the conflict between Israel and Iran can now be the beginning of the Third World War. He has alerted the army and given a message to 10 lakh soldiers to be ready for war.
Notably, the statement has come at a time when there are already tensions between Russia and Western countries, due to the ongoing Ukraine war. China, on the other hand, is also keeping a close eye on the regional crisis.
According to experts, if the situation escalates further and is not controlled, then China and North Korea can also jump in support of Russia and Iran. Where Can World War III Break Out?
Looking at the current circumstances, it is believed that if World War III happens, it can start from Western Asia. America, Israel. European countries will be on one side, while Russia, China, North Korea and some Arab countries will be on the other side.
According to experts, the war can start with an attack on strategic and nuclear bases. Iran and Israel will be at the center of this conflict. But soon US, Russia, and China may also join it. NATO can also join America's sidke in this conflict. These Countries Will Be Attacked First
Countries like Israel, Iran, Ukraine, South Korea, Japan and Taiwan can be targeted due to their geographical location, military role and political alliances. These Countries Will Be The Safest?
Amidst every war, some countries are considered relatively safe due to their neutrality and peaceful policies. As per experts, if World War III happens, then countries like Switzerland, New Zealand, Canada, Iceland, Sweden, Finland and Bhutan can remain safe.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New Indian Express
34 minutes ago
- New Indian Express
Trump speaks to Ukrainian and NATO leaders after Putin summit reaches no deal to end war
WASHINGTON: U.S. President Donald Trump spoke to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy after his summit with Russia's Vladimir Putin in Alaska and also talked with European and NATO leaders early Saturday. Details of the conversations weren't immediately released. Trump secured no agreement to end Russia's war in Ukraine even after rolling out the red carpet for Putin. Trump said that 'there's no deal until there's a deal,' after Putin claimed the two leaders had hammered out an 'understanding' on Ukraine and warned Europe not to 'torpedo the nascent progress.' During an interview with Fox News Channel before leaving Alaska, Trump insisted that the onus going forward might be on Zelenskyy 'to get it done,' but said there would also be some involvement from European nations. Trump did not speak to reporters on his flight back to Washington. When his plane landed, White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt told reporters that Trump was on the phone with NATO leaders after a lengthy call with Zelenskyy. Trump then disembarked Air Force One without speaking to reporters. He didn't respond to shouted questions about the phone calls as he climbed into his limousine.
&w=3840&q=100)
First Post
an hour ago
- First Post
The Alaska summit, Trump's personal failure, and the war that won't end
Trump sought a personal win—a headline-grabbing breakthrough he could sell at home; though the optics were managed to portray warmth and progress, but in substance, he leaves Alaska with neither a deal with Putin nor increased diplomatic leverage The Alaska summit was billed as a possible turning point in the Russia–Ukraine war; instead, it was a carefully choreographed non-event. (Image: AFP) The much-hyped Alaska meeting between US President Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin concluded with no ceasefire, no agreement, and no concrete pathway toward ending the Russia–Ukraine war. For all the showmanship—a warm tarmac greeting, twin handshakes, and a joint limo ride—the summit produced little more than vague assurances, cryptic references to 'progress', and a reminder that when it comes to this war, 'there's no deal until there's a deal'. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Outcome: All Optics, No Substance After nearly three hours behind closed doors, Trump conceded, 'We didn't get there', before exiting without taking questions. His earlier claim that there was only a '25 per cent chance' of failure now looks like a self-inflicted blow to his credibility as a self-styled peacemaker and dealmaker. Putin described himself as 'sincerely interested' in ending what he called a 'tragedy' but offered no specifics. He warned against 'sabotage' by Ukraine and Europe and insisted that 'primary causes' of the conflict must be addressed—Kremlin code for its longstanding demands on arresting Nato expansion and ensuring territorial recognition of the territory gained. Apparently Putin did not compromise on any of his demands and handled Trump with his vast diplomatic experience, leaving a window for further talks. Trump, for his part, said, 'Many points were agreed to,' but admitted that 'one significant' disagreement remained, without disclosing what it was. His pledge to call Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy and European leaders 'soon' was small consolation to Kyiv, which had been excluded from the talks. Putin's parting words—'Next time in Moscow'—hinted at a possible sequel, but there's no sign of a trilateral summit involving Ukraine. War Aims and Strategic Calculus Russia's goals have been consistent since the beginning and were not compromised, namely: solidify territorial control over captured regions, prevent Nato's eastward expansion, no Nato membership for Ukraine, no militarisation of Ukraine and secure sanctions relief. The Alaska summit was an opportunity to appear diplomatic without making binding concessions. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Kyiv insisted on restoring territorial integrity and rejecting any 'land-for-peace' swaps. Zelenskyy will find some consolation there, as his land was not swapped, although no agreement on a ceasefire will not reduce his pain. Trump sought a personal win—a headline-grabbing breakthrough he could sell at home. The optics were managed to portray warmth and progress, but in substance, he leaves Alaska with neither a deal nor increased diplomatic leverage. Pre-Negotiation Positions Russia entered willing to talk ceasefire terms but only under conditions preserving military gains. It exhibited strategic maturity by not responding to President Trump's rhetoric of 'severe consequences if no ceasefire' but stuck to its position. Ukraine was opposed to any talks that exclude Kyiv and refused concessions on sovereignty and territorial integrity, which made the ceasefire prospects near impossible. The US pursued exploratory diplomacy, with Trump hinting at creative solutions—including unspecified compromises—that alarmed some allies. During the pre-negotiation stage, Trump's stance was inconsistent between pragmatism, rhetoric, the influence of the US deep state and last-day pressure from European counterparts and Ukraine. Putin thus entered the negotiations from a position of strength with clarity on the outcome. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Implications of Failure For Ukraine, the inconclusive outcome is a mixed blessing—no dangerous unilateral deal, but also no relief from daily shelling. For Russia, the meeting offered propaganda value: Putin stood beside the US president as an equal, reinforcing his legitimacy on the world stage. For Trump, the optics of coming home empty-handed after promising a breakthrough will sting. The '25 per cent failure' threshold he set has become a self-own, inviting criticism from both allies and adversaries. Internationally, the summit leaves the war right where it was—grinding on in the trenches—while signalling that Washington is willing to engage Moscow directly, even without Ukraine in the room. That precedent could shape future diplomacy in ways that European members of Nato and Kyiv may find troubling. What's Next? The summit outcome doesn't stop Putin from continuing Russian aggression to improve ground position in its favour. The outcome could see intermittent backchannel talks and another high-profile but low-yield summit. The absence of a flawed deal could keep Nato unity intact with renewed pressure on sanctions and tariffs. The risk remains that repeated summits without progress may erode US credibility and give Moscow breathing space to regroup militarily. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD The dissatisfied Nato and Ukraine will expect President Trump to act on secondary tariffs, sanctions and military support to Ukraine, but that might jeopardise any undeclared gains in the Alaska Summit for President Trump, if there are any. Putin's confidence in this summit is a direct reflection of his strong position on the battlefield, which gives him more leverage than Nato. Ukraine or Europe don't hold any card to dictate terms to Russia, and their position is unlikely to change without full support of the US. Conclusion The Alaska summit was billed as a possible turning point in the Russia–Ukraine war; instead, it was a carefully choreographed non-event. Trump's showmanship produced good optics but no substance, Putin pocketed the legitimacy boost without paying in concessions, and Ukraine was left to watch from the sidelines. In diplomacy, sometimes no deal is better than a bad one—but for battered Ukraine, 'no deal' also means no relief. The danger now is that repeated inconclusive engagements will normalise a frozen conflict, giving Moscow an edge earned by battlefield successes. For countries affected by secondary tariffs/sanctions, the risk remains! STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD The author is a strategic and security analyst. He can be reached at Facebook and LinkedIn as Shashi Asthana, @asthana_shashi on Twitter, and personal site. Views expressed in the above piece are personal and solely those of the author. They do not necessarily reflect Firstpost's views.
&w=3840&q=100)
First Post
an hour ago
- First Post
Friendly summit with no ceasefire: Putin disarms Trump, neutralises sanctions threats at Alaska summit
Before the Trump-Putin meeting in Alaska, Donald Trump warned of 'severe consequences" if Russia did not agree to a ceasefire at the meeting. However, beaming Putin managed to get away with no ceasefire and no consequences. The shadows of the two leaders are cast on a wall behind their podiums. Reuters Before US President Donald Trump headed to Alaska, he issued a stern warning against his Russian counterpart, Vladimir Putin. After reassuring Zelenskyy and European leaders, Trump at that time warned that Russia would face 'severe consequences' if Putin did not agree to a ceasefire in the Ukraine war at the Alaska Summit. However, while speaking to the reporters after the talks in Alaska, neither of the leaders mentioned the word ' ceasefire'. After the whole saga was over, one question remained in everyone's mind. Will Trump follow through with his 'severe consequences' threat, or did Putin manage to play his charm on him? STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD While speaking to the reporters on Wednesday, Trump hinted at imposing 'severe economic sanctions' if Putin did not agree to a truce during the Alaska meeting. 'If the first one goes OK, we'll have a quick second one,' Trump told reporters in Washington. 'I would like to do it almost immediately, and we'll have a quick second meeting between President Putin, President Zelenskyy and me, if they'd like to have me there.' When asked if Russia would face consequences if Putin did not agree to a ceasefire after the summit, the Republican firebrand gave an affirmative response. 'Yes, they will … very severe consequences," Trump remarked. However, the story was different. No ceasefire, no consequences The Alaska summit conveyed a surprisingly amicable atmosphere, with Putin praising 'friendly' talks and Trump reciprocating warm remarks, despite the brutal war ongoing in Ukraine. Putin effectively defused the threat of fresh US sanctions, delaying punitive measures unless Moscow shows greater willingness to resolve the conflict. Putin managed to manoeuvre the issue tactfully. During the presser after the talks, we saw Putin massaging Trump's ego with words of praise. He acknowledged Trump's rhetoric that the Russia-Ukraine war would not have happened if the Republican firebrand were in the White House. At the same time, he also issued a stern warning to Ukraine and its allies. He warned the West and Ukraine not to 'torpedo the nascent progress,' subtly shifting pressure onto them to temper military aid and political support for Kyiv. The absence of a ceasefire deal or firm commitments ensured the status quo remained, with hostilities continuing unabated. Trump's mixture of welcome hospitality and economic warnings produced no immediate sanctions escalation, granting Putin a diplomatic reprieve. Not only this, after the meeting, Trump floated the idea of security guarantees to Ukraine outside the framework of NATO, effectively shutting the Alliance's door in Ukraine's face. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD So Bolton was right? While speaking to CNN after the meeting, former US National Security Adviser John Bolton declared that 'Trump did not lose' the Alaska Summit but Putin 'clearly won,' adding that 'Trump didn't come away with anything, except more meetings.' Putin, meanwhile, 'has gone a long way to reestablishing the relationship, which I always believed was his key goal,' Bolton said. 'He escaped sanctions. He's not facing a ceasefire. The next meeting is not set. (Ukrainian President Volodymyr) Zelensky was not told any of this before this press conference. It's far from over, but I'd say Putin achieved most of what he wanted. Trump achieved very little,' he added. Bolton predicted something of this sort during his conversation with Firstpost earlier this week. At that time, Bolton insisted that Putin ' had already won' before the Alaska talks, a criticism refuted by Trump later. Trump's former advisor insisted that while the Potus considers Putin a 'friend', the Russian leader is more strategic about his ties with the American counterpart. 'Putin doesn't see Trump as his friend. He sees them as somebody that he thinks he can manipulate in true, true fashion of a former KGB agent. And I think he's been pretty successful with it," Bolton told Firstpost. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD 'It is a big win for Putin to come to the United States. He's a pariah leader of a rogue state that committed unprovoked aggression against Ukraine.' 'On Friday, he's going to get to stand next to the President of the United States and get his picture taken on territory that used to be Russian. Nobody in Russia has missed the fact that we bought Alaska from Russia in 1867. So it's what Trump can do. I think a lot of people are going to be watching. But the main thing is to see if Putin emerges with Trump thinking that they're friends again,' Ambassador Bolton concluded, and it looks like Trump still thinks Putin is a 'friend'.
