War imminent with Russia

Russia, China, North Korea, I get it but gah, I'm getting a bit bored with the same old "bad guys" here

Look at the joint Chinese-Austrian encryption satellite launch

That's cool.

Wouldn't that be a big surprise? A pan-Eurasian coalition. America, beware B)
 
A lot of mental jiu jitsu in here. So if one is only a regional hegemon then criticism is couched in disingenuous language. I wish Tagz would show up and counter argue this usual dribble. So thankful for my perspective as duel citizen to see the bullshit on both sides of the hemisphere from Putin apologists to Dr Strangelove like predictions of imminent war with the Russians in eastern Europe nonsense. The Russians couldn't even afford it even if they wanted to (which they don't) Why bother war when supporting EU skeptic nationalist parties can have a similar effect, and using natural gas as an economic cudgel. I means for gods sake US and Russia are working to launch a joint offensive against Daesh in Syria, and are cooperating with regards to space flights,ISS etc. Spheres of influence with differing agendas that conflict, oh sure. But out right war, no that is just too stupid and unrealistic and option for me to take seriously.
 
Criticism is one thing. hypocrisy another.

I am just not feeling fine with supporting facists, just to score off against Russia. During the crysis in Ukraine, there was barely any talk in the media about the government in the Ukraine, and barely any reliable informations available. But you sure saw a lot of Russia is evil.



Freedomfighters today ... right wing terrorists tomorrow ...



Don't get me wrong. I really don't have more love for Russia then other nations. Putin is covering up his support for Assad against Syrian Rebels as 'war on ISIS' for example.
 
Last edited:
Crni Vuk said:
If the west would decide to move against Russia with their military, pretty much anyone who might have a beef with the US and western Europe, wouldn't have a much of a problem to support Russia.
Click to expand...
Are we in the same thread? Look at the OP, the hypothetical premise is Russia launching strike against west, not the west invading Russia.

Doomsdayprepper said:
It would have Turkey and its army as a close ally, and China would be on Russia's side, maybe chipping in occasionally. Probably North Korea too.
Click to expand...
Nope, Turkey as a NATO member wouldn't backpedal all of sudden, although you can never know with these damn Ottomans! And I doubt China would support anyone, since they are not member of any military pact and all they care about is business. Actually, they would have lost much more in terms of economy by destroyed Europe or U.S. than Russia.

Juza The Cloud said:
But out right war, no that is just too stupid and unrealistic and option for me to take seriously.
Click to expand...
I thought this was pretty much the consensus after the second or third post in this thread. Have fun and keep plotting dude! :razz:
 
Nor do I, I tend to see realpolitik and try to divorce the emotional ethical arguement that comes up a lot. What I see Russia doing in Ukraine is strategy and policy. In Syria it supported a petty dictator to sure up stability in the power vacuum as well as assert itself in the middle east as a counter balance to the US and Europeans. Russia's support for Assad reminds me of US support for Saddam in the 80's against Iran etc. Israel and now Turkey are approaching the Russians as well. This diplomatic offensive as it were I think is a a face saving measure for the Russians who I feel cannot afford their military effort in Syria for many more years.
 
I wish Putin didn't try to expand Russia's influence and fix problems at home... and I wish the US and the EU didn't force sanctions on Russia.
 
Dr Fallout said:
I wish Putin didn't try to expand Russia's influence and fix problems at home... and I wish the US and the EU didn't force sanctions on Russia.
Click to expand...
We have to maintain appearances, while Russia really doesn't. I feel like Russia would be much better off with a more isolationist policy, the same way I think the US would be better off as well. Feel free to debate this, but it seems like Russia is trying to become a world power again. But they haven't had enough time to recover from the collapse of the USSR. There was 8 years between Yelsin retiring and Putin rising to power. If they had the recuperation period where they tried to rejuvenate the economy fully, worked towards social welfare for a bit and just CHILLED they would be in a much better position right now.
 
Dr Fallout said:
I wish Putin didn't try to expand Russia's influence and fix problems at home... and I wish the US and the EU didn't force sanctions on Russia.
Click to expand...
You could say the same about almost ANY nation, more or less. I mean imagine if that is what ALL nations would do at the same time. We would have literaly world peace, like yesterday.
 
TLOCanaan said:
World peace for an extended period of time is never going to occur. Man has been fighting ever since the first tribe has been established.
Click to expand...
And we've been steadily eliminating our need for conflict since then; WMDs, MAD and globalisation have gone a long way in eliminating war in the world.
 
War itself being undeniably "human nature" could be a bit of a myth. Hear me out!

War is a means to an end. That end - is human nature - not necesarily the means.
What's the end?
Continous accumulation of resources. Just so happens that war is IMMENSELY costly. What's costly for some, is a win-win for others. The more something costs, the more someone has to pay someone else - that someone else earns.
War makes someone earn shit-tons of money.

Drugs are super expensive, per gram, compared to, for example potatoes. Ergo, drugs are a mega-business - and makes someone earn shit-tons of money. Doesn't mean hard-drugs are "human nature", only a tiny fraction of humans do hard drugs. Compare to percentage of human population who enjoy potatoes.

Same with war. The vast majority of us have no itching for war, we're doing perfectly fine without it. I'd even say we're doing BETTER without war, than with it, since war has a nasty tendency to kill and maim us, and shatter our property.
War is COSTLY though, so very very VERY costly. Costly for some = earnings for others. It becomes a means to and end.

Either way, it kind of boils down to the same, since we will have a hard time replacing war with something else, in order to achieve the same end.
 
TLOCanaan said:
World peace for an extended period of time is never going to occur. Man has been fighting ever since the first tribe has been established.
Click to expand...
Sure, we will never see a world without conflicts. But World peace? That is in my opinion a realistic goal. The current evolution, seems to point in that direction.

With world peace I mean full blown war between two nations. I mean there is sure a difference between something like ISIS and let us say, Vietnam or the Korean war.
 
Crni Vuk said:
With world peace I mean full blown war between two nations. I mean there is sure a difference between something like ISIS and let us say, Vietnam or the Korean war.
Click to expand...
I mean if you refine the defition of world peace to mean a world without an armed conflict between two nations then yes, world peace is a common event. I don't accept that definition though, because the literal definition of World Peace is,

"an ideal state of freedom, peace, and happiness among and within all nations and peoples. This ideal of world nonviolence provides a basis for peoples and nations to willingly cooperate, either voluntarily or by virtue of a system of governance that prevents warfare. While different cultures, religions, philosophies, and organizations may have differing concepts about how such an ideal state might come about, they have in common this ideal of a cessation of all hostility amongst all humanity."

Furthermore a study from the University of Warwick claims something that is not necessarily conflicting with the YouTube video source that you've provided, however it does make an excellent point. It seems that there was an absolute drop in armed conflicts the likes of which we have never seen before around 1890.
QdvFti6.png


Source

I don't hope for war and I certainly would love world peace, but that will never be accomplished without the complete unification of the world under one banner.

zegh8578 said:
snip.
Click to expand...
Fair enough. I say as long as there's an end to justify the means war will never go away. It will change into a different form due to mutually assured destruction though.
 
TLOCanaan said:
I don't hope for war and I certainly would love world peace, but that will never be accomplished without the complete unification of the world under one banner.
Click to expand...

*shrugs*

I like to think, that if world wars, horrorible genocides and the likes are possible, then it certainly must be also possible to achieve a long lasting peace. We certainly are on the way to it. If we can achieve it? That is a big question. But I like to think that it is possible. I mean I think at the bottom, all humans are the really the same. I mean on average. I don't think the majority of humans enjoy wars or to kill each other. What do most people want? Stability. Be it for them self, or their children or the one they care about.

We live currently in the most peacefull and wealthiest period in human history. I know I know! It doesn't look like it, but when you look at the last 14 000 years of human history, we never had so many people living in prosperity and peace.

I think we at least can get there.
 
The only way we can get to world peace is through a hegemony, and people will fight extra hard to combat that monstrosity.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top