4 ms·
Wars usually seem rational to the people starting them. Conceivably attainable goals for short- or medium- term political purposes. But war has a way of escal
by retrac 5y ago
Wars usually seem rational to the people starting them. Conceivably attainable goals for short- or medium- term political purposes. But war has a way of escalating, dragging the participants along to a fate none of them really control.
As a hypothetical -- Russia does invade Ukraine and the Western forces offer substantial but indirect military support. Russia strikes at a supporting NATO military installation just metres over the border in a NATO country, on the assumption that NATO will not respond to that as an Article 5 attack on their territory. But they assume wrong.
Consider how the Japanese assumed the Americans would be amenable to sue for peace after Pearl Harbor at some point. They had a mental model where it was risky, yes, but rational. But they deeply misunderstood their enemy. History is full of this pattern.
- qwytw 5y agoJapan was already fighting a massive war in China, after the US oil embargo Japan basically had no choice (besides a completely changing their geopolitical goals) they had to invade Indonesia and other oil rich European colonies in the pacific which would likely result in a war with the US, so yes, they choose relatively rational option of attacking first hoping if not to knock out US out of the Pacific but at least to significantly weaken their presence there. They might have underestimated the industrial capacity of the US, but they hardly had any other options if they wanted to continue their imperialistic expansion. I don't see how is that relevant in the case of Russia though, they have little to gain and a lot to loose from any war with NATO or invasion of any NATO countries and so far Putin or anyone did not indicate in anyway that they think otherwise.
- tata71 5y ago> if they wanted to continue their imperialistic expansion Always the first misstep.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]