4 ms·

Did the first one end the war? Did the second one end the war? Did the first and second ones prevent the next war? I'm not sure of the answer to these questi

by cduzz 3y ago

Did the first one end the war? Did the second one end the war? Did the first and second ones prevent the next war? I'm not sure of the answer to these questions; they're obviously important and difficult to answer. The timing certainly hints to "no, yes, maybe" but we're not going to get a do-over.

jacquesm 3y ago
The last one seems to be 'for now', but it may not hold.
- pasc1878 3y ago
  But we have had nearly 80 years of peace between major powers and that has not happened since there were major powers. Ok you get many indirect wars e.g. Ukraine, Vietnam, Korea much in Africa but not ones that could escalate to World War levels.
  - jacquesm 3y ago
    If it doesn't hold we won't be able to continue the conversation so I hope that we can extend that 80 years. Proxy wars are still wars though, and proxy wars always have the possibility of escalation built in to them.
    - pasc1878 3y ago
      Historically cold war proxy wars were unlikely to escalate as even when a major power had troops on the ground it was on behalf of another country and also we seem to have had sensible leaders. Ukraine does differ as a major power is involved in its own name.
      - jacquesm 3y ago
        And Russia seems to not have a sensible leader.
        radiator 3y ago
        Ukraine definitely does not have a sensible leader. In 2021 he declared both that "he does not like the Minsk agreements" and that "Ukraine needs to obtain nuclear weapons". After the start of the war, he insists that Ukraine be allowed to join NATO, which would automatically mean World War. Alright, from his point of view, perhaps this is sensible: Ukraine stands to lose otherwise, so for him the World War might be preferable.
        jacquesm 3y ago
        You're hilarious.
        Vecr 3y ago
        Ukraine's probably not going to join NATO. Obviously they really want to but it's hard to imagine a future where both Russia and Ukraine don't retaliate against even non-government and uncommanded (i.e. soldiers fire without authorization) attacks that go back and forth across the border.

by cduzz 3y ago

jacquesm 3y ago

The last one seems to be 'for now', but it may not hold.

pasc1878 3y ago
But we have had nearly 80 years of peace between major powers and that has not happened since there were major powers. Ok you get many indirect wars e.g. Ukraine, Vietnam, Korea much in Africa but not ones that could escalate to World War levels.
- jacquesm 3y ago
  If it doesn't hold we won't be able to continue the conversation so I hope that we can extend that 80 years. Proxy wars are still wars though, and proxy wars always have the possibility of escalation built in to them.
  - pasc1878 3y ago
    Historically cold war proxy wars were unlikely to escalate as even when a major power had troops on the ground it was on behalf of another country and also we seem to have had sensible leaders. Ukraine does differ as a major power is involved in its own name.
    - jacquesm 3y ago
      And Russia seems to not have a sensible leader.
      - radiator 3y ago
        Ukraine definitely does not have a sensible leader. In 2021 he declared both that "he does not like the Minsk agreements" and that "Ukraine needs to obtain nuclear weapons". After the start of the war, he insists that Ukraine be allowed to join NATO, which would automatically mean World War. Alright, from his point of view, perhaps this is sensible: Ukraine stands to lose otherwise, so for him the World War might be preferable.
        jacquesm 3y ago
        You're hilarious.
        Vecr 3y ago
        Ukraine's probably not going to join NATO. Obviously they really want to but it's hard to imagine a future where both Russia and Ukraine don't retaliate against even non-government and uncommanded (i.e. soldiers fire without authorization) attacks that go back and forth across the border.