3 ms·
We may be talking past each other a bit here, I think we actually agree more than we disagree here. I only raised the consideration of who starts it because yo
by _heimdall 2y ago
We may be talking past each other a bit here, I think we actually agree more than we disagree here.
I only raised the consideration of who starts it because you mentioned it in an earlier comment mentioning why Russia wouldn't start it. I agree with you that it doesn't matter who starts it and was only trying to point out that with war it's often so complicated that you can't really ever pin it on one side starting it out of the blue.
I also agree that NATO isn't planning on invading Russia, if I implied that somewhere along the way I just misspoke.
I don't actually think an invasion is how the next world war would start anyway, well likely end up launching tons of drones at each other before the war is reduced to soldiers on the battlefield.
> "The balance is in the middle" is a fine way to prove 2+2 is 4.5.
I'm not sure the connection there. Are you proposing that we should strice to view complex situations as a binary rather than a spectrum?
- ajuc 2y agoYou argued if NATO doesn't back down ww3 is more likely. I argue the opposite. As for 2+2 - my point is that some things are simple, and making them seem complex is an excuse not to do anything about them. This is what happened in 2014. It was simple imperial land grab. It was preventable. But Russia and useful idiots muddled the water long enough that the help never arrived. This is what I think should be prevented. Because every time the west appeases Russia it makes ww3 more likely.