4 ms·

Wars we can expect during the US next presidential administration: - Ukraine vs Russia/N. Korea continues. Georgia may be pulled in next. - Israel vs. Gaza/Ir

Wars we can expect during the US next presidential administration: - Ukraine vs Russia/N. Korea continues. Georgia may be pulled in next. - Israel vs. Gaza/Iran/Lebanon continues to escalate. - China vs. Taiwan slowly heats up. - S. Korea vs. N. Korea/Russia - less likely. - Ongoing US-Russia cyberwarfare. Neither US presidential candidate is up to handling this.

kev009 2y ago
Necessity will find what is needed and the mental defectives will get shuttled out of the way if the entire system is facing existential crisis. The tragedy is that it is all avoidable but there is a lot of deck stacking to get one or more of these to pop off and people believe the official narratives still.
Krasnol 2y ago
[flagged]
ipaddr 2y ago
[flagged]
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- JSDevOps 2y ago
  Cyberwarfare Knows no bounds
- roncesvalles 2y ago
  >Trump will end the Ukraine war as all it takes is agreeing not to expand NATO and giving up Russian speaking Ukraine parts. That would require the Ukrainians to truly and deeply internalize "sunk cost fallacy" because it means 2.5 years of total war was for nothing.
  - atmavatar 2y ago
    It would be worse than nothing. Allowing Russia to come away from the current conflict with freshly-annexed territory just emboldens Putin to invade again later, much like taking Crimea in 2014 ultimately led to today. If he can't take all of Ukraine now, he'll settle for invading again later once he's regrouped and rebuilt.
    - ipaddr 2y ago
      How do you think this should end? How do you think it actually will?
      - aguaviva 2y ago
        A bare minimum requirement (to have any sense of sanity in the world after this is all over, or at least comes to some kind of a pause) is that (1) Russia will never be granted formal sovereignty over the territories it claims, and (2) all abducted persons, especially minors (alleged to be some 20k in number) are fully repatriated and allowed to return to their families; and (3) there will be no lifting of sanctions until said territories are fully evacuated, and the estimated $1T in damages the aggressor has caused are fully paid. That doesn't mean there can't be a frozen conflict, i.e. cease-fire with no change in positions of forces, or essentially symbolic concessions (like a pledge not to join NATO). That's up for the Ukrainians to decide. If Russia's regime want to hobble along in an alternate universe, in which it pretends those territories are actually theirs, and that sanctions don't really matter, until Putin croaks and its likely disintegration begins in earnest -- that's one thing, and the Ukrainians can decide that matter for themselves as well. But recognized sovereignty on the claimed territories, or a lifting of sanctions absent conditions (2) and (3) being met -- no fucking way. See also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_abductions_in_the_Russo-Ukrainian_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_abductions_in_the_Russo-...
        TMWNN 2y ago
        >That's up for the Ukrainians to decide. No, it is not. 90% of all wars end in negotiated settlements. There is nothing, absolutely nothing, unique about the Russia-Ukraine War that gives either side a guarantee that it will get to unilaterally decide when and how the war ends. Putin may or may not break any peace treaty in the future, but there is no reason to think that he is more or less likely to do so than any one side in any particular war in the history of mankind. If Ukraine can so shatter Russian lines that Russia is forced out of the war and has to give up eastern Ukraine, more power to the Ukrainians. But Ukraine is not entitled to unlimited Western support for all time just because Putin is a thug. I've thought from the start that the likely best case for Ukraine is acknowledging de jure the de facto loss of Crimea and Donbass since 2014, in exchange for * an end to the war * Austrian-style neutrality * specific US/UK/other Western powers' guarantee (not NATO) of territorial integrity for rump Ukraine if Russia attacks it again This would give Putin a way out by giving him a "win" for the domestic audience, cause minimal loss of additional territory for Ukraine, and give it as much security as it can hope for (since NATO membership isn't happening). No, it won't be "Russian forces pushed back to Moscow, Zelensky personally executes Putin in Red Square with 100,000 Redditard denizens of /r/worldnews watching". But, again, a) such is how most wars end, and b) it is not up to Ukraine to decide.
- thiht 2y ago
  > Trump will end the Ukraine war as all it takes is [...] giving up Russian speaking Ukraine parts. Such a sweet deal! All Ukraine needs to do is surrender, why did nobody think of that!
  - ipaddr 2y ago
    Let keep it going until there are no young Ukraine men alive. That's what is best? Most Ukrainian want to talk peace but the powers in charge want to keep Russia fighting and weak even if it means more Ukraine deaths.
    - thiht 2y ago
      > That's what is best? What is best is Russia surrendering, paying for all damages in Ukraine, and Putin getting arrested and tried internationally.
      - ipaddr 2y ago
        What is best for Russia is to let NATO put nukes on Ukraine soil pointing at Moscow? That's what Russia is fighting against.
        thiht 2y ago
        Yeah sure.
        ipaddr 2y ago
        [flagged]
        aguaviva 2y ago
        Except that's not what NATO has been doing (nor is there any evidence that it ever had that intent) -- and it certainly isn't the reason Russia's current regime (not Russia as a country) started this war. It's just the message it projects, mostly for internal propaganda purposes -- to rile up its masses, and get them to sign up for the meat grinder; and to mollify opposition abroad. If you believe that stuff, then you definitely start thinking more critically about whatever sources you've been pulling from.
- martinko 2y ago
  > expand NATO and giving up Russian speaking Ukraine parts. you realize this is literally just a russian excuse, yes?
foogazi 2y ago
Why would Russia invade Ukraine ? Why would China invade Taiwan ? Can’t they make do with the resources they already have ?
- toomuchtodo 2y ago
  It’s about power and legacy, not rationality and resources, for the examples you mention.
  - Animats 2y ago
    Putin says he consulted with Tsar Nicholas II and Catherine the Great. In Putin's view, Russia should re-establish the old Russian empire of the 19th century.
  - aguaviva 2y ago
    Those do seem to be Putin's primary motivations. Though it's likely he sees access to resources (lithium, natural gas) as "gravy" on top of these concerns.
- HDThoreaun 2y ago
  Both are because the country is worried about NATO encroachment. Taiwan is a key aspect of the US's plan of boxing china in from the straight of malacca all the way to the channel between korea and japan. Currently all the countries on that border lean US so its conceivable to pull the plan off and completely cut china off from maritime trade. If china controls taiwan the plan doesnt work. Russia is similarly worried about the expansive flatland past the dnipro river. Of course there are other historical reasons for the invasion and war is always a good way to boost the leaders approval so funny business often happens for little geopolitical reason at all.
  - aguaviva 2y ago
    Russia is similarly worried about the expansive flatland past the Dnipro river. Except it's not - its current regime just pretends to be, for internal and external propaganda purposes. Ditto for NATO encroachment. It's just a bogeyman, nothing more. The sibling comment encapsulates the regime's true motives quite succinctly: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42037594 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42037594

kev009 2y ago

Necessity will find what is needed and the mental defectives will get shuttled out of the way if the entire system is facing existential crisis. The tragedy is that it is all avoidable but there is a lot of deck stacking to get one or more of these to pop off and people believe the official narratives still.

Krasnol 2y ago

[flagged]

ipaddr 2y ago

[flagged]

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
JSDevOps 2y ago
Cyberwarfare Knows no bounds
roncesvalles 2y ago
>Trump will end the Ukraine war as all it takes is agreeing not to expand NATO and giving up Russian speaking Ukraine parts. That would require the Ukrainians to truly and deeply internalize "sunk cost fallacy" because it means 2.5 years of total war was for nothing.
- atmavatar 2y ago
  It would be worse than nothing. Allowing Russia to come away from the current conflict with freshly-annexed territory just emboldens Putin to invade again later, much like taking Crimea in 2014 ultimately led to today. If he can't take all of Ukraine now, he'll settle for invading again later once he's regrouped and rebuilt.
  - ipaddr 2y ago
    How do you think this should end? How do you think it actually will?
    - aguaviva 2y ago
      A bare minimum requirement (to have any sense of sanity in the world after this is all over, or at least comes to some kind of a pause) is that (1) Russia will never be granted formal sovereignty over the territories it claims, and (2) all abducted persons, especially minors (alleged to be some 20k in number) are fully repatriated and allowed to return to their families; and (3) there will be no lifting of sanctions until said territories are fully evacuated, and the estimated $1T in damages the aggressor has caused are fully paid. That doesn't mean there can't be a frozen conflict, i.e. cease-fire with no change in positions of forces, or essentially symbolic concessions (like a pledge not to join NATO). That's up for the Ukrainians to decide. If Russia's regime want to hobble along in an alternate universe, in which it pretends those territories are actually theirs, and that sanctions don't really matter, until Putin croaks and its likely disintegration begins in earnest -- that's one thing, and the Ukrainians can decide that matter for themselves as well. But recognized sovereignty on the claimed territories, or a lifting of sanctions absent conditions (2) and (3) being met -- no fucking way. See also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_abductions_in_the_Russo-Ukrainian_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_abductions_in_the_Russo-...
      - TMWNN 2y ago
        >That's up for the Ukrainians to decide. No, it is not. 90% of all wars end in negotiated settlements. There is nothing, absolutely nothing, unique about the Russia-Ukraine War that gives either side a guarantee that it will get to unilaterally decide when and how the war ends. Putin may or may not break any peace treaty in the future, but there is no reason to think that he is more or less likely to do so than any one side in any particular war in the history of mankind. If Ukraine can so shatter Russian lines that Russia is forced out of the war and has to give up eastern Ukraine, more power to the Ukrainians. But Ukraine is not entitled to unlimited Western support for all time just because Putin is a thug. I've thought from the start that the likely best case for Ukraine is acknowledging de jure the de facto loss of Crimea and Donbass since 2014, in exchange for * an end to the war * Austrian-style neutrality * specific US/UK/other Western powers' guarantee (not NATO) of territorial integrity for rump Ukraine if Russia attacks it again This would give Putin a way out by giving him a "win" for the domestic audience, cause minimal loss of additional territory for Ukraine, and give it as much security as it can hope for (since NATO membership isn't happening). No, it won't be "Russian forces pushed back to Moscow, Zelensky personally executes Putin in Red Square with 100,000 Redditard denizens of /r/worldnews watching". But, again, a) such is how most wars end, and b) it is not up to Ukraine to decide.
thiht 2y ago
> Trump will end the Ukraine war as all it takes is [...] giving up Russian speaking Ukraine parts. Such a sweet deal! All Ukraine needs to do is surrender, why did nobody think of that!
- ipaddr 2y ago
  Let keep it going until there are no young Ukraine men alive. That's what is best? Most Ukrainian want to talk peace but the powers in charge want to keep Russia fighting and weak even if it means more Ukraine deaths.
  - thiht 2y ago
    > That's what is best? What is best is Russia surrendering, paying for all damages in Ukraine, and Putin getting arrested and tried internationally.
    - ipaddr 2y ago
      What is best for Russia is to let NATO put nukes on Ukraine soil pointing at Moscow? That's what Russia is fighting against.
      - thiht 2y ago
        Yeah sure.
        ipaddr 2y ago
        [flagged]
      - aguaviva 2y ago
        Except that's not what NATO has been doing (nor is there any evidence that it ever had that intent) -- and it certainly isn't the reason Russia's current regime (not Russia as a country) started this war. It's just the message it projects, mostly for internal propaganda purposes -- to rile up its masses, and get them to sign up for the meat grinder; and to mollify opposition abroad. If you believe that stuff, then you definitely start thinking more critically about whatever sources you've been pulling from.
martinko 2y ago
> expand NATO and giving up Russian speaking Ukraine parts. you realize this is literally just a russian excuse, yes?

foogazi 2y ago

Why would Russia invade Ukraine ? Why would China invade Taiwan ? Can’t they make do with the resources they already have ?

toomuchtodo 2y ago
It’s about power and legacy, not rationality and resources, for the examples you mention.
- Animats 2y ago
  Putin says he consulted with Tsar Nicholas II and Catherine the Great. In Putin's view, Russia should re-establish the old Russian empire of the 19th century.
- aguaviva 2y ago
  Those do seem to be Putin's primary motivations. Though it's likely he sees access to resources (lithium, natural gas) as "gravy" on top of these concerns.
HDThoreaun 2y ago
Both are because the country is worried about NATO encroachment. Taiwan is a key aspect of the US's plan of boxing china in from the straight of malacca all the way to the channel between korea and japan. Currently all the countries on that border lean US so its conceivable to pull the plan off and completely cut china off from maritime trade. If china controls taiwan the plan doesnt work. Russia is similarly worried about the expansive flatland past the dnipro river. Of course there are other historical reasons for the invasion and war is always a good way to boost the leaders approval so funny business often happens for little geopolitical reason at all.
- aguaviva 2y ago
  Russia is similarly worried about the expansive flatland past the Dnipro river. Except it's not - its current regime just pretends to be, for internal and external propaganda purposes. Ditto for NATO encroachment. It's just a bogeyman, nothing more. The sibling comment encapsulates the regime's true motives quite succinctly: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42037594 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42037594