4 ms·

I think this might be a move to stop a world war (between Russia and NATO/Europe). If U.S. also leaves NATO any time soon - the chances for a world war would de

I think this might be a move to stop a world war (between Russia and NATO/Europe). If U.S. also leaves NATO any time soon - the chances for a world war would decrease greatly.

bawolff 2y ago
I don't think that makes sense. Wars happen when one of the sides think they can win (and want something). USA leaving nato and reducing trade makes european states more vulnerable. I would expect this to increase the liklihood of war. Especially in the near term - eventually europe will adapt to the new world order, but in the mean time their is a limited window of opportunity where everything is in flux, which would be a great time to strike.
- mathfailure 2y ago
  I'd like to correct you: wars don't happen when just one of the sides thinks they can win, they happen when BOTH sides think so. I think that exactly for this reason Europe needs such a vaccine shot, so they stop they can win a war against Russia.
  - kalkin 2y ago
    But... they can? If Ukraine can fight Russia to a standstill, a fully mobilized Europe clearly at least has a shot. Unless it escalates to nuclear weapons and everyone loses... But you need at least an argument if you want to say that is less likely without any initial US involvement, it's not obvious.
    - mathfailure 2y ago
      Exactly. Europe thinks it may join Ukraine in a war against Russia to actually win that war. My point is that this is quite a reason why a nuke war may occur. And if U.S. turns back away from Europe - Europe might 'sober up' and not seek the prolongation of a conflict. Non-nuke wars end somehow. One side usually loses, without such a loss - there would be no end for the war and more and more people would die. A bitter ending is better than endless bitterness.
      - kalkin 2y ago
        There's nothing in my comment to "exactly" in support of your point. If the US backs away from Europe it may be more likely to encourage Ukrainian surrender. Russia may be more likely to attack Poland. Germany may be more likely to develop its own nuclear deterrent. Or none of these things may happen. Extrapolating from tariffs to world peace demands a bit more than loose speculation at the continental level.
        mathfailure 2y ago
        Surely there is: > Europe clearly at least has a shot I doubt Europe would be that cocky without a full support from their "big bro" from across the ocean. As for attacking Poland - that sounds quite uncalled for: Poland doesn't have a meaningful share of Russian natives living there historically for the Poland to start oppressing them to the point Russia would start a war against Poland. I can't even think of any reason why Russia would attack Poland.
        outer_web 2y ago
        The Kremlin can come up with a rationalization for whatever their territorial desires are.
        codezero 2y ago
        There is no modern international norm where a nation can use military force to invade or interfere with another nation because of ethnic natives in that nation being mistreated. This is another russian talking point that’s used as a justification for their intentional aggression and it has nothing to do with why they actually invade their neighbors.
travisgriggs 2y ago
Yes, the isolationist era that followed World War One clearly calmed the rest of the world, so that the various "expansionist" regimes felt less threatened and just let their neighbors be. History rhymes with itself.
- energy123 2y ago
  Multi-polarity is the number one cause of war and conflict.
- mathfailure 2y ago
  It's different now, since at that time there were no weapons of total annihilation (and now there are quite some). That's exactly why 'expansionist' regimes were ready to start some next war, being eager "to get some extra land" as a result of said war. The current war is different: this is the war that started not out of appetite towards foreign lands, but, basically, out of primal fear, the fear concerning safety. The West was failing at self-reflection and was completely oblivious about their own actions being treated as crossing a real red line for Russia's safety. You may scare a wandering bear away, but driving it into a corner is both stupid and fatal.
  - outer_web 2y ago
    Haha please describe the NATO invasion of Russia. This sounds entertaining.
    - mathfailure 1y ago
      Easy. 1. Crimea, Donetsk People's Republic, Lugansk People's Republic, Kherson Oblast, Zaporozhskaya Oblast are now parts of Russia. 2. NATO still thinks those are parts of Ukraine. 3. Some of NATO countries are now in talks about sending their troops to Ukraine.
      - mopsi 1y ago
        > 1. Crimea, Donetsk People's Republic, Lugansk People's Republic, Kherson Oblast, Zaporozhskaya Oblast are now parts of Russia. Not factually, nor legally.
outer_web 2y ago
Care to explain your rationale? Seems like Russia is in no position to invade any NATO country unless the US leaves the alliance. They've proven themselves wholly outclassed in Ukraine, against a much smaller country with refurb gear.
- mathfailure 2y ago
  Furthermore, Russia has no plans to invade any NATO country. It just won't let NATO invade^W expand to Ukraine. And no, this war is not how you describe it: said 'much smaller country' was 2nd biggest (in terms of military strength) in Europe after Russia itself. And it's not a 1x1 war of big Russia vs small Ukraine: Ukraine got help from all over Europe, G.B., U.S. and Canada. Help in arms, in intel, in training, in money and other resources. Russia got sanctioned badly, by such a big bunch of countries that you'd rather be smirking not about Russia not being able to win already, but at Europe (and now U.S.) economy getting some hits... while Russian economy still stands yet. While all the sanctions are still in effect. For years.
  - outer_web 2y ago
    > Furthermore, Russia has no plans to invade any NATO country. Not only are you attempting to prove a negative with "trust me bro" but it's especially laughable given recent history. Please tell me how many days before the Ukraine invasion Russia had "no plans to invade". > this war is not how you describe it: said 'much smaller country' Personally I consider 1/3 the population "much smaller" but you do you. > it's not a 1x1 war of big Russia vs small Ukraine: Ukraine got help from all over Europe, G.B., U.S. and Canada. Exactly why the US remaining in NATO prevents a large scale conventional war. Because Russia is pathetic unless it is bullying smaller neighbors or threatening nuclear war.
    - mathfailure 1y ago
      I think it's the opposite: with US remaining in NATO, Europe will feel cocky enough to get dragged in a war, Russia will of course retaliate and further escalation (especially if Russia starts losing) highly likely will lead to the nukes. Now look at the news: Germany sends troops (for permanent stationing) to Eastern Europe. GB, France and Germany discuss deployment of their troops to Ukraine. Seems like I'm rather right, than wrong.

I think this might be a move to stop a world war (between Russia and NATO/Europe). If U.S. also leaves NATO any time soon - the chances for a world war would decrease greatly.

bawolff 2y ago

I don't think that makes sense. Wars happen when one of the sides think they can win (and want something). USA leaving nato and reducing trade makes european states more vulnerable. I would expect this to increase the liklihood of war. Especially in the near term - eventually europe will adapt to the new world order, but in the mean time their is a limited window of opportunity where everything is in flux, which would be a great time to strike.

mathfailure 2y ago
I'd like to correct you: wars don't happen when just one of the sides thinks they can win, they happen when BOTH sides think so. I think that exactly for this reason Europe needs such a vaccine shot, so they stop they can win a war against Russia.
- kalkin 2y ago
  But... they can? If Ukraine can fight Russia to a standstill, a fully mobilized Europe clearly at least has a shot. Unless it escalates to nuclear weapons and everyone loses... But you need at least an argument if you want to say that is less likely without any initial US involvement, it's not obvious.
  - mathfailure 2y ago
    Exactly. Europe thinks it may join Ukraine in a war against Russia to actually win that war. My point is that this is quite a reason why a nuke war may occur. And if U.S. turns back away from Europe - Europe might 'sober up' and not seek the prolongation of a conflict. Non-nuke wars end somehow. One side usually loses, without such a loss - there would be no end for the war and more and more people would die. A bitter ending is better than endless bitterness.
    - kalkin 2y ago
      There's nothing in my comment to "exactly" in support of your point. If the US backs away from Europe it may be more likely to encourage Ukrainian surrender. Russia may be more likely to attack Poland. Germany may be more likely to develop its own nuclear deterrent. Or none of these things may happen. Extrapolating from tariffs to world peace demands a bit more than loose speculation at the continental level.
      - mathfailure 2y ago
        Surely there is: > Europe clearly at least has a shot I doubt Europe would be that cocky without a full support from their "big bro" from across the ocean. As for attacking Poland - that sounds quite uncalled for: Poland doesn't have a meaningful share of Russian natives living there historically for the Poland to start oppressing them to the point Russia would start a war against Poland. I can't even think of any reason why Russia would attack Poland.
        outer_web 2y ago
        The Kremlin can come up with a rationalization for whatever their territorial desires are.
        codezero 2y ago
        There is no modern international norm where a nation can use military force to invade or interfere with another nation because of ethnic natives in that nation being mistreated. This is another russian talking point that’s used as a justification for their intentional aggression and it has nothing to do with why they actually invade their neighbors.

travisgriggs 2y ago

Yes, the isolationist era that followed World War One clearly calmed the rest of the world, so that the various "expansionist" regimes felt less threatened and just let their neighbors be. History rhymes with itself.

energy123 2y ago
Multi-polarity is the number one cause of war and conflict.
mathfailure 2y ago
It's different now, since at that time there were no weapons of total annihilation (and now there are quite some). That's exactly why 'expansionist' regimes were ready to start some next war, being eager "to get some extra land" as a result of said war. The current war is different: this is the war that started not out of appetite towards foreign lands, but, basically, out of primal fear, the fear concerning safety. The West was failing at self-reflection and was completely oblivious about their own actions being treated as crossing a real red line for Russia's safety. You may scare a wandering bear away, but driving it into a corner is both stupid and fatal.
- outer_web 2y ago
  Haha please describe the NATO invasion of Russia. This sounds entertaining.
  - mathfailure 1y ago
    Easy. 1. Crimea, Donetsk People's Republic, Lugansk People's Republic, Kherson Oblast, Zaporozhskaya Oblast are now parts of Russia. 2. NATO still thinks those are parts of Ukraine. 3. Some of NATO countries are now in talks about sending their troops to Ukraine.
    - mopsi 1y ago
      > 1. Crimea, Donetsk People's Republic, Lugansk People's Republic, Kherson Oblast, Zaporozhskaya Oblast are now parts of Russia. Not factually, nor legally.

outer_web 2y ago

Care to explain your rationale? Seems like Russia is in no position to invade any NATO country unless the US leaves the alliance. They've proven themselves wholly outclassed in Ukraine, against a much smaller country with refurb gear.

mathfailure 2y ago
Furthermore, Russia has no plans to invade any NATO country. It just won't let NATO invade^W expand to Ukraine. And no, this war is not how you describe it: said 'much smaller country' was 2nd biggest (in terms of military strength) in Europe after Russia itself. And it's not a 1x1 war of big Russia vs small Ukraine: Ukraine got help from all over Europe, G.B., U.S. and Canada. Help in arms, in intel, in training, in money and other resources. Russia got sanctioned badly, by such a big bunch of countries that you'd rather be smirking not about Russia not being able to win already, but at Europe (and now U.S.) economy getting some hits... while Russian economy still stands yet. While all the sanctions are still in effect. For years.
- outer_web 2y ago
  > Furthermore, Russia has no plans to invade any NATO country. Not only are you attempting to prove a negative with "trust me bro" but it's especially laughable given recent history. Please tell me how many days before the Ukraine invasion Russia had "no plans to invade". > this war is not how you describe it: said 'much smaller country' Personally I consider 1/3 the population "much smaller" but you do you. > it's not a 1x1 war of big Russia vs small Ukraine: Ukraine got help from all over Europe, G.B., U.S. and Canada. Exactly why the US remaining in NATO prevents a large scale conventional war. Because Russia is pathetic unless it is bullying smaller neighbors or threatening nuclear war.
  - mathfailure 1y ago
    I think it's the opposite: with US remaining in NATO, Europe will feel cocky enough to get dragged in a war, Russia will of course retaliate and further escalation (especially if Russia starts losing) highly likely will lead to the nukes. Now look at the news: Germany sends troops (for permanent stationing) to Eastern Europe. GB, France and Germany discuss deployment of their troops to Ukraine. Seems like I'm rather right, than wrong.