• kava@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    It’s never one thing but more like a pie chart. If we looked at the biggest chunks on the pie chart, they would be the things I outlined and take up the majority of the chart. Hurting Russia is nice, you’re right, but Russia is not a real threat. Other countries don’t need to join NATO. Russia does not have the capacity to properly invade Ukraine, the poorest country in Europe right next to their border. The only real threat Russia has is nuclear weapons, and should Russia start nuking non-NATO countries I don’t think Article 5 is going to matter - the US is going to respond.

    I view Ukraine war a lot like the Spanish Civil war in 1936. Nice playground to test out new military tech. Nevermind the hundreds of thousands of young men who are going to die or be permanently maimed, Ukraine having their demographics crippled for the next century, and the hundreds of millions of poor across the world who are suffering under rising inflation due to things such as food supply

    I agree war in Europe is very “symbolic” but that doesn’t matter in a geopolitical sense. It’s only useful as a propaganda tool in order to justify the eternal prolongation of the above mentioned destruction

    • Braydox_ofAstroya12@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      “It’s never one thing but more like a pie chart. If we looked at the biggest chunks on the pie chart, they would be the things I outlined and take up the majority of the chart. Hurting Russia is nice, you’re right, but Russia is not a real threat. Other countries don’t need to join NATO. Russia does not have the capacity to properly invade Ukraine, the poorest country in Europe right next to their border. The only real threat Russia has is nuclear weapons, and should Russia start nuking non-NATO countries I don’t think Article 5 is going to matter - the US is going to respond.”

      Russia not a threat? Im sure ukraine disagrees, as with other border nations.

      Russia actual capabilities wernt truly known to be this terrible until they invaded and even what was known wasn’t universal and apparent to everyone.

      Others dont need to join nato? Sure. Until they do. WW3 and European wars seem like a silly concept and then it happens all of a sudden nato looks to be a great deal to get back to that sense of security as well as having a gurantee of that security.

      I view Ukraine war a lot like the Spanish Civil war in 1936. Nice playground to test out new military tech. Nevermind the hundreds of thousands of young men who are going to die or be permanently maimed, Ukraine having their demographics crippled for the next century, and the hundreds of millions of poor across the world who are suffering under rising inflation due to things such as food supply

      Its more like the Korean war with old tech and surplus being used up. While im sure there is new technology to be had the majority of it is all old stuff. From 1960’s to 2000’s

      I agree war in Europe is very “symbolic” but that doesn’t matter in a geopolitical sense. It’s only useful as a propaganda tool in order to justify the eternal prolongation of the above mentioned destruction

      It does matter to every European indvidual. Their personal cognition of history and current values is one where starting WW3 was not a reality they had but now the potential is very real. Im assuming you are american so maybe you dont understand what it means to have a neighbouring country at anytime can roll over your border as well as not having the worlds largest military or police which a single american city can have more then some countries entire armies.

      People do have genuine feelings and reactions. Its not all calculated Patriots string pulling

      • kava@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Russia not a threat? Im sure ukraine disagrees, as with other border nations.

        Russia is not able to, with some of the highest military spending on the planet, properly invade a weak country right on their borders. Again, we’re talking about the poorest country in Europe. Whereas if we look at the American invasion of Iraq - within a month the Iraqi government had collapsed. Now, let’s see what other countries Russia could presumably invade.

        The only real options are

        • the baltic states which are already in NATO. So no need for NATO to spread there.

        • poland - who has a military budget more than 3x Ukraine’s along with a more modern air force and air defense system. Not to mention they are also in NATO. Even if Poland wasn’t in NATO, Russia would stand no chance.

        • finland - this is probably Russia’s best bet - they were spending about 20% less on their military as Ukraine in 2020. however Ukraine and Finland have drastically different geographies. Ukraine is mostly open plains so Russia historically wants to control Ukraine as it’s an easy way to invade Russia (both Napoleon and (edit: i refreshed my memory on French invasion and was incorrect. They went through Belarus) Hitler exploited this in order to invade Russia). However Finland is dense forest and the winters are harsh. The USSR even tried to invade Finland right around WW2 and failed miserably. And back then Finland was a poor backwater relative to what it is today.

        So, Finland I think is justified in wanting to join NATO but realistically it’s not necessary. Should Finland get invaded, they would end up getting support from the US and Europe just like Ukraine is getting now. In 1939 they didn’t get that support and they still held back the Russians. Now with them being much richer relatively and Russia being weaker - it just isn’t realistic

        Do you see what I’m saying? Russia isn’t a real threat. The only card they hold is nuclear weapons, and that’s a last resort option because they know it would very likely signal the end of the regime.

        While im sure there is new technology to be had the majority of it is all old stuff. From 1960’s to 2000’s

        Yes, both Ukraine and Russia are bringing out relics in this fight. Russia is burning through old Soviet tanks from the 1950s. But modern air defense systems, cruise missiles, drones, and modern satellites have never been used in this capacity. This is great for the US. They are able to use their satellites and communicate real time information to the Ukrainians. They learn what’s best to pay attention to, what are the limits of their tech.

        All parties have learned just how useful drones can be. They’ve been used in many ways. As recon, as ways to attack people in trenches by simply dropping grenades on them, as suicide drones, etc. US military engineers are taking this massive treasure trove of data and reinvesting their work and money into places that have been shown to be most effective.

        Not to mention all the behind the scenes cyber warfare / intelligence gathering that is going on. I’m telling you - a lot of people in the MIC are very happy about this war. And of course our defense contractors are getting tens of billions of dollars which can conceivably become hundreds of billions before this war is finally through.

        People do have genuine feelings and reactions

        Obviously people have genuine feelings. But governments don’t have feelings. They practice realpolitik and that involves lots of educated smart people making cold calculated decisions. Feelings mean nothing to deciding whether to go to war or even when talking about internal policies. There’s that famous quote said to Yanis, that minister from Greece. “Elections cannot be allowed to change economic policy” by the German finance minister in a Eurogroup meeting.

        Im assuming you are american

        I was born in South America. Although I concede there is very little risk of nations invading each other in South America just like in the USA.