One criticism of the West supporting Ukraine is the potential for WWIII.
This seems unlikely since WWIII would mean the end of Putin. Russia is a monster but cannot take on all of NATO. Russia is struggling to deal with western-supported Ukraine. Russia had munitions factories destroyed, lost war ships and it's even losing its own territory.
If Russia struggles this much against a weak nation merely being supported by the West, can you imagine a direct conflict? For all his bluster, Putin is not stupid.
That said: China has become a major Russian ally. I'm not sure how much of the alliance involves military assistance but China recently tested an ICBM only a few days ago. This is their first such test since the 1980s. It's probably not a coincidence this test took place around the time Putin threatened nuclear warfare. What is clear is that N. Korea has a pact with Russia for military assistance.
Does this fact make WWIII more realistic? Possibly. I'm confident Putin doesn't want a 1 v. NATO but if China and N. Korea have Russia's back...that could give Putin the balls needed to for that to happen.
- Joined
- 09 Sep 06
- Moves
- 1140
NATO spent 20 years in the middle east and they lost to a much weaker force. NATO has never actually won a war since it's formation.
A dictator doesn't stop WWIII from happening because he will die. A dictator engages in WWIII before he falls.
Ukraine is not winning the war, they are holding on because of NATO and hoping Russia exhausts itself.
WWIII is possible and nobody will win because it won't be an isolated war. The amount of nukes dropping would easily end our way of life and send us back to the bronze age.
The survivors will be eating radioactive rat burgers and drinking contaminated water. Think Chernobyl every 50 miles or so...not fun.
@thedogandthecello saidPutin's back is not up against a wall. No one is coming after Putin. This war is entirely about pride, not survival. I don't think Putin is a big enough idiot to let his pride culminate in his own death and the end of Russian dominance.
NATO spent 20 years in the middle east and they lost to a much weaker force. NATO has never actually won a war since it's formation.
A dictator doesn't stop WWIII from happening because he will die. A dictator engages in WWIII before he falls.
Ukraine is not winning the war, they are holding on because of NATO and hoping Russia exhausts itself.
WWIII is pos ...[text shortened]... r. The amount of nukes dropping would easily end our way of life and send us back to the bronze age.
You say NATO has never won a war: what about Libya?
You referred to 20 years in Afghanistan as evidence against NATO. This was an American invasion with some NATO assistance, not a war against NATO. Even so, look what happened to Iraq.
America controlled Afghanistan, so much so that women women pursued higher education and enjoyed freedoms they never could under the Taliban. America could've taken over the country but that wasn't its goal.
You are right that Putin is still a dictator. Putin killed his own people in order to justify war against the Chechens. His own interests come before his people. So throwing his own nation under the bus may not be entirely unrealistic.
@thedogandthecello saidWho was it that said, "I don't know about WW3, but WW4 will be fought with sticks and stones."?
A fun and free website where you look at a realistic map and detonate nukes to see the blast radius and aftermath.
You can pick the location and the size of the bomb.
Now imagine 5000 going off during WWIII.
https://nuclearsecrecy.com/nukemap/
- Joined
- 09 Sep 06
- Moves
- 1140
@Suzianne saidI was just thinking about that and I can't remember who said it first.
Who was it that said, "I don't know about WW3, but WW4 will be fought with sticks and stones."?
@AThousandYoung saidIf not for Pearl Harbor their chances of winning were quite realistic.
One of the problems with absolute dictatorships is that the leader gets an inflated sense of his country’s power because nobody wants to bring him bad news for fear of punishment.
The Axis had no realistic chance of winning either but they didn’t realize if.
@shavixmir saidHow about landing a battalion or two in Red Square?
I think there’s a 50% chance, if Russia feels seriously threatened, of a limited nuclear strike on Ukraine.
I do not think the West will retaliate with nuclear weapons, that escalation would be too costly.
@thedogandthecello saidIn which war was NATO a combatant?
NATO spent 20 years in the middle east and they lost to a much weaker force. NATO has never actually won a war since it's formation.
- Joined
- 09 Sep 06
- Moves
- 1140
@Ponderable saidPlenty of NATO countries fought in Afghanistan for 20 years and lost. (USA, Canada, UK, Germany, France, etc etc)
In which war was NATO a combatant?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_in_Afghanistan_(2001%E2%80%932021)