No post body was provided.
Untitled topic
1–10 of 95 posts
Re: undefined
#2Not close.
China can't afford it. They are mid economic ruin and can't afford a sustained conflict.
Russia is almost out of ammo. Desperately trying to generate more. Suffering from a lot of brain drain.
Middle easy is in fighting. There's no way they'd jump into such a war.
Nobody wants to directly attack a nato country.
who else would be involved?
Re: undefined
#3Not close. China can't afford it. They are mid economic ruin and can't afford a sustained conflict. Russia is almost out of ammo. Desperately trying to generate more. Suffering from a lot of brain drain. Middle easy is in fighting. There's no way they'd jump into such a war. Nobody wants to directly attack a nato country. who else would be involved?
I'm not saying they are, but if China is mid economic ruin, that might actually be a reason for them to favor conflict. War is often about the spoils, and historically has been used to bolster state coffers in the face of mismanagement, failure or shoddy tax collection.
I'm not sure a failing China is less likely to go to war, than one who "can afford it". Look at Japan pre-WWII. They basically went to war to refresh the coffers of Empire.
Re: undefined
#4imho. pretty close.
it all depends on the reactions of the white house - eg. the "neocons" - to losing their war with russia which is ongoing in the ukraine.
just my 0.02€
Re: undefined
#5There are many armed conflicts around the world, a number of them much more serious that the current heat in the Middle East.
Nothing particularly special about the current situation. And in fact since the USSR collapse there is no string enough backer to the 'opposition' to enable serious escalation.
Geostrategically the Russia-Ukraine conflict is interesting, not because of a WW risk, but because it is being used as a tool for deeper goals like splitting Europe and Russia and making Europe more dependent on the US for its energy, expanding NATO, and hitting China's Belt and Road.
In any case, no-one is going to start WWIII because no-one is suicidal. 'No-one' means USA, Russia, and China as realistically they are the only one with the power to start it.
Re: undefined
#6Not close. China can't afford it. They are mid economic ruin and can't afford a sustained conflict. Russia is almost out of ammo. Desperately trying to generate more. Suffering from a lot of brain drain. Middle easy is in fighting. There's no way they'd jump into such a war. Nobody wants to directly attack a nato country. who else would be involved?
No-one can 'afford' a world war now that all the big powers have nuclear weapons, even the scale of opposing convential forces is too much.
Therefore, no-one is going to start one.
Re: undefined
#7Ukraine makes WW3 less likely. If it was conquered quickly - that would make WW3 more likely (because Russia and China would estimate their chances of further conquest higher and would probably start something in Taiwan or Baltic states).
Russia issued a statement just before 2022 invasion that demanded NATO back off from Baltic States, Poland, etc. If Ukraine fell quickly they could think they can force this by small scale provocations. If NATO really backed off - Russia would invade these countries soon after that.
A LOT of people are now safe because of Ukrainians (and NATO, and EU). Millions of them.
Returning to your question - WW3 is unlikely, because NATO wins 10 times out of 10. The best China and Russia can count on is stalemate with nuclear exchange. But what's the point of that from their POV?
Re: undefined
#8The next war is Russia-China vs West escalated by China invading Taiwan or N. Korea invading S. Korea. Then maybe it goes nuclear... but the only way to win a nuclear war is to win on surprise attack first-strike -- so maybe there will be a surprise attack nuclear exchange before the invasions.
In terms of Israel, maybe they will annex Gaza, but its not a ww3 thing.
Re: undefined
#9Ukraine makes WW3 less likely. If it was conquered quickly - that would make WW3 more likely (because Russia and China would estimate their chances of further conquest higher and would probably start something in Taiwan or Baltic states). Russia issued a statement just before 2022 invasion that demanded NATO back off from Baltic States, Poland, etc. If Ukraine fell quickly they could think they can force this by smal…
The fact that Russia's invasion of Ukraine mostly failed informs about the strength of Russia's military but says nothing about China's.
If China is drawing conclusions they must be based on the West's reaction to the invasion, not on Russia's performance. China has been working on these scenarios well before Russia invaded Ukraine because, well, it is obvious that the West controls most of the world's economic and financial infrastructure.
For instance, payments within China are now almost 100% Alipay and Wechatpay, which means they have completely decoupled and e.g. US networks like Visa and Mastercard are irrelevant.
Re: undefined
#10Wars are like market collapses. You can follow a chain of events leading up to it in retrospect, but no one really knows what will kick off the next one. They're all unique. People still disagree even with the benefit of hindsight.