Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Untitled topic

news.ycombinator.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 95 posts

Re: undefined

#31

Post by galfarragem »

ajuc wrote: post #7

Ukraine 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…

> A LOT of people are now safe because of Ukrainians (and NATO, and EU). Millions of them.

An instrumental narrative used by the media... Do you really believe that? The rest of your comment is also surreal: you are overestimating Russia and underestimating China.

The problem of the West is that all of our leaders are weak. Weak leaders precipitate wars.

Re: undefined

#32

Post by seydor »

Possible further eruptions/escalation of conflicts:

Turkey-Syria (already underway)

Saudi-Yemen

Iran-Azerbaijan

Azerbaijan-Armenia

Russia-Georgia

Turkey-Cyprus

Lebanon-Israel

Serbia-Kosovo

Re: undefined

#33

Post by MrMan »

galfarragem wrote: post #31
ajuc wrote: post #7

Ukraine 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…

> A LOT of people are now safe because of Ukrainians (and NATO, and EU). Millions of them. An instrumental narrative used by the media... Do you really believe that? The rest of your comment is also surreal: you are overestimating Russia and underestimating China. The problem of the West is that all of our leaders are weak. Weak leaders precipitate wars.

[dead]

Re: undefined

#34

Post by ajuc »

galfarragem wrote: post #31
ajuc wrote: post #7

Ukraine 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…

> A LOT of people are now safe because of Ukrainians (and NATO, and EU). Millions of them. An instrumental narrative used by the media... Do you really believe that? The rest of your comment is also surreal: you are overestimating Russia and underestimating China. The problem of the West is that all of our leaders are weak. Weak leaders precipitate wars.

> you are overestimating Russia and underestimating China

2 years ago Russia was called 2nd army of the world. China wasn't the first.

> The problem of the West is that all of our leaders are weak. Weak leaders precipitate wars.

These general statements are generally false.

Re: undefined

#35

Post by galfarragem »

ajuc wrote: post #34
galfarragem wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> A LOT of people are now safe because of Ukrainians (and NATO, and EU). Millions of them. An instrumental narrative used by the media... Do you really believe that? The rest of your comment is also surreal: you are overestimating Russia and underestimating China. The problem of the West is that all of our leaders are weak. Weak leaders precipitate wars.

> you are overestimating Russia and underestimating China 2 years ago Russia was called 2nd army of the world. China wasn't the first. > The problem of the West is that all of our leaders are weak. Weak leaders precipitate wars. These general statements are generally false.

Eastern Europeans are biased - scars are still there - but fear makes the wolf bigger than it really is.

> These general statements are generally false.

What about Trump or even Merkel? Biden and Von Der Leyen are a clear downgrade that may bring us a stupid war.

Re: undefined

#36

Post by lakomen »

Since the left abandoned traditional left topics like helping the poor and the right has adopted them, but with a twist of only the poor of their own nationality, the poorer people get, the more likely it is they'll listen to those right wing voices. And the more people are in this my nation your nation boat, the more likely it is that conflicts happen.

The powers that be are pushing towards this new world war with austerity, with higher cost of living. Ultimately I see it as the same old war rich vs poor, 1% vs 99%. When there's war, people die, and who dies? The poor. And who profits? The rich.

Most media is in the hands of the rich. Media drives opinion.

Traditionally there have always been wars. War is good for business, especially the business of weapon manufacturers, which are part of the rich.

The world is destabilizing and I blame US omnipotence fantasy. Empire USA has military bases all over the planet. They have provoked the Ukraine war. Because Serbia doesn't want to play fetch like the NATO tells them to, Kosovo is being lit again.

I have no insight into Palestine/Israel other than the US has their fingers in there as well.

Every recent war (not sure about Azerbaijan and Armenia) the US / NATO was or is involved.

The EU, which is apparent now, is a vassal of the USA, at least with the corrupt leadership of Von der Leyen.

Africa is evolving away from EU rule towards China, which tries desperately to buy into other nations everywhere. With all the hate towards China, when have they started a war recently or influenced one?

The only entity which has acted aggressively is the US military.

So how likely is a world war? Currently I don't think it's very likely, but it's in preparation and the main actor is the US military.

Re: undefined

#37

Post by ipaddr »

mytailorisrich wrote: post #21
ajuc wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> China can buy energy from Russia and the Middle East They already do. But they won't have anywhere to sell their products. Most of their economy gone just like that. > China is coupled to the West in a way that makes the West at least a dependent on China as China is on the West. Nope. For west decoupling means higher inflation but lower unemployment and faster growth. You win more than you lose. For China it means…

What's happening is that the West sees that they are dangerously dependent on China, which as world's second largest economy is also diversifying outside of Western countries. To some extent I think China would be willing to pay, and accept, a higher economic price than the West as long as Taiwan was seized. That's perhaps the same calculation Russia did with Ukraine, though, so they need to give a very hard look and…

For Russia Ukraine is as personal for historical reasons but also for strategic reasons. Ukraine is the buffer state between nato and Russia and the access to the black sea.

Re: undefined

#38

Post by throw9away6 »

RetroTechie wrote: post #16
houseatrielah wrote: post #8

The 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.

> the only way to win a nuclear war is to win on surprise attack first-strike No win: any counterstrike need only be airborne before that 1st strike hits (ignoring submarines). In your example: NK might be able to strike SK by surprise - short distance, missiles could could cover it in a few minutes. But in case of NK striking SK, countries allied with SK wouldn't leave NK unpunished. So even if NK's 1st strike were…

NK would bring SK down to NK levels of civilization. I doubt SK has enough weapons and ammunition to fully counter NK. It would run low on ammo quickly. NK is already a post apocalyptic wasteland not much would change if you bombed it to the Stone Age.

Re: undefined

#39

Post by throw9away6 »

seydor wrote: post #32

Possible further eruptions/escalation of conflicts: Turkey-Syria (already underway) Saudi-Yemen Iran-Azerbaijan Azerbaijan-Armenia Russia-Georgia Turkey-Cyprus Lebanon-Israel Serbia-Kosovo

You forgot all the pending African crisis. Probably a few more in North Africa as well. Food costs have hit the threshold where global instability in poor regions is high.

Also possibly Pakistan

Re: undefined

#40

Post by throw9away6 »

keepamovin wrote: post #3
Justsignedup wrote: post #2

Not 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…

Wars reset all debts and China has all the capacity to sustain a massive war economy equal to USA during WW2. I think people underestimate what they could do if provoked or desperate
Post reply on HN