http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/uk...oosts-military-presence-eastern-europe-n81766 I don't seem to hear any concern at all in the press. Our republic is truly doomed if the world is on the brink of WWIII, and the press doesn't feel like it's worth giving any news coverage to. More Bieber Fever anyone?
History will remember Barack H. Obama as the blundering POTUS that started World War III by sticking his nose into other people's business... people with more nukes than us.
Alarmism, plain and simple. Mutually assured destruction has gone a long way in preventing WWIII...for now.
Is This The Start Of WWIII?... EDWARD LUCAS: I hope I'm wrong but historians may look back and say this was the start of World War III 16 April 2014 ~ 'Vladimir Putin is striking at the heart of the West'; 'We can chose to surrender any responsibility we have to protect Ukraine and the Baltic states'; 'Or we can mount a last-ditch attempt to deter Russia from furthering its imperial ambitions'; 'If we choose to resist Putin, we will risk a terrifying miltary escalation'; 'I do not think it an exaggeration to say this could bring us to the brink of nuclear war' See also: NATO UPS MILITARY PRESENCE AMID RUSSIAN THREAT Apr 16,`14 -- NATO is strengthening its military footprint along its eastern border immediately in response to Russia's aggression in Ukraine, the alliance's chief said Wednesday.
Right, because WWI and WWII never happened. WWI was the war to end all wars. Every significant war after that was also the war to end all wars.
I wouldn't doubt it happening under Obama. He is clueless. The reason I didn't vote for him was his lack of experience and now it shows.
The current Ukrainian crisis will not lead to World War III for the very simple reason that no other country will under any circumstances intervene militatily to protect Ukraine from Russia. Even a full Ukrainian-Russian War is very unlikely, but even if that were to break out a Ukrainian-Russian war is NOT World War III.
Most likely so, but Ukraine's relationship with NATO is very close. What if they join NATO tomorrow, do you still keep to that? One thing is constant in history, politicians are stupid, and war is a continuation of politics by other means. I wish I was bonafide psychic like you.
Ukraine is not a member of NATO and never will be. I'm not psychic, just rational. You should try it.
Every Western leader has clearly said that the West will NOT intervene militarily. According to you they are all lying? I am not predicting the future. I am analysing the actual facts at hand and drwaing the rational conclusions from that.
Did I say they are lying? Hey look, a strawman! (from someone supposedly more rational than anyone else in the world)
We haven't even been promised a peace for our generation... The rearming of the main countries started more than ten years ago. Having new weaponry is itching boys in the government to play with their new toys. Ambitious generals and information project managers are regarding new carreer opportunities with the rising power on every side. Everyone seeks to win... I actually think that rearming is a very reliable sign of the coming war. Why do you think that there will be no WW3? Has humanity become more civilized for the past 70 years? Are there no vital interests that are being crossed by competitors? Are people more friendly towards different nations? There is a very high risk that WW3 will happen. Of course not because of Ukraine. Like it happened not because of Ferdinand. The war will happen because of ambitions, hostility and loss of reality from the side of politicians. PS. First russian rearming should have been finished in 1916. The war started 1914. The second rearming was to be finished 1942. The war started 1941 (I mean the world war and not the initial stages). Current rearming is to be finished 2020.
There may or may not be a World War III. But there is zero chance of the current Ukrainian crisis leading to any such World War. And that is what this is about. War is not a force of nature. It is a conscious choice. As for Russia re-arming, currently Russia is having a hard time staying afloat economically and it's long-term prospects as a major power look pretty dim (starkly declining population; little economic development; etc.). In the short and probably also medium term it of course remains a major regional power. But militarily it is not a global threat to anyone.
Comparing current Russia to Nazi-Germany is simply ridiculous. Nor was Germany in the 1930's facing the same demographic and economic challenges that Russia is today.
I understand. But the WW1 didn't start because of Austria and Serbia. And the WW2 didn't start because of aggression against Poland. Ukraine is one of the grounds where main power have a clash. In this case it is USA, EU (ef, ju, si, kei the EU?) and, ok, a regional power - Russia. That's rather a philosophical question. I don't know a person who chose to start previous wars... Where did you take these facts? Our economical growth stopped. True. In the time of 'economic crisi' it was growing. But now it stopped. It's official info for last year. With all the sanctions from EU and US our economy dropped 0.5% since the beginning of the year. And it is a usual yearly fluctuation. The birth rate in Russia has restored to natural repopulation. So the policy of the russian government to pay for having the second kid is being discussed as unnecessary. And that is before the immigration from former soviet republics, which is becoming quite a big problem. So there is not a problem of lack of people or having too much people. It is quite enough. As for the military. Well. Before the WW1 Russia was regarded as world superpowerful monster and German generals were planning first to invade France and gain a quick victory there and then to use all the force against Russia. The reality proved different. Russia hasn't had possibility to produce war materials in the needed quantities. Before the WW2 the army of USSR was regarded a weak and incapable. But the reality proved to be completely the opposite. I am afraid that the opinion that russian military is weak will only provoke the invader. But in fact we have not only the nuclear weapons and anti-air SAM-systems. Russia has modern military which are not counting on the invasion (we don't have carriers equipped with assault planes), but it is quite formiddable for the defense. E.g. the black sea is a coverage zone for Russian anti-ship missiles Bastion. And the two american ships that are now in the black sea are risking to violate against the Monreau doctrine. Which means that... they can be attacked from the territory of the former Ukraine for instance. Don't you think that the video with a destroyed ship will cause american lust for russian blood? And Obama being quite weak and influenced can really be driven by those who think about Russian military that it is weak.
World War II did start over the German invasion of Poland. And World War I did start because Austria-Hungary decided to invade Serbia and Russia decided to back Serbia in this conflict. In the current crisis over Ukraine nobody is going to back up Ukraine in the same way, so the risk of WWIII is zero.
The Russian population is set to decline by many millions over the next decades. Demographically, Russia is facing a serious decline. Obviously this might be reversed over the next decades, but so far there are no indications to that effect. Economically Russia is in a very weak position and heavily dependent on raw materials and energy exports. Its industry is simply not competitive or modern enough. And there are very great infrastructure challenges (in this context Sochi is a perfect example of a Potemkin village). Militarily Russia remains a strong regional power, but its military might is a shadow of what it once was. Its ability to project military power other than in its immediate vicinity is virtually nil. And its military hardware offers nothing that can succesfully compete with that of the West. As for your funny reference to the "Monreau"(sic) doctrine, you simply don't even know what that is.
