45
Europeans/ Westerners would rather not have an earth if they aren't able to dominate it. Mindless locusts just bent on consuming others' resources.
What's funny here is that every US proxy thinks they're gonna get the full backing of the US once shit hits the fan. Ukrainians totally thought that NATO would fight for them when they got into a war with Russia. Now it's Europeans thinking that they're indefensible and that the US will totally fight along side them when the time comes.
I don't think it's ever completely out of the question for the U.S. to get involved, and it's arguably more likely this time than any. But regardless, I agree with you that that chances of the U.S. actually getting involved are extremely miniscule. It's proxies will be left holding the bag, and the U.S. has no use to waste resources in a war it would lose, and save it's technology, manpower and aggression for it's imperial hold back home.
Exactly, the whole point of having proxies is that they're expandable. The US would get involved up to the point where it feels like it's too much of a commitment for them. They're not gonna suffer the consequences of all this.
So far no country saying that maybe it's a shit idea to start a world war
Last weekend, US President Joe Biden reportedly authorized Ukraine to use American-made ATACMS ballistic missiles in long-range strikes on Kursk Region. Within days of Biden’s decision, which has not been officially confirmed by the White House, Russian air defenses intercepted five ATACMS missiles over Bryansk Region, the Defense Ministry in Moscow said.
Wait, what the heck is going on with that? Has there really been no announcement from the government? I didn't know this was even in question.
This is so many levels of fucked up if true. Some anonymous general gets to start WW3 without us even knowing who the bastard is to hunt him in hell.
Pretty sure we'll be able to hunt them down in real-life.
So is Putin just chilling waiting for Jan 20th so Trump will come in and end shipments of weapons and deauthorize attacks into Russia?
What a fucking insane, shitty fucking system btw. As painful as it is to say... the US presidents should swap out as quickly as the Brits swap PMs. Like you lost? Gone next day. I know their PMs aren't democratically elected and all that (technically neither is the president...) and the winner/loser is known faster, just saying that 2 1/2 months of a "lame duck" president with the power to wage wars and everything at his fingertips... what a dogshit system.
Btw, if Trump comes in and ends the bullshit in Ukraine, regardless of whatever hamfisted agreement he gets pushed through, it's going to be a W on his record that the democrats can't tarnish. "Ahh but we wanted thermonuclear war! Putler!!!" I mean god only knows what his hog-ass has been discussing with Netanyahu regarding the West Bank, Gaza, southern Lebanon, but also forcing something there that resembles the situation pre-Oct 7 2023 will also be seen as a W for casual observers who just wanted to stop seeing exploding kids on their feeds every day. The fact that Biden has allowed both of these atrocities to continue endlessly, and seemingly would love to keep going if he could, like who the actual fuck wants this shit besides the most decrepit, 90 year old zombies like him and the executives at Raytheon, etc.?
I'd be shocked if Trump actually ended the war rather than begrudgingly doubling down out of fear of looking "weak". He's nothing if not petty and ego driven. In the unlikely event he does actually fracture NATO or allow a negotiated end to the war, there's a credible argument that would make him probably the best president in my lifetime. I think "personally preventing WW3" tops any other recent presidential achievements like creating a federal department of ethnic cleansing and illegal domestic surveillance infrastructure (Bush/Biden), destroying Iraq (Bush/Biden), destroying Afghanistan (Bush/Biden), destroying Libya (Obama/Biden), or pulling a bait and switch to implement RomneyCare (Obama/Biden).
The rivalry between western leaders and political parties to be the ones to decide ground zero for the global life-ending nuclear conflagration. 
Not beating the "the whole west is attacking us" allegations
A one-sided proxy world war. Fucking wild
There was pretty direct involvement of both sides in Afghanistan (in the 80s), Vietnam, and especially Korea. It's bad, but at least it's not wholly unprecedented.
Yes, but US/UK never directly bombed/struck the USSR soil or vice versa, so it is unprecedented.
Russian civil war Cough
lol ok debatebro, but obviously it was comparison with Cold War 1.0. Pretty sure they didn’t have nukes in Russian civil war.
Ok goalpost mover.
And yet you continue with your liberal debatebro pedantry. Sad.
The USSR was a hegemon back then. So it could engage in "symmetrical" proxy wars. This is a new situation, I think, where the USA, UK, and France able to act through far more proxies than either Russia or China can.
this post was submitted on 23 Nov 2024
45 points (100.0% liked)
World News
2317 readers
132 users here now
founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS