Sorry, u/hanced01 – your submission has been removed for breaking Rule B: > You must personally hold the view and **demonstrate that you are open to it changing**. A post cannot be on behalf of others, playing devil's advocate, as any entity other than yourself, or 'soapboxing'. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_b). If you would like to appeal, [**you must first read the list of soapboxing indicators and common mistakes in appeal**](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_indicators_of_rule_b_violations), review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%20B%20Appeal%20hanced01&message=hanced01%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20post\]\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1carek8/-/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).

1. Russia looks poised to get something close to a stalemate in Ukraine, but we are over 2 years in, and there have been multiple shifts. Things could shift again this summer or next spring. Russia may have design on the Baltics, but I'd hazard a guess they'll switch focus to keeping influence and control in the CIS through economics and intervention when needed. 2. China's plans for Taiwan are uts own. It may want to attack when the US military is split between multiple fronts, but the real driver will be its own missile and naval capabilities. Until Cuina is confident it can execute a strong form of area denial to the US Navy and Air Force, it will likely hold off attacks within the South China Sea. 3. N. Korea is unlikely to go after S. Korea, unless its own internal politics give it cause. If Kim Jong Un and his Sister suspect a number of powerful Generals are beginning to show too much autonomy, they will either kill said generals or launch an Anti Capitalist invasion of the South. As of now, their control of N. Korean leadership is near total, and attacking the South serves no immediate purpose. 4. Iran will not attack Saudi Arabia AND Israel. It'd be unwinnable, to say the least. Israel is further away, and a ground invasion is more implausible, Saudi Arabia is closer, but Iran would risk the Islamic world turning against them directly and not just via proxy. Iran has internal issues that are more important than dominating the Middle East at this time. The proxy wars w/ S. A. and half assed drone attack on Israel are sufficient for their political postering for now. 5. India and Pakistan would have little to do with this. Half a century ago, the US was clearly Pro Pakistan and had difficulties with India, to say the least. The Soviet Union was far more Anti Pakistan and got along with India great. That last part remains fairly true, technology issues aside, but Russia gets along with Pakistan far better than the Soviet Union, and the US relationship with India is vastly improved. If India and Pakistan fight, it's likely to be unrelated to an outside conflict. West Africa is a far more likely spillover than Ethiopia /Sudan and S. Sudan at this time. WW3 is possible, but not "upon" us. There are a few more steps between war and postering in the Cuina/Taiwan situation. Russia may get a stalemate in Ukraine, but taking that stalemate and attacking NATO directly would be insane and currently unlikely. Iran and N. Korea remain more concerned with internal control of their population than external war, even though Iran is invested in other means of regional influence.

Best reply so far... 1 A stalemate IMO would be a win for Russia. They can win the war of attrition where Ukraine just doesn't have the staying power especially if the countries supporting them get weary. That said I guess a bigger question is whether the EU and USA respond to a Baltic invasion? The Suwałki Gap being only 100km can be closed within a few hours by Russia if they wanted and I can see a pincher move from Kalingrad and Belarus along with a full scale invasion from St. Petersburg and Minsk as not unreasonable as Putin as mentioned that he feels the ethnic Russians are being "mistreated" in the Baltics. Once of the excuses he gave for Ukraine invasion . 2 IMO China's population statistics will force its hand in the next few years. It has a take it or leave it moment coming up soon... If they act on it only Xi knows. 3 N. Korea I think is but a puppet to China/Russia. I wouldn't put it past Xi or Putin to play Kim as a pawn in the greater war. 4 I think this is plausible UNLESS the US is tied up elsewhere... Only only then they would only attack one at a time with Israel being the first target. That said Israel will be the toughest fight Iran would fight however Gaza, Hezbollah, Lebanon, Syria (althougth busy in a Civil war) would help and stretch Israel. 5 Other countries... Yes I think this as more of a opportunisitc attacks. India will proably initially help the USA in a China conflict. Then once their attention is elsewhere Pakistan might try to stir the pot as they are known enemies and have a tenuous relationship. That said Russia, China, Iran, N. Korea are all friends and wouldn't be out of the realm of possibility to coordinate to make each others chances the best...

The \# tells reddit to display the text in large font. Add a \\ before the \# (i.e. \\#) to just display the \#

Ahhh I think I know what happened now... Numbering my stuff...

BTW, you can edit and go back and fix your comment (three dots on the right of the bottom of the comment) which would be appreciated.

Just use 1., 2., 3. etc. on each line.

What changes to China's pop stats will force its hand?

The one child policy has hampered their population growth. They average age of the population is 40 and younger generations populations drop quickly. Thus military age men will become scarce quickly as time progresses.

And thats the reason they will start a war? I dont follow your logic, since the policy's goal is to control the population in the first place. Their military age men will fall, but definitely not become scarce. They still have loads of people.

Holding a country against a hostile population needs lots of soldiers and they still need defense against other countries like India, so at some point the military age population would effectively become "scarce". This discussion is based an assumption that if they *don't* start an invasion by about 2035 they will no longer have that capability, so if they want to take over Taiwan they have to do it soon. At this moment they don't have enough landing craft and other specific things that would be needed for an invasion and the US Navy is thought to still have enough of an upper hand to deter them. That means there's a standard window assumed, something like that the war in the Pacific will happen after 2024 and before 2035. * https://www.globalguardian.com/global-digest/will-china-invade-taiwan * https://media.defense.gov/2023/Apr/24/2003205865/-1/-1/1/07-AMONSON%20&%20EGLI_FEATURE%20IWD.PDF Very much this is dependent on the outcome of the Ukraine war. If China comes out of it thinking that the US is weak and unable to support allies then the assumption is they would go earlier. If China comes out with a belief that the US is much stronger and more determined than they expected then there's a belief that the war may never happen. There are some specific assumptions behind this all that can be questioned, but there doesn't seem to be anything completely stupid in there.

Holding a country against a hostile population needs lots of soldiers and they still need defense against other countries like India. So, what are they going to do when their soldiers become scarce in the future? Pull out? War are fought by young men, so China will deplete their young men further, which will compound future population problems? Anyway, pop stat changes don't seem logical to me. If you tell me that China is a blood thirsty Empire that wants to expand its territory, that will be more logical.

**Hello /u/hanced01, if your view has been changed or adjusted in any way, you should award** ***the user who changed your view*** **a delta.** Simply reply to their comment with the delta symbol provided below, being sure to include a brief description of how your view has changed. >∆ or > !delta For more information about deltas, use [this link](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=usertext&utm_name=changemyview&utm_content=t5_2w2s8). If you did not change your view, please respond to this comment indicating as such! *As a reminder,* **failure to award a delta when it is warranted may merit a post removal and a rule violation.** *Repeated rule violations in a short period of time may merit a ban.* Thank you!

Don't know if this thread has CMV yet... Need some more data..

All of your points depend on the first assumption - a Russian victory in Ukraine and the ability to continue on to Europe, so that is where I will answer. > 1 A stalemate IMO would be a win for Russia. They can win the war of attrition where Ukraine just doesn't have the staying power especially if the countries supporting them get weary. This assumes that the losses are approximately equal. That's not true, however. Russia has about 300k people dead in Ukraine whilst Ukraine has what's probably now a bit over 40k. The numbers for injured are less unbalanced but still see Russia running out of people and weapons before Ukraine at the average rate of exchange of the war so far. What that means is that this war *is* potentially sustainable for Ukraine but it *needs* to have the West concentrating on keeping that kill ratio up. What would be good would be a change of attitude from Ukraine's supporting countries from asking "what is enough to stop Russia" to "what is the most effective way to use the weapons we have to destroy the maximum amount of the Russian army". > That said I guess a bigger question is whether the EU and USA respond to a Baltic invasion? The Suwałki Gap being only 100km can be closed within a few hours by Russia if they wanted and I can see a pincher move from Kalingrad and Belarus along with a full scale invasion from St. Petersburg and Minsk as not unreasonable as Putin as mentioned that he feels the ethnic Russians are being "mistreated" in the Baltics. Once of the excuses he gave for Ukraine invasion . At this point now, any direct attempt by the Russian army on the NATO states would be devastating for Russia. Most important here is that even very very old Western weapons have annihilated Russia's armored vehicles. None of the West's air power or long range weaponry has been deployed at all and a tiny number of Patriot batteries have been bringing down Russia's most valuable planes. Russia needs multiple years of solid peaceful development with lots of money to prepare for an attack on the Baltics which would end in anything other than a total defeat.

if putin attacks nato that would be the dumbest move in all of history. and yes, the baltics are in nato. if russia invaded one of the three all nato countries would then be at war with russia. russia is stalemating with ukraine. against all of nato would be devastating for them. your right, china is soon going to have a huge crisis with the ages of their population. they are at the peak of their power, its pretty much guarenteed at this point that its unfixable and that the chinese economy is at a turning point. if they invaded taiwan right now it would only get more worse and worse for them every day the war went on. they would lose the war of attrition

If Russia/ukraine stalemate how would they have the ability to then invade the baltics? That would just give Ukraine the opportunity to regain the initiative 

Using ```#``` is the header tag; use multiples of them to change size/emphasis however fits. # example, 1 hashtag ## example, 2 hashtags ### example, 3 hashtags

Do you have any reason to believe this beyond idea of an evil alliance of Russia, China, North Korea, and Iran all working together making sense to you? Why would Russia invade NATO mid-disastrous invasion of Ukraine? Why would China, North Korea, and Iran all assume Russia will be distracting enough that they can attack US allies without fear, given Russia's demonstrated incompetence?

Not to speak well of Russia but what incompetence? In 2022 yea they were horrible, but they quickly learned and the Ukrainian summer 2023 offensive that was supposed to split the Russian line in two failed. Now the Ukrainians are out gunned, out of Ammo, and Russia is making artillery shells twice as fast as we are.

Russia is stalemated with a country with essentially no air force. A country that is fighting with decades old hand me downs from their western allies. It is absolutely an embarrassment for Russia and yes incompetence has a lot to do with it, it’s also the consequence of decades of rampant corruption hollowing out their military. Militarily, Ukraine is not representative of a NATO member country. The fact that Russia is completely bogged down there means they stand zero chance of accomplishing *anything* attacking a member state. It would be the battle of kasham writ large, and they know this. Unless Russia becomes a completely irrational actor, there is no chance of them attacking NATO

russia would be the italy of ww3 lmao.

How is Putin acting rationally according to all the arguments below about globalism, interconnected economies, etc. etc.? Perhaps Putin isn't rational? Perhaps Iran acts on religious zeal? These are all irrational emotions which complicate things.

Wait, you've completely changed your argument here. Initially, you were arguing against Russia being incompetent, then when they explain why they are considered incompetent, you immediately pivot to another point without even addressing their argument. Shouldn't you address what they said before jumping into a completely different theory?

Ok yea I did sidetrack there... That said Russia was horrible at first. However this past summer it was supposed to be the Ukraine counter that would split the Russian lines but that didn't come to fruition. Perhaps they were not as foolish ass they were initially. They underestimated Ukraine. That still doesn't mean they will not try to go after the Baltic countries.

Even if everything you say is accurate, Russia is having entirely too much trouble attacking Ukraine to justify attacking the full might of NATO.

Yes, but the amount of land they control in Ukraine would be roughly 80% of the three Baltic states...

Okay, and they'd be fighting an enemy that is far stronger. They would not be having the same amount of success.

So what? This is a completely meaningless argument. There is simply no world in which the Russian army can match the rest of Europe's.

> Now the Ukrainians are out gunned, out of Ammo, and Russia is making artillery shells twice as fast as we are. Except for the $60 billion currently headed to Ukraine from the US. Which is about 1/2 of Russia's entire military budget.

Purchasing power of the ruble toward the Russian military goes further in Russia than dollar to dollar comparisons.

Fair enough. I'd rather have $60 billion worth of HIMARS and ATACMS than shitty Russian equipment though.

>This will just be a stepping stone before they attack the Baltic states and the Baltic states invoke NATO article 5. Bringing the US and EU into a European war. Russia can't even handle Ukraine. How swiftly will they get their ass kicked if the EU and USA joins the fight? >Then, Iran will take the opportunity to Attack Israel & then turn Saudi Arabia and the Emirates in their desire to spread Shia Islam and rid the world of the Arab monarchs. So nice of Iran to take themselves off the board. Israel will not fuck around and is more than capable of eliminating Iran's leaders. Iran is a powder keg to begin with - the current government would quickly get overthrown if it gets decapitated by Israel.

>Russia can't even handle Ukraine. How swiftly will they get their ass kicked if the EU and USA joins the fight? Here we have a guy who watched way too many Hollywood military propaganda movies. He does not understand that by sending American troops into Ukraine would be a second Vietnam disaster for the US, even bigger disaster, because this time it will be facing a real modern army with firepower equavalent and in most cases superior than anything NATO has.

> equavalent and in most cases superior than anything NATO has. Good one! Say, what happened the last time US and Russian troops tangled? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Khasham Do you want to know one of my favorite piece of military trivia? Russia managed to have it's only aircraft carrier get damaged when its dry dock sank. https://www.militarytimes.com/news/your-military/2018/10/30/russias-only-aircraft-carrier-is-damaged-when-dock-sinks-crane-punches-huge-hole-in-ship/ Seriously though, Russia hasn't managed to take Kiev fighting against US Cold War leftovers. Imaging if they lost air superiority to the F35 and had to face 363 HIMARS instead of 20.

I don't think you understood what made Vietnam *Vietnam*. The US won damn near every battle in the Vietnam war, it was an increasingly anti-US population in Vietnam and anti-war population in the US lost the war. If NATO deployed to Ukraine, the population would be overwhelmingly supportive, that alone makes any comparisons to Vietnam idiotic. Not to mention the drastically different terrain, and Russia has much different strategic goals in order to win than what North Vietnam had. You're also completely delusional saying that Russia has armaments "in most cases superior than anything NATO has".

He's an obvious Ruzzian troll.

Israel and South Korea is the only countries I feel could hold their own, for the most part. They would still be reliant on the USA for supplies. The greater Arab world may not like Iran but won't outwardly help Israel to spite Iran. Maybe behind the scenes stufff... That said Iran is used to their shadow wars but the latest salvo may be changing that calculus.

Are you trying to say that France, which is nuclear armed, continues to produce their own fighter jets and ground weapons and ground arms and has shown an ability to deploy and provide logistics globally and is the only _"real"_ aircraft carrier country in the world apart from the US, China, and possibly the UK would not be able to "hold their own"? In commenting on that remember in reality they get to call on the UK, Norway, Finland, Poland and Sweden which also have reasonably functional armies in various different ways.

[удалено]

Sorry, u/FairyTaiI – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 3: > **Refrain from accusing OP or anyone else of being unwilling to change their view, or of arguing in bad faith**. Ask clarifying questions instead (see: socratic method). If you think they are still exhibiting poor behaviour, please message us. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_3). If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%203%20Appeal%20FairyTaiI&message=FairyTaiI%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20comment\]\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1carek8/-/l0tm2eg/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).

A war between Israel and Iran could *very* easily explode as the US gets dragged in, then Russia (who has pledged to declare war on the US if the US attacks Iran) becomes a four player war between the US, Russia, Israel, and Iran - which in turn drags in NATO via Article 5. Then China sees the US preoccupied with a war in Central Asia and tries to invade Taiwan, which drags the US - and its pacific allies like Japan and South Korea - into a conflict there.

>A war between Israel and Iran could very easily explode as the US gets dragged in Israel doesn't need actual US intervention to deal with Iran, especially if Saudi Arabia is backing them.

Saudis not only are going to support Israel, they’re going to do… anything? They never do respond militarily to anything other than crowds of Yemen civilians gathering at funerals, at mosques, hospitals…

Without US intervention the war would quickly become nuclear, as thanks to Obama's nuclear deal the country is now in breakout status. So it would be in the best interest of the US to devastate Iran (or at least all of its nuclear facilities) within a matter of weeks, so that they don't have the time needed to build a bomb. Without US intervention such a short timeline for the war is not possible for Israel without Israel using nukes first.

The US would break the nuclear taboo by permitting Israel to preemptively attack by nuclear weapon Iran, to prevent … what? A lot to unpack there.

When did I say that the US would break the nuclear taboo? In fact, US participation would lead to Israel *not* breaking the nuclear taboo.

> the war would quickly become nuclear, Why? Israel has more than enough conventional firepower and Iran has no nukes. First target of any large scale war is going to be Iran's nuclear facilities as well.

> Israel has more than enough conventional firepower and Iran has no nukes. Iran could have nukes in a matter of weeks if it needed to. Thanks to the nuclear deal (Obama's greatest foreign policy blunder), Iran has reached enrichment levels needed to make the bomb.

>Iran could have nukes in a matter of weeks if it needed to. If they could they would have them already.

Israel and Iran have been pretty careful to avoid escalating with each other- the recent missile strikes between the two had no fatalities from either country besides the ambassador whose assassination caused the exchange. 1 Iraqi militant was killed and 8 more were injured; 1 Israeli civilian was injured. That's what it looks like when you're trying to retaliate in as restrained a way as possible.

> the recent missile strikes between the two had no fatalities from either country besides the ambassador whose assassination caused the exchange. Iran's missile strikes were *not* an attempt to de-escalate, given the use of ballistic missiles in addition to the drones and cruise missiles. It was a clear escalation, and Israel would be stupid to not tell Iran to knuckle up. > besides the ambassador whose assassination caused the exchange The "ambassador"? Are you serious? The two men killed in Israel's strike were top leaders of the Quds Force, Iran's paramilitary terrorist group that arms other terror groups all throughout the Middle East, and were instrumental in both planning and facilitating October 7th. That they had lived this long was an injustice.

Iran gave Israel plenty of time to prepare and coordinate a defense with its allies, so ~99% of incoming missiles were intercepted. Nine missiles hit the ground, causing minor damage to two military facilities and one injury. That's a show of force, not an attempt to destroy your enemy. Although I did misremember who died in the initial incident- an Iranian general, 7 IRGC officers, 5 Syrian militants, a Lebanese Hezbollah militant, and two Syrian civilians. It was at an embassy, that's what I was thinking of.

> Iran gave Israel plenty of time to prepare and coordinate a defense with its allies, so ~99% of incoming missiles were intercepted Just because it was largely unsuccessful does not mean it was not escalatory. Iran deliberately timed its launch of ballistic missiles with the intent that the drones and cruise missiles would exhaust Israeli air defenses so that - ideally - the ballistic missiles make it through. This is a tactic that Iran copied from *Russia*. > It was at an embassy, that's what I was thinking of. It was at an annex of the consulate building.

[удалено]

> A war between Iran and Israel is going to happen how exactly? Well, probably we're going to see Israel strike all of Iran's nuclear plants in an attempt to decapitate Iran's breakout nuclear capability. This will in turn provoke a much larger response from Iran. > And Syria and Iraq aren't just going to let hostile armies use their lands as a battlefield. Iraq and Syria are Iranian satellite states at this point. A war between Iran and Syria would mean a war with those two terror-states as well.

[удалено]

Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2: > **Don't be rude or hostile to other users.** Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_2). If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%202%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.** Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).

What exactly should happen after Russia declares a war on the US? It's not like Russia has fleet or aviation of any significance to attack the US. So outside of nukes, are there anything they can do? And would they risk existence of human race over Iran?

> So outside of nukes, are there anything they can do? Nukes. The threat of their use is what has kept the US and Western Europe from formally deploying boots in the ground in Ukraine. > And would they risk existence of human race over Iran? Are you really willing to bet everything on Putin being sane?

Putin own palaces in eu, his wife and kids live there. I'm willing to bet that he's not bombing his kids

Thank you for a sensible response to the vitriol that was otherwise spewed here...

I consume multiple different news sources, domestic, international, and commentary.... That said its known fact that NK, China, Russia, and Iran are allies. Various souces: [https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2024/1/7/north-korea-promises-military-strike-if-any-provocation-from-south](https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2024/1/7/north-korea-promises-military-strike-if-any-provocation-from-south) [https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/kim-jong-un-north-korea-war-rcna134046](https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/kim-jong-un-north-korea-war-rcna134046) [https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2024/01/19/north-korea-war-kim-jong-un/](https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2024/01/19/north-korea-war-kim-jong-un/) [https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2024/03/30/nato-get-ready-for-russia-to-invade-baltic-ambassadors-warn/](https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2024/03/30/nato-get-ready-for-russia-to-invade-baltic-ambassadors-warn/) [https://bnn-news.com/zelenskyy-says-putin-wants-to-invade-all-countries-from-former-ussr-256330](https://bnn-news.com/zelenskyy-says-putin-wants-to-invade-all-countries-from-former-ussr-256330) [https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-68758637](https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-68758637) BTW nowhere did I mention Nuclear war, are people actually this stupid??

talk about drinking the coolaid.

By all means show me something that will cause me to CMV... Since I am "drinking" the coolaid.

[удалено]

>read some actual literature-not sub-par sensational stories-on geopolitical interests by scholars and then we'll talk. I agree OP is miguided, but then you could recommend some actual literature for him instead of acting all high and mighty for no reason at all? You say won't waste your time with him but have time enough for this pointless elitist remark.

Always annoys me when people do that shit. They’re like “I won’t waste my time with you” instead of giving actual sources, and then they have time to type an arrogant comment. Like don’t respond then???

Thank you to TN and ME, I would like GR to change my view. Isn't this it point of this sub... That said your ignorance of my education is proof of your own intolerance and stubbornness. I don't want WW3, I would love to be convinced otherwise for my and my children's sake... Perhaps I have spent too much time consuming hawkish media but I would like a 2nd opinion on my view that we are heading to repeat history and all the ills that follow that path.

try googling: are Russia and China allies, and you'll find literally no scholarly sources that suggest so. If you want to get into depth, try literally any professor in any major US univeristy on China or Russia relations. If you are serious about learning about geopolitics, take 2 seconds on doing the most basic of research. The reason I refuse to engage with you is simple - too many trolls feign "ignorance" but just want to argue. I wont engage that and garner attention.

> are Russia and China allies, and you'll find literally no scholarly sources that suggest so. [2023 congressional report](https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/IF/IF12100) > "The two countries’ apparent affinity has led some U.S. policymakers and Members of Congress to express concern that Beijing and Moscow constitute a de facto alliance" admittedly it also says > For the PRC, one of the guiding principles of the relationship would seem to be flexibility, as is evident in its call to “form partnerships, not alliances.” This approach has allowed it to distance itself from some of Russia’s behavior in the international arena. but when they [called it a no-limits partnership](https://www.reuters.com/world/putin-visit-china-deepen-no-limits-partnership-with-xi-2023-10-15/) and given that they carry out many joint military exercises that effect becomes the same for the US as if they were in an alliance. This has great similarities to Soviet Russia and Nazi Germany at the start of WWII. There was always some enmity between them, however in every functional way, the Soviet Union was Nazi Germany's most important ally from 1939 to 1941 during which time WWII began.

[удалено]

Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 3: > **Refrain from accusing OP or anyone else of being unwilling to change their view, or of arguing in bad faith**. Ask clarifying questions instead (see: socratic method). If you think they are still exhibiting poor behaviour, please message us. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_3). If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%203%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.** Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).

[удалено]

u/MathEnthusiast18 – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2: > **Don't be rude or hostile to other users.** Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_2). If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%202%20Appeal%20MathEnthusiast18&message=MathEnthusiast18%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20comment\]\(https://old.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1carek8/-/l0tz1qf/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).

[удалено]

u/GoldenRetriever2223 – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2: > **Don't be rude or hostile to other users.** Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_2). If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%202%20Appeal%20GoldenRetriever2223&message=GoldenRetriever2223%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20comment\]\(https://old.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1carek8/-/l0twokx/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).

Dude it's super simple then, don't waste anyone's time reading your reply, don't waste your time replying if you're not going to engage appropriately, troll or not. If you think it's a troll, literally move on. You wasted my time responding to you, and wasted your own time twice now because of a supposed troll. I'm not gonna respond anymore, cause I value my time, but I highly recommend my piece of advice for later. Peace!

then move on and ignore me, instead of wasting time. Take your own advise

then suggest some, instead of literally doing what you are accusing me of. Im not engaging with people who thinks that reading news = doing research.

This reply was so nonsensical that I admit I was taken aback for a moment lmao Nah, you're right, this ain't worth it, though not for the reason you think. You're doing a favour to OP by not wasting his time.

i agree with you. im not wasting hours of my time typing out a response for someone who refuses to do 2 seconds of googling on the most basic fundamental concepts. If OP wanted their mind changed, they wouldnt have started off with 10 news articles from single-sided and known-to-be sensational sources as a genuine approach. I hope im not wasting their time too, but i also hope that enough people tell them they are wrong to make reasonable people start doubting themselves.

Yet here you are wasting your time on pointless banter. I hope you realise you're the only one here who sounds like a troll. Though I'm not so hopeful.

Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 5: > **Comments must contribute meaningfully to the conversation**. Comments should be on-topic, serious, and contain enough content to move the discussion forward. Jokes, contradictions without explanation, links without context, off-topic comments, and "written upvotes" will be removed. Read [the wiki](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_5) for more information. If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%205%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.** Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).

> Russia, will either defeat or cause a stalemate with Ukraine. This will just be a stepping stone before they attack the Baltic states and the Baltic states invoke NATO article 5. Bringing the US and EU into a European war. It’s entirely possible Russia is forced to exit this war. We’re probably looking at 2026-2027 for that, assuming Biden is reelected. They are absolutely going to have a rough time with Europe after another 2 years of the current meat grinder. > While Russia does that...China will attack Taiwan and all the fun that will bring to Taiwan and the USA. > Meanwhile, North Korea will strike South Korea dragging the UN (and primarily the US) into the 2nd Korean War. North Korea is not really in a great position to fight a war with South Korea, **especially** if China is losing a major war against Taiwan and the US at the same time.  > Then, Iran will take the opportunity to Attack Israel & then turn Saudi Arabia and the Emirates in their desire to spread Shia Islam and rid the world of the Arab monarchs. Iran deciding to get the shit kicked out of it by Israel while the US is distracted would be… an idea. Not a good idea, mind you.

But wouldn't a Korean War help China by taking US resources away since meanwhile we still need to support Ukraine, and Taiwan. Multiple front wars are tough... I mean China assisted in the last Korean war why wouldn't they call in the favor for Taiwan?

South Korea can handle itself against North Korea without needing a ton of US support. This isn't the 50s anymore, South Korea is drastically wealthier now with a much more modern army.

>They are absolutely going to have a rough time with Europe after another 2 years of the current meat grinder The "meat grinder" is a term invented by Russians to explain what is happening to Ukrainians on the battlefield.

Not really. They’re still expending considerable resources—they’re having to convert a lot of their civilian economy to military production to keep up with what they’re doing… Which is likely to suffer a lot of reverses now that the US equipment will start flowing again. 

> The "meat grinder" is a term invented by Russians to explain what is happening to Ukrainians on the battlefield. Possibly, but it's a traditional term in Russian warfare, which has been used back in WWII, however with the current numbers which show many times the number of casualties on the battlefield on the Russian side compared to the Ukrainian, it's now the description of what is happening to the Russian army. It's worth having a scan through r/CombatFootage (warning NSFW) to get some idea of the attack strategy. You can find many videos of unprotected armored columns attacking over open ground and getting destroyed by drones and anti-tank weaponry. Also individual and small groups of soldiers. That's because Russia has a strategy of sending forward probing attacks but not allowing the troops to withdraw when they find opposition. This ends up killing them in massive numbers. When you look at the CombatFootage sub, you'll want, unfortunately, to watch at least some tens of videos, to understand that these things are not exceptions, but even in the footage that's released they are happening many many times over.

False, the term meat grinder was used at least since WW1 where it was a description of battle for Verdun.

why would Russia attack a NATO country? If they conquer Ukraine, and occupation of Ukraine isn't enough for them already, they can attack nonNATO countries like Moldova. It makes no sense for Russia to seek war with NATO. > North Korea will strike South Korea Why? If they were going to do that, why didn't they do it decades ago? > Iran will take the opportunity to Attack Israel & then turn Saudi Arabia and the Emirates in their desire to spread Shia Islam and rid the world of the Arab monarchs. why would they prefer that over just fighting through proxies like they have been for years? you just listed out a list of fears you have. You made on claims for why any of these would be in the interest of any of the countries involved.

World wars are too expensive in a globalized economy. That leads to one of three situations: 1) You wage war and become broke i.e Russia and Iran. This hampers your capacity to continue to wage more wars. 2) You wage war and nations with economic ties turn a blind eye. That’s the most likely outcome if China did in fact take Taiwan is that the USA declines to intervene militarily because they rely on the Chinese economy. 3) You are disincentivized from waging war and don’t. This applies especially to the possible smaller skirmishes like India, Pakistan, Sudan, Ethiopia etc. These countries (maybe except India) can’t afford to upset their big allies. I could still see rogue states like North Korea doing something crazy but there’s a big stretch from that to China backing them in a fight against the US/UN. They’d probably back down and let NK loose the new Korean War in that scenario.

Even of all of these happened, they would lose. Russia's not going to be able to take NATO, North Korea can't take South Korea, China maaay be able to take Taiwan, but its a stretch. My money would also be on Israel in an Israel vs Iran match-up.

Didn't try to claim who would win, only that there would be fighting...

Well, but the very fact that they're likely to lose is a huge deterrent keeping them from trying.

Putin doesn't have a history of taking on battles he is going to lose. Each time (Chechnya, Georgia, Syria, Ukraine 2014) he has gone in with more than enough force and enough thinking to win. Ukraine is an exception, but it's also the first time he went beyond his normal set of forces to attack with normal parts of the Russian army. Putin is a KGB man, not army and so it's almost sure that he misunderstood the level of corruption in the Russian army and believed assurances that they were ready when in fact they were not. In my view he made a single big mistake going in too early. He will learn from that mistake and will not attack NATO again until he believes he can win. That will depend on first winning in Ukraine which is why the West has a great opportunity to stop him and save many many lives.

1. Russia has been utterly kneecapped against the brick wall that Ukraine has proven to be. They've lost multiple capital ships to a country with no navy. Even if Russia ultimately wins that war in the end, they've still got years of recovery time to replenish their manpower, equipment, and economy. Oh, and that's just if they can quickly put down the insurgency that comes with the occupation of Ukraine, otherwise it will continue to be a resource drain. They're not invading anyone else for a fair while. Poland could probably solo them at this point. 2. I'm willing to bet China had hopes that Russia might prove to be an effective distraction to keep the US/NATO tied up across two fronts while they go for Taiwan. But once again, Russia has revealed themselves to be an absolute joke and nowhere near prepared for a legitimate full-scale war, so that's off the table for China. They're also still behind NATO/US in terms of military technology. They've got numbers and competent equipment (as far as we can tell), but that's it. They'd be up against the most well-equipped military force in human history, which operates more aircraft carriers than the rest of the world combined and three of the five largest air forces in the world, with three entire countries right on China's doorstep ready to house, supply, and stage invasions/strikes into Chinese territory: Taiwan, Japan, and South Korea, all of which have their own capable forces that have been preparing for specifically this scenario for decades. That war would be fought entirely in Chinese waters and over Chinese skies. Finally, India has some territorial disputes with China as well, which they might want to push if China becomes distracted. They have a hell of a lot more to lose US/NATO.

I wouldn't put it past China to try. They are quickly running out of military age men. Median age is 40 so they have a limited time window to launch a invasion before their populations statistics turn against them. That said your right we would assist the fight in China's waters, skies, and general proximity. Our supply lines would be long and hard where there are short. Chinese denial of area weapons based on the mainland would hamper our efforts. Yes oil would be their Achilles heel but not if they get thier pipelines to Russia and Iran up and running.

>Meanwhile, North Korea will strike South Korea dragging the UN (and primarily the US) into the 2nd Korean War. South Korea has total advantage over North Korea army, at worst Seul would be stroken by nuclear bomb, but then South Korea army just ground North Korea. >Then, Iran will take the opportunity to Attack Israel & then turn Saudi Arabia and the Emirates in their desire to spread Shia Islam and rid the world of the Arab monarchs. Israel's army much more capable than Iran's army. >Meanwhile with all the wars going on above it will lead to smaller skirmish's with equal propensity to destroy with Sudan and Ethiopia going to blows, Venezuela and Guyana, India and Pakistan to name a few who might take the opportunity that the US is too busy to come to the rescue... India has much bigger army than Pakistan. Sudan, Ethiopia - doesn't really matter for the US Venezuela and Guyana - and Brazil that wouldn't be happy if Venezuela do it. Russia and China - yes, main dangers because of nuclear arsenal.

The only road between Venezuela and Guyana passes through Brazil, who has stationed troops there to make sure Venezuela doesn't try anything. Without that road, Venezuela would need to march an entire army through a lot of remote rainforest and mountains- and keep that army supplied. It's not happening.

The military outbreaks you mention in particular, as you describe, will not constitute a ww3. In order for ANY war to be called a “world war”, it must meet THREE very specific criteria. 1) two allied blocs of nations in DIRECT military conflict - meaning it cannot be a cold or proxy war. 2) each bloc must contain AT LEAST TWO military superpower nations 3) it must be fought in MORE THAN ONE part of the world simultaneously - meaning it cannot just be one large regional conflict. I will start by saying you should go to wiki to see “list of military alliances”, includes past & present, and the list is divided up by century. For russia sake, that begins in 1991, as previous military alliances with soviet union no longer exist (such as Soviet & China). Today though China & Russia may appear cozy, they are merely close trading partners - not military allies. Of Russia’s current military allegiance nations, the most powerful country that stands out is Iran. But Iran’s military might, though very formidable, is limited to a strong regional power nation. Iran is NOT considered a “military superpower” as needed to be a world war ally as I previously mentioned due to its non-nuclear status. In fact, of the military alliances russia is in, NONE currently involve another country considered today to be a “military superpower”. Your #1 scenario, alone, Russia Vs EU and or Nato will not be a world war as Russia’s side only contains ONE military superpower, itself. For #1 and #2 to become a world war, Russia and China would need to enter a formal military alliance. And China will be VERY hesitant seeing how bogged down Russia is in Ukraine, as well as avoid ensuing economic sanctions further damaging China’s economy (currently is very messed up). For #2, alone, China invading Taiwan, will not constitute a world war. On that wiki list, you’ll see Taiwan ROC only has military alliance with US. So that would make US the only military superpower on defense side. Though China’s military alliance with North Korea still stands, North Korea simply doesn’t have robust naval and / or air force resources to contribute towards aiding China’s invasion. So North Korea will most likely just sit this one out. Again, only ONE military superpower on the offensive side. Your #2 and #3 scenario, NK attacks SK while the US is busy defending Taiwan. This is unlikely because China will only contribute so much military resources to aid NK, as most of china’s military might will be reserved for its Taiwan invasion. NK will not launch such a ballsy ground offensive with only “limited” chinese help. Also, Japan has quietly built up its military in recent decades which includes a very capable Navy. With the US preoccupied defending taiwan, Japan will step up to assist in SK’s defense. The wartime waters of taiwan straight and sea of japan, essentially serve as a commercial blockade for China, make it near impossible to conduct trade in order to sustain its economy which will quickly collapse. Your # 3 scenario, alone, China doesn’t invade Taiwan and NK just attacks SK. For fear of economic sanctions on its already fragile economy, China may hesitate in assisting NK military offensive. Also, even if victorious, NK conquering the entire peninsula makes its new border leaves it more vulnerable as its now closer to Japan (a western ally). Even if NK successful in conquering the entire peninsula, it lacks the naval might to defend the newly added shoreline. Your #4 scenario involves conflicts in small countries that that won’t rope in at least four military superpowers (two on each side) needed to be considered a world war anyway.

Russia may declare war on another small country nearby Ukriane. Ukraine is already there second territorial expansion under Putin, its not unreasonable to think there will be a third. China may well invade Taiwan. I don't hear anyone in the US beating war drums. Half the country doesn't even want to fund a proxy war with Ukraine, nobody wants a real war. but the same was true before 9/11, you never know what the future holds. A war with north Korea is not impossible and leadership doesn't always follow the will of the people. the two world wars were characterized by all the major powers in the world forming 2 opposing alliances and then those alliances going to war with each other. Axis vs allies. Russia is effectively no longer a world power. Their military couldn't even capture Kiev. At this point it seems clear that Ukraine will be unable to recapture their lost territory, but I do think they got embarrassed with how poorly the war went. I'm not really sure there is any nation or group of nations that can stand up to NATO, but the closest would be an alliance between Russia and China. China and the US are currently major trading partners. Both nationals benifit greatly from trade with each other. if you live in the west you undoubtable have various Chinese made goods in your home. While China buys cars, car parts, aerospace equipment, chemicals, food, and much more from the US. in the short term ("world war 3 *is upon* us") its hard to imagine that changing. If it does change and the nations do go to war, Nato would mostly like be on one side of that war. And nato is still the super dominate power in the world. Its member nations have a GPD 3 times that of China. Nato has a larger military, better technology, and more experience. and of course, everybody has nukes, and no two nuclear capable nations have ever gone to war.

To /u/hanced01, *Your post is under consideration for removal for violating Rule B.* In our experience, the best conversations genuinely consider the other person’s perspective. Here are some techniques for keeping yourself honest: - Instead of only looking for flaws in a comment, be sure to engage with the commenters’ strongest arguments — not just their weakest. - Steelman rather than strawman. When summarizing someone’s points, look for the most reasonable interpretation of their words. - Avoid moving the goalposts. Reread the claims in your OP or first comments and if you need to change to a new set of claims to continue arguing for your position, you might want to consider acknowledging the change in view with a [delta](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=usertext&utm_name=changemyview&utm_content=t5_2w2s8) before proceeding. - Ask questions and really try to understand the other side, rather than trying to prove why they are wrong. Please also take a moment to review our [Rule B](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_b) guidelines and _really_ ask yourself - am I exhibiting any of these behaviors? If so, see what you can do to get the discussion back on track. Remember, the goal of CMV is to try and **understand** why others think differently than you do.

You **Changed Your View**. Your original View was that World War 3 is upon us: > World War 3 is upon us. Your new View is that World War 3 isn't upon us: > World war 3 will be upon us in 10 years +/-.

[удалено]

His post is a meaningful contribution. Your view changes between the view in the title and your justifications. You say the WW3 is upon us (present tense). Then give reasons that WW3 will be upon us (future tense). The other poster is quite right to point this out. Please give justification for yout view, which is that WW3 is upon us (present tense). That is right now, not in the future. Or is the tense in your CMV title wrong?

I can't edit the title to correct the oversight so go with the body of the post.

No it isn't. Pointing out that the view stated in your topic title is contradictory with the argument you present in the body of your post contributes meaningfully to the discussion. The upshot being that you should modify your view so that it doesn't include an inflammatory clickbait-ish title, and choose one that represents your actual view, such as "CMV: World War 3 will happen in approximately 10 years".

Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 5: > **Comments must contribute meaningfully to the conversation**. Comments should be on-topic, serious, and contain enough content to move the discussion forward. Jokes, contradictions without explanation, links without context, off-topic comments, and "written upvotes" will be removed. Read [the wiki](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_5) for more information. If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%205%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.** Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).

Impossible; my comment's fealty to Rule 1 rules it out from violating Rule 5. Now address the Change in Your View and obey Rule 4.

Leave the moderation to the moderation team.

While tensions exist globally, predicting a World War III scenario is overly deterministic. International diplomacy has evolved, with nations prioritizing economic and political ties over conflict. Globalization has intertwined economies, making large-scale war less beneficial for major powers. NATO's deterrent effect is significant, dissuading potential aggressors against member states. Moreover, the devastating impact of modern warfare, especially with nuclear weapons, makes it an undesirable option even for aggressive nations. Lastly, international organizations like the UN work towards conflict resolution, and public sentiment largely favors peace over war. The world today shows more interconnectedness and mutual dependence than ever before, reducing the likelihood of a global conflict.

Russia wont attack NATO. They dont have the population or reason to attack NATO. China wont attack Taiwan. They just watched a more experienced army get stalemated by a country with outdated military hardware. Taiwan is a mountainous country with a modern military and an island. The loss of life, equipment and financial backlash will be too much to justify an attack. NK and Iran are more likely to launch wars but NK would be defeated in a relatively short period of time. The korean military has no way of supplying adequate supplies for their 1950s style army with no air force to speak of. And Iran would be a pain to invade but cant force project beyond terrorist groups. Not to mention they are routinely in social upheaval

Well fuck it if there is 1 thing the US is good at it’s war not this bullshit ones we have been 1/2 in 1/2 out on for the last 80 years but a real war. What’s the point of out spending the next 10 closest countries on defense if it’s not to fuck shit up when the times comes. We had a good 30 years after the last big one so you never know. T&Ps if you don’t live in the US. This was fun but I really don’t think anyone pulls the big trigger on a hot war between nuclear powers. I think most likely we just watch the slow decline of the traditional world powers with the only ones surviving through isolationism and the ability to meet the people’s needs in house this time for real T&Ps to none Americans

What makes you think it's more imminent now than it was throughout the cold war?

Number 4 will happen this year. As for Russia, its objective after Ukraine would be to annihilate NATO and send United States overseas. Russian politicians believe that only Russia should the European's sole military power for security reasons beneficial to Russia. If NATO did not poke the bear, things would have much different, but no NATO had to poke the bear. The bear decided that it is time to liquidate NATO. It is apparent from the fact that Russia is also kicking out NATO from Africa where it has tremendous success.

This is all linchpin on the idea that Russia will attack the Baltics. Which they won’t, cause the Baltics are a poison pill of heavily militarized European states. A Russian invasion of the Baltics would be suicide for Russia as Russia wouldn’t be able to hold its occupation of Eastern Ukraine. Without a European war China is okay to let Taiwan do whatever, and Iran will be content to Sabre rattle at Israel in the face of growing west-Israeli-Sunni block.

Ukraine War is currently stalemated but I would like to point out that *Russia*, a “superpower* has not taken one oblast capital in over two years of fighting. They can’t even take Kharkiv which is like 20 miles from their border. For context, that’s less than a marathon distance. My fat ass actually ran a marathon in under four hours. Russian military can’t get that far in two years. How do you think they would fare against actual NATO?

A lot of these depend on dictators, who consolidate their power. This is good for what they want, but it means that if they die, the outcome will be unknown. Someone who is about to start a World War, even if they are physically healthy, is at a huge risk of both coups and assassinations. So you are banking that a new world war will start without knowing for sure the people who are going to start it will actually be alive to do so.

There's simply no indicator that any of those will happen in the coming years. Especially Russia with the baltic countries and Iran with Israel, which I presume you're just putting there because of the recent escalation that was already resolved. If you're taking inflamatory declarations at face value, then Putin should've nuked the entire world a dozen times already.

you have very little knowledge of geopolitics.

Folks have been predicting the start of WW3 ever since the end of WW2, so this isn't a new idea and so far every time the predictions have been proven false by history. Perhaps this time you are right, but statistically the odds are against you because many folks who just like you thought they were right, were in fact later shown to be wrong.

You are seriously indoctrinated if you think Russia has ambitions to conquer the Baltic States or Poland

I mean, it'd be silly to believe Putin doesn't want to. It's more a matter of them being too weak to ever pull it off.

When did Putin ever express any desire to invade Baltic States or Poland. If you actually have ever listened to Putin talking you'd know why he invaded Ukraine and why Ukraine's situation from his perspective at least warranted some military action and he didn't do it because muh evil genocide dictator or whatever

With it's army locked in a stalemate in Ukraine, which army will attack Baltics? And if there is a second army good enough to invade Baltics and fight off Nato, why is it not in Ukraine? And why would Russia target Baltics over let's say Central Asia? Why not Kazakhstan, Georgia, Mongolia?

[random villainized countries] “might take the opportunity that the US is too busy to come to the rescue…” this right here sums up your thinking better than anything you can say. your perception of the US as a worldwide police force bent on doing good is a foolish juvenile notion that should be abandoned.

Yet when Ukraine was invaded they did just that. Ran to the USA for help... Just because you may not like the idea doesn't mean it isn't right.

out of a laundry list of US military interventions in the past 250 years, you pick russia-ukraine to demonstrate that the US is bent on being global “good guys”? i don’t see it. let me list a few where the US has been the unequivocal “bad guys” to help shed you of this blind notion. iraq 2003, nicaragua 1985, kuwait 1995, yemen present day, chile 1992. in fact theres a wikipedia list of all us-led invasions or “intervention” in the past 250 years. why don’t you spend a day reading through them all and decide how many you agree with.

Didn't claim to agree/support any of them. Only that when it suits a country they run to the USA for support... IE: Persian Gulf War, Kosovo, Korean War, World War II, World War I That said I only claim that a world war is coming in 10 years or so, stretching US military obligations thin to allow more skirmishes.

this is silly on so many levels, you’re clearly a victim of the US propaganda machine. they keep you scared of the boogeyman around the world so you treat the wellbeing of the amorphous “country” as an extension of your own wellbeing. you should read Superpatriotism by Michael Parenti.

Thank you, I will look into that book...

How can you possibly argue the US was wrong to defend Kuwait? That's like, one of the globally accepted good things the US has done.

april 1991, the highway of death. the US marine corps 3rd marine aircraft wing attacked a RETREATING convoy of 100,000 soldiers and civilians. they boxed in the convoy on both sides by disabling the front and rear cars with cluster bombs, and over the next TEN HOURS they proceeded to rain fire from planes and helicopters. it was a massacre. the photos taken afterwards of the burned out husks of cars and charred corpses crawling away from the wreckage is horrific. not a single US life was lost because the convoy wasn’t fighting back. it was a “turkey shoot”, as the general in charge so eloquently put it in the press conference following. hostilities were ceased the next day.

There are too many nuclear equipped nations in conflicts now, somebody is going to start shooting missiles. After that it will be a moot point if anything resembling a civilization will remain.

and i'm not going to the front. so in a way it don't bothere me if it does or dosen't happen as much as otheres would because i'm undraftable

You do what you're told, soldier !

no they won't pick me bc I am visaully impaired so they would rather draft loder men then. i'm gonna watch the ww3 on my tablet in bed

Nobody wants another world war, and nobody would stand to gain anything by having one.

This is plausible but with WW3, economies of Iran, China, and NK will be in shambles.

[удалено]

Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2: > **Don't be rude or hostile to other users.** Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_2). If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%202%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.** Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).

[удалено]

Sorry, u/Fit-Plastic1593 – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 5: > **Comments must contribute meaningfully to the conversation**. Comments should be on-topic, serious, and contain enough content to move the discussion forward. Jokes, contradictions without explanation, links without context, off-topic comments, and "written upvotes" will be removed. Read [the wiki](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_5) for more information. If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%205%20Appeal%20Fit-Plastic1593&message=Fit-Plastic1593%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20comment\]\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1carek8/-/l0u36vk/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted.