There's a reason the last official declaration of war by the us was ww2- and why the great powers never make hard and fast alliances with smaller states, or aid them too openly. And the reason is to avoid world war 3. Relations between countries are always in a big muddy middle ground between peace and war because they have to be.

> the great powers never make hard and fast alliances with smaller states, or aid them too openly.

Really? US-Israel? US-Saudi? Russia-Syria? All examples of basically untouchable alliances with smaller states and blatant, public military aid. If I were better educated/informed I'm sure I could come up with more.

That's absolutely nothing in comparison the Bismarkian international political structure that led to the first world war.

Did you watch 38 days? Great dramatization that brought that to life for me.

None of those are hard and fast alliances. None of them actually oblige the US to do anything in response to an attack on any of them.

Not to mention that the US is fond of breaking treaties left and right, though with the current administration it would surprise me if they didn't jump at the chance to attack anyone anywhere for the least provocation.

NATO does oblige all members to come to the defence of another member in response to an attack.

This is a good point, and I have an idea I want to toss out here- maybe what's really dangerous is to have a mutual defense treaty between a lot of states but still allow them to have separate diplomatic relationships.. so that a snafu involving one member state can blow up and involve a bunch of countries who didn't need to be involved. If there was a central agency speaking for all those states then there would be fewer ways for a disagreement to occur. So what I'm saying is that 20 small countries will a mutual defense treaty are much more likely to be involved in a war than one big country over the same area. I don't know if that's true or not- you'd have to do the number crunching to find out..

I truly believe the reason we have not had WW3 is because of nukes. It is one small frignge benefit.

It's the reason we have not yet had WW3. The jury is out on whether that is a good thing. Perhaps we'll find one day that several smaller conflicts (as horrifying as a WW without nukes would be) would have been preferable to one larger civilization-ending one.

Several smaller conflicts ... yep, sounds like the last 70 years of history since WWII. In a sense, we're in the middle of finding out. I agree the jury's out, but it's probably preferable to WWIII, or even a limited nuclear exchange.

perhaps we live in a multiverse, and only the surviver you-s still exist because their universes have still avoided WWIII... ;-)

The desire for positive relations with Russia is one of the reasons that Trump was elected. I'm not sure I'd characterize our government's behavior as "teasing Russia". The media is a different story.

Your low opinion of Russia is showing.

It's the opposite: they have shown an incredible amount of restraint in the face of overwhelming opposition and crippling sanctions from Europe and USA.

Didn't Russia annex Crimea? How are the sanctions not Russia's fault??

What? Well, they sure have earned those sanctions haven't they? Aggressive expansionism and annexation of foreign territories, tampering with elections in the USA, not to mention atrocious domestic policies in an effective dictatorship. They have earned those sanctions and more, indeed I think we will find in the future that dealing so softly with Russia was a mistake.

Have you seen the movie this topic is about? If not I highly encourage you to watch it. Blind nationalist attitudes like yours are what will cause the disaster it depicts.

Blind nationalist attitudes like those in the Crimea, Eastern Ukraine, and Moscow?

The classic KGB tactic "accuse the enemy of exactly what you are doing" is all too transparent here.

Blind nationalism? Is anything I said not true?

Well, nobody wants to die in a Nuclear War.

It might surprise, and horrify you to know that a large number of high-ranking US staff think that nuclear war is winnable [1]. It makes my blood boil.

[1] http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/is-nuclear-w...

> a large number of high-ranking US staff think that nuclear war is winnable

The article [1] cites two retired generals as its examples of "senior military officers" who "might be eager to get things started in the belief that a war with Russia could actually be winnable".

[1] http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/is-nuclear-w...

The article mentions only a few. However, how many people did you think it took to sign off on building an ICBM 'shield' in Eastern Europe.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_missile_defense_...

The official story, of course, is that it is intended to protect against Iran. From my limited understanding of geography, Poland does not lie between Iran and the United States.

Only the most patriotic Americans believe that lie. Is anybody in Poland worried about Iran launching missiles their way?

I don't think so!

do your smoldering bones care about whoever wins ?

Most people don't even realize that just about the same conditions led Japan to attack during WWII. There comes a time when you keep pushing a guy, and he says, enough! No mas!

Japan invaded China in 1931, Thailand in 1941 and had attacked Hong Kong, Singapore and Malaysia. It was kind of on a roll attacking stuff before it hit the US in a way that is rather different from modern Russia.

Indeed. For example, when you push into the Ukraine and annex Crimea via military occupation.

Actually because of the restraint Russia has been showing in the last few years, I hold their leadership in very high regard.

Russia was the first country in Europe to invade and annex a part of a neighboring country since, what, WW2? If that's restraint, I hesitate to ask what the lack of it would look like.

Turkey, Cyprus.

Turkey didn't annex Northern Cyprus. Nor did Albania annex Kosovo, nor Russia itself annexed South Ossetia, Abkhazia and Transnistria before.

It's the combination of invasion and annexation - effectively, waging war for a formally acknowledged territorial gain - that makes the situation in Crimea unique post WW2.

Well, technically it was Greece that tried the annexation and Turkey does maintain a large military on Cyprus.

But you're right, the Crimea is both in scale, scope and ambition on a different level.

Which restraint would that be?