I would assume that if there were more diverse military alliances and less transcontinental ones (looking at you, NATO, can't be responsible if your brain is on safe on another continent), we wouldn't have as much soil polluted by depleted uranium.
Practically all 21 century conflicts were initially local and would have vented out fast, but there is always some superpower that comes along and starts pushing it's interests, pumping one party with advanced arms and turning every conflict into a clusterfuck blood bath, just cuz it's not their electorate who's dying, so there is no interest in solving it fast.
Oh please, get off your high horse and stop acting as a superior if all you have is vague accusations of your interlocutor being not as smart as you are.
It is hardly correct to compare post-WWII modern conflicts with early 20 century conflicts, much less with the stuff before that.
The world is different, communication is different, the economy is different - just look at the comments here: ordinary people from all conflicting countries discuss economic repercussions of their countries being at each-others throats.
I wouldn't believe that it has no tangible effect. IMO, people seem really tired of all this shit and most would rather just finish it and be done with it.
Unfortunately, since it is a dick swinging contest between superpowers, the whole tension doesn't vent out as it should, but instead it gets unnaturally prolonged.
And I am not even touching the subject of that this conflict would have never even been a thing if a certain superpower wasn't so hard on expanding it's sphere of influence on a foreign continent, right at the border of another historically competing superpower.
That wasn't really my point, lol. Like, that wasn't my point AT ALL, did you even read my replies or were you too busy narcissising yourself?
You can live in an imaginary world of ponies and rainbows where wars don't happen at all cuz you really-really-really want them not to happen.
Unfortunately in real life they DO happen. And when they do, they turn into a complete shitstorm as soon as something like NATO gets involved.
And thus my point is that you are a cruel monster if you think that the logic of "Oooh, let's give them some weapons" results in anything but a bloody fun show for wealthy white people.
And perhaps this is the root of the misunderstanding. You're assuming that Russia somehow "has the right" to invade. That's what many Americans believe about their country, but there's a crucial difference: US is a world power, Russia isn't. Thus it's not possible to "punish" US, but it doesn't mean we shouldn't try with other countries. Especially given that now we know what happens if we fail to do that - it was the western leniency towards Russian invasion on Crimea in 2014 that provoked Putin to do it again.
Yes, and? If your point is that we should exclude all the cause-effect from our thought process, then sorry, but no.
> You're blaming the victim
NATO isn't the victim. And all it does is making the power struggle between politicians more fiery.
> US is a world power, Russia isn't. Thus it's not possible to "punish" US, but it doesn't mean we shouldn't try with other countries.
I don't really see the logical implication here. The history of the 20th century shows it's very much possible. It's just that people would rather suck up to someone powerful.