Based on how little progress Russia is making and how little backing they have, with nuclear weapons out of the way I can't see Russia making any progress against the EU, let alone if you include Britain and the US.
Meanwhile China will be looking at the US and weighing up Taiwan. North Korea will be weighing up South Korea. There have been some very unhappy editorials in Pakistan after the recent misfire from India.
It's possible we're at the start of ww3 now. When do US schools say WW2 started? 1937? 38? 39? 41?
no mention of the financial support of specific sides for years before either date
In my experience they cover rise of national socialist germany, like stuff in 1932 like reichstag fire, night of broken glass
Very piecemeal and as a chronology after WW1 but not sure what level of detail is really relevant
The main parallel i could see is that the russia military advances on ukraine wouldnt be a US start date of the conflict and that it wont be over in months but maybe we’ll get an official start date in 3-5 years
The other parallel is that I always noticed it was a choice to protect nations you promised to protect, britain could have just … not backed poland, and a preemptive attack on the british to slow British retaliation maybe wouldn’t have occurred or could have been talked out of. Two months ago that would have been seen as “edgy”, but yeah nobody wants to actually back ukraine so looks like people were thinking it for some time.
"Based on how little progress Russia is making..."
I see this narative everywhere, but I wouldn't call it "little progress" when the land occupied in a mere month is the size of the UK.
It took NATO 78 days of intense bombing of a much weaker and smaller Serbia to make any kind of progress. They even avoided the ground offensive. Imagine the disaster if the US went in with the ground forces.
The US first spent months clearing out Iraq, then it spent years trying to hold it by a thread. Still we don't have the right number of casualties from that war.
Russia could have just carpet bombed the entire Ukraine like it did with Mariupul recently. Why it didn't do it, we can only guess.
>Russia could have just carpet bombed the entire Ukraine like it did with Mariupul recently. Why it didn't do it, we can only guess.
Russia wasn't looking for territory but to annex a population and possibly create a puppet state justified with the idea of ethnic strife between ukranian-speaking and russian-speaking peoples and "saving" the historically aligned russian population. I.e. to keep hearts and minds of a population on their side. You can't do that if you carpet bomb cities and a lot of the positive Russian sentiment in Ukraine is obviously gone with how the war has progressed.
Russia is now a bit stuck because Putin's power is largely based on image and support of older generations which remember a strong Soviet Union, just a reset to before this happened would be a serious blow to him and possibly the stability of Russia so they're ramping up the aggression and still not finding the easy success they expected.
Is unclear how this will end still. A Russian army full of young and demotivated people keeping control over the biggest nuclear plants is a -huge- problem.
Small wars are better than big ones. NATO getting dragged into a big war wouldn't be better so the "at the expense" bit is doubtful, these things would still happen but be orders of magnitude worse.
Actually, it wasn't a coup. The President of Ukraine fled in 2014 because of a few protesters. It was essentially an abdication.
Russia invading Ukraine to attack its capital and try to install a puppet government - now that's a coup. Although in this case, it'll be an attempted coup, because unlike Yanukovych, Zelensky cares about his country.
What do you mean? The US had practically nothing to do with that. The Ukrainian people wanted a regime change. That there might've been some contact really doesn't mean it's all the making of US in spite of Ukrainians. And they wanted a regime change much earlier than 2014 btw, they just were silenced (fairly brutally).
Nobody is arguing against nuclear power but that it's shortsighted that a uniquely seismologically active and volatile region would be the champions for it, especially in a country that takes extreme measures to safety (largely result of frequent earthquakes).
IMO it's either able to be made safe or it's not. If achieving safety requires the precondition that unsafe situations never occur then it's the solution that's shortsighted not the location it was implemented.
Really bizarre why you would continue to push this narrative, Japan isn't out to develop nuclear warheads. It certainly possess the capacity to do so if it desired and is considered a "nuclear threshold state" similar to Canada.
The odds of Taiwan and South Korea going nuclear is far more likely as something like 3/4 of SK citizens support having nuclear weapons.
Stop spreading FUD over it.