Many will say that World War Three cannot happen, that nuclear weapons will prevent it. However, this assumes that World War Three has to be global thermonuclear war, rather than some repeat of the previous world wars.
Cities don’t have to be leveled for nations to fight a world war. The US fought two world wars, and we never had our cities and infrastructure decimated. What I can imagine is a future world war where all the major players fight the war in the same way the US fought the two previous wars. Both sides contribute massive resources, adopt wartime economies, throw their whole populations behind the effort etc, but at no point do the various combatants directly attack the main territory and population centers of the other side. You could have a conflict where both sides lost millions of troops fighting it out in some third party territory, but the nukes never fly as all sides realize that invading the home territory of the others is suicide.
The war in Ukraine in absolutely not a proxy war.
Also, that description is neither of proxy war since the whole point of them is to not engage your own troops.
How so? The US is supporting Ukraine in the same fashion as the rest of Europe and other parts of the world. They are hardly engaged in a proxy war against Russia?
I believe a big difference is also that the US offered evacuation in the beginning of the war, but lent help instead when it became clear that the Ukranians wanted to defend themselves
After the United States and its allies refused over and over to negotiate on existential security concerns, like the expansion of NATO membership to countries on Russia’s border and the deployment of advanced missile systems to Eastern Europe, Russia launched the invasion of Ukraine on Feb. 24, 2022.
The basic logic was that the longer the war drags on, the greater the human and economic cost to Russia, and therefore the more likely it is that the United States will achieve its long-standing goal of overthrowing the Russian government — or at least severely diminishing its power. “We want to see Russia weakened,” Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin openly stated in April after a visit to Kiev.
U.S./NATO escalation came not only in the form of ever-increasing amounts of aid, it also involved more and more powerful types of weaponry as the fighting went on. As Russia’s opening offensive of the war stalled, instead of taking the opportunity to negotiate peace, U.S. officials pressed Ukraine to launch major counter-offensives.
When it came to the delivery of tanks, even Washington’s NATO allies were reluctant. […] Immediately following their success with tank deliveries, the most hardline elements in the West began to push to go even further and send fighter jets. This is not the behavior of people who have even the slightest interest in a peaceful resolution.
The war appears to have, at least for now, settled into a grinding stalemate […] If the war continuing means that there is a chance that they could achieve one of their two central goals by weakening or overthrowing the Russian government, then the number of lives lost and upended are of no consequence whatsoever to the Pentagon warmakers.
And Russia claims to have been open to a negotiated settlement since before fighting even commenced. In a major national address on Tuesday, Vladimir Putin stated, “in December 2021, we officially submitted draft agreements on security guarantees to the USA and NATO.
Many will say that World War Three cannot happen, that nuclear weapons will prevent it. However, this assumes that World War Three has to be global thermonuclear war, rather than some repeat of the previous world wars.
Cities don’t have to be leveled for nations to fight a world war. The US fought two world wars, and we never had our cities and infrastructure decimated. What I can imagine is a future world war where all the major players fight the war in the same way the US fought the two previous wars. Both sides contribute massive resources, adopt wartime economies, throw their whole populations behind the effort etc, but at no point do the various combatants directly attack the main territory and population centers of the other side. You could have a conflict where both sides lost millions of troops fighting it out in some third party territory, but the nukes never fly as all sides realize that invading the home territory of the others is suicide.
Proxy wars. You just described proxy wars. Ukraine is one of them.
The war in Ukraine in absolutely not a proxy war. Also, that description is neither of proxy war since the whole point of them is to not engage your own troops.
Fair enough on the description part but Ukraine is absolutely a proxy war on the US end of it.
How so? The US is supporting Ukraine in the same fashion as the rest of Europe and other parts of the world. They are hardly engaged in a proxy war against Russia?
I believe a big difference is also that the US offered evacuation in the beginning of the war, but lent help instead when it became clear that the Ukranians wanted to defend themselves
Sounds like one to me
A more recent article from this outlet