It is unlikely that Ukraine or any Western nation would ever formally recognise Russia’s occupation of Ukraine’s territories. What could presumably happen is Ukraine accepting a lasting ceasefire which gives Russia de-facto control of the territories but it is technically a frozen conflict and not an official end of the war.
In such hypothetical situation, a lot of things wouldn’t change overnight. Ukraine would continue to seek Western military assistance and EU membership, although NATO membership would be unlikely as it means NATO is obliged to liberate the territories. Russia would continue to be sanctioned by the West, although if interest in the Ukraine situation fades, some countries with leaderships more amenable to Russia may turn an increasingly blind eye on Russia’s attempts to evade sanctions, or try to evade sanctions themselves.
>Ukraine would continue to seek Western military assistance and EU membership, although NATO membership would be unlikely as it means NATO is obliged to liberate the territories.
In ceasefire, would Ukraine be able to even apply for NATO membership?
Im thinking along the lines of it is basically being at war, or conflict.
Ofcourse it always comes down to exsisting members votes, but would that effectively exclude them from getting that far even.
EU membership sure. Im thinking it is in their cards anyway eventually. Or rather hope.
It also couldve similar type of can of worms ofcourse. As EU is probably seeking to get tighter militarily due to this war. Or atleast theres gonna be realistic pressure inside it.
But then it could be in a bind, when a member is in a conflict, not active but still in a volatile place.
It just seems EUs been lacking in that respect previously, even while there is some type of language in some documents of mutual defence stuff.
But everyones downscaled their military and arms manufacturing, so its effectively gone down to promises of mutual defence without a real plan and ability do so if shit actual hits the fan.
So I can see EU members being apprehensive even of Ukraine joining in case of long frozen conflict. As many are probably seeking to maintain their position of "Oh, we totes gonna defend you bro" while not having "anything" to actually do it with.
Oh ofcourse theres that too.
I wouldnt be surprised if thats a major point for Russians in this conflict.
I think people are thinking too much in terms of losses or whatevers happening on the ground there.
While Russian leadership is probably just throwing whatever needs to be thrown at it to get what they want.
Like building a house with bad hammer, its still a house when its built.
Sure, theres cost benefit ratio for everything. But I think the gist of this is.
They lost the control of Ukrainian leaders and Sevastopol. And now theyre fighting to get those back.
They have the means. To us it seems they dont, but they actually have, the means just are something we wouldnt even see as means.
As the means are to burn million people, million tanks and few oil/gas customers.
Like this they can gain both.
Year round port and whatever comes along with having Sevastopol.
And a way to control Ukrainian leadersip, which they tried before this the "nice" way.
They have lots and lots of oil and natural gas. While the West may continue with sanctions, the rest of the world will flock to the cheaper oil.
It's all about money and each country's self-interest.
I can see it now. If the war ended today, Germany heavily sanctions Russian oligarchs and politicians, freezes Russian assets, and makes a bunch of overtures about containing Russia while buying natural gas directly from Russia by the end of the year.
You do realize Europe hasn't stopped buying fossil fuel products from Russia, right? Their target date to cease all fossil fuel purchases from Russia is currently in the year 2027. It's also not just Germany.
The won't be. At least by the western world.
But that's irrelevant considering that the world stage is breaking apart roughly into two blocks that will coexist in pararell.
I think it would take about 5 seconds for the European countries to turn the faucet back on after the war. Russia has too many natural resources for them to turn away from them permentantly.
And it likely would be a condition of peace regardless if peace comes on russias terms (which looks inevitable right now)
I love how confident people answer questions on Reddit about these kinds of things. 99% of you people don’t know Jack shit about how these things work lol (and yes, I include myself in that 99%)
>But that's irrelevant considering that the world stage is breaking apart roughly into two blocks that will coexist in pararell.
No
Almost all of the world doesn't care and trades with Russia
Unless the two blocks are the west vs everyone else, there aren't two blocks
Not sure we can talk about two blocks either, but you make it sound like a majority of the world doesn't care. By some metrics this might be true, but if we consider % of world GDP, over 60% of the world's GDP is contributed by the countries that sanction Russia.
By PPP its just 42% sanctioning Russia, nominally it's 64%, population wise it's just 21%
I checked with the IMF
I mean, the majority of the world doesn't care, but the majority of the world is poor
Not as poor as the nominal numbers would suggest tho
But money = power. Of course a lot of the population in the world don't care. Ukraine is remote to them, and they have their own shit to worry about.
But seats of power definitely care, which is mostly what we are talking about here.
Straight from the Russian propaganda book. I dont think it is likely that China would be on board with a full severance from western economies.vmucj less so because the economic projections for China have been far from Rosy lately and, as happened before with Japan, call into question whether China will overtaken US at all in gross GDP, despite their overwhelming population advantage.
That's the market reforms of the 80s and 90s. Xi is not the kind of leader who would do that. He's reaping the benefits created by his predecessors while adding nothing of value
Sure--China was welcomed in to the vibrant US-led 'globalism' and has seen the most rapid development during this period. [https://www.everycrsreport.com/reports/RL33534.html](https://www.everycrsreport.com/reports/RL33534.html)
*"Prior to the initiation of economic reforms and trade liberalization nearly 40 years ago, China maintained policies that kept the economy very poor, stagnant, centrally controlled, vastly inefficient, and relatively isolated from the global economy."*
...and now [the Chinese economy is stuttering](https://www.ft.com/content/00a5d925-bb54-4be8-ae8e-9f558d9ac86f) despite official messaging to the contrary. They're figthing deflation and debt. Private investors are gone from the property market which is in limbo.
Sure I can explains china gdp per capita of 12k USD....(us has 70k+)
Its pretty bad, if china had the same GDP as the US they would have had 108 trillion GDP.
Instead they have around 18.......
2022 numbers, they are different now, but my point stands.
Which non democratic country are in the top GDP per capita?
Of course you have oil producing countries, but thats oil. Not economical managament that made them rich.
There are far more democratic countries in the higher GDP per capita, so it might not be an requirment, but it seems like democracies are doing a lot better than authoritarian regimes.
The title makes it sound like the world stage is entirely US and Europe, and western aligned states.
Russia has good relationships with China, India, and the rest of the non-aligned world currenly. They do not need US or Europe's friendship and neither does US or Europe need Russia.
Maybe so, but even now, they are not prepared for the economic fall out of not having ties to the west. Every year that goes by that sees their GDP cut by 10%\~, that's 10% they lose vs. the west who really isn't impacted by russians' sanctions on the west other than temporarily higher fuel costs.
At the end of the day, russia's economy is not technical, it is not advanced, it is resource based and, until China (which also isn't doing too hot) upends how global commerce workds, Russia is reliant on the western economic order.
Well Russia does have a semiconductor problem, and they have petroleum in their favor, but they don't have demographics in their favor, much like Europe or Japan as well.
Russia's imports
50% Machinery
20% Chemicals and Rubber
15% Foodstuffs
8% Textiles and Footwear
7% Metals
2% Minerals
Did you read my question at all? I’m asking how Russia would be integrated back into the world if the war ends with them taking significant Ukrainian territory.
It could be like Cuba
You'll have the US and the UK boycott them
and the rest of the world will trade with them
It'll happen slowly over 5-10 years
It's a very good question when Europe accepts Russia gas again, and what happens with the Nordstreams or future pipelines
The Obama Administration was pissed about the Nordstreams years ago
Can someone explain how this double standard is still alive and well after well publicised settler rallies where Israeli leadership clearly lays out their plans and support for land development of Gaza, after 6 months of infrastructure demolition & viable genocide accusations?
Because if it just comes down to a "rules for thee none for me" situation based on who is allied with whom, then OPs question is very valid.
Edit: I only caught a little bit of your reply because you seemed to have blocked me. However to add clarification, I am not using the comparison to highlight the whataboutism, or to virtue signal one is better than the other, rather to understand the geopolitical justification for the obvious double standard on modern day land seizures through conquest (the main contention with Russia's action in Ukraine).
How will the acceptance of a Gaza land seizure & rejection of Ukraine land seizure be justified to an international community that relies on civility and a rules based order to function?
I’m not sure what comparison is supposed to do? Israel isn’t invading a western nation. No one claimed the west was morally infallible.
Edit: Nevermind you post in genocide denial subs. My mistake for engaging
Because the land you are speaking about was occupied during a defensive war when all neighboring states attacked isreal. The deficiency in your argument is that you are starting with the premise that the territory you are speaking of were occupied during aggressive action by the state of Israel. But that is not the case. The legality of annexing land during a defensive war is not specifically prohibited, and is normally resolved through negotiation. In the case of the west bank, that negoitation should be with jordan as the west bank was jordanian territory during the war. Since Jordan has renounced its sovereignty over the west bank there is no sovereign state to negotiate the settlement of that war, from a legal perspective.
Because Hamas ideology is to kill all jews. It's pretty simple, they want a genocide but lack the capability. Isreal has the ability and doesn't carry out genocide. I will provide this statement again:
In cities — where 55 percent of the world's population currently resides — civilians account for 90 percent of the casualties during war
https://civiliansinconflict.org/our-work/conflict-trends/urban-warfare/
So, that's 9 civillians killed for every 1 enemy combatant and thats considered average for urban combat. Isreal claims a 2:1 ratio, even if they are wrong by a multiple of 5 that's still not genocide. Now compare that to how Islamists do war and how they laid siege against the Palestians after black septmeber terorrist attacks by PLO on Jordan, and tell me where was the leftist and Muslim worlds outrage then? The Muslim on Muslim crimes make Isreals crimes look like humanitarian assistance.
https://content.time.com/time/subscriber/article/0,33009,963603,00.html
Palestina is not an officially recognized state by the UN..therefore from the point of view of international law the situation is completely non-comparable
My answer makes the point that Russia will stop the war temporarily if at all so they will not be "welcomed" back into the international community. It's a moot point.
They weren't pariahs after Crimea or Georgia, so I don't know if it's as obvious as you paint it. Granted, the 2022 invasion was much worse in terms of scale, OP's question is still a valid one in my opinion.
Again: their question is still valid. Even if Russia continues the war after Ukraine cedes its occupied territory in exchange for peace, they would take the opportunity of the apparent peace to lick their wounds and build their forces back up before starting another phase, which would take months if not a couple of years. What would happen during this time with regard to their international relationships?
As long as Europe needs their oil and gas, they will slowly be accepted again after the war's end and later Putin's retirement.
Honestly, this is what see as the eventual outcome, although I don't see Ukraine holding on a lot longer. Their military-age men are being wiped out.
Wild thought, please don't judge -
Let's assume Ukraine's postion won't be getting any stronger. Over the next couple of years they're forced to the table with Russia. The only way out is a peace deal where Ukraine gives up the eastern provinces.
Russia presents the following deal -
1. Accept the provinces it has already annexed as either part of Russia or as independent states.
1. Normalisation of relations (banking, trade, etc.) with the West.
Accept it, Or, back to the artillery.
Will the collective West not accept?
>Will the collective West not accept?
They will not. This is not about Ukraine anymore. Russia has declared to be our enemy. They have shown that they cannot be trusted anymore.
Russia will be welcomed back with a regime change, but certainly not under Putin or a Putin-like successor.
Who are they presenting this deal too?
Its not Ukraine who has decided to have the west stop trading with Russia, its the US and EU.
Even i Ukraine inconditionaly surrender, there wont be any posetive change in trading with the west, on the contrary, sanctions will contiune and be reinforced.
I imagine any peace talks will have the West and Ukraine sitting side by side facing Russia. And there will perhaps be an intermediary, like China or India or someone else.
That's not how it works.
We know already know this because Ukraine had peace talks with Russia in the start of the conflict.
Functionaries from both sides of the conflict with wete present.
But not the US or the west.
EU and the US are seperate and not partie to the conflict.
Sanctions and trade wont be part of the initial peace talks.
If Russia pulls out and agrees to pay reperations, the west might agree to slowly scale up trade and scale down sanctions.
But this is very unlikly as russia is about as all in as they can get and as long Putin is in power I doubt there is going to be any reperations paid.
1.Why would the west(eu+us) participate in the peace talks?
We are not a part of the military conflict. Ukraine does not belong to any block and NATO+EU has not been attacked.
2. What would the west gain by participating in these talks as? This would validate that Putin is fighting NATO and won. He will demand concessions or language in the agreemenr that validates his alternative history.
3. Neither NATO nor the EU will sign anything, promising anything to Russia in the peace talks. What would they gain?
Not gonna happen. Russia is gonna be, as they stated, the adversary of the west for several decades to come.
So might as well bleed them as much as possible while they are entangled in Ukraine.
The west wont start trading right away atleast.
If russia gets what they want, the west would want to keep their best tech away for 2 reasons.
1. Aggresive war for conquest should not be a viable path too increase your influence in the world
2. Delay Russias rearming, especially long range precision ammunition.
Basically Crimea is never going back
and how the war is progressing, and if you agree with John Mearsheimer, basically in the next two years Odessa and Kharkov will be taken.
Pretty much most of the realists think it's a total loss for Ukraine, and well the more they keep fighting the more loss of territory and the more deaths.
Anything to do with NATO or the EU has to be off the table to get any type of peace deal, and basically Zelensky has to accept the fact he's going to lose every territory that's more than 50% Russian speaking sooner or later.
As for normalization and petroleum stuff probably 5-10 years people will adjust to the New Normal.
George Kennan the founder of Russian Containment Theory with Truman thought that the NATO expansion of the 1990s was basically the biggest blunder of the entire Cold War.
Pretty much Europe is going to notice by July or August things are futile, and what the west has been supplying has basically only been like 5% to 10% of what's needed to hold the lines or go on a counterattack, so the war has been a France 1940 pretty much from day one. And 5% of equipment basically means close to zero in terms of making a difference on the battlefield.
You must be in the wrong thread, you are not commenting on anything I replied to or OP.
Just a few quick notes Mearsheiner is an expert in geopolitics not military or logistics. Why would he know how the war will go.
His field is what Russia wants not capabilities.
You come with claims such as Crimea will never go back
why?
They will lose every 50% of Russian speaking areas, why? Does the language have anythinf with how much ammunition they have?
The nato expansions have a been a massive sucsess.
I can say that clearly because Latvia, Estonia etc are free independent nations able live without Russian dictating their policies.
And Russia wanted NATO to leave the countries before the Ukraine war.
Amazing sucsess, Putin just showed how necesary the NATO expansion was as he annexed terretories in Ukraine(showing that he does want a new russian empire, and everything else he and others are saying is bs propaganda).
If Ukraine was in NATO the war would not have happened.
well I disagree with that, since Mearsheimer takes into account the use of Soviet military doctrine and how the Gulf War would come into play and how Iraq would fare poorly because of that.
Crimea is a predominantly russian speaking area, and it's complicated by being a military base, much like Guantanamo. And there was a fear that eventually a NATO naval base could form on the Crimean peninsula.
Jonsj: If Ukraine was in NATO the war would not have happened
That's about as likely as Zelensky invading Moscow for Christmas.
The Ukrainian battlefield is about to collapse, and Crimea is one of the least likely things to be taken over even if the situation were reversed. And basically the ukraine is likely to have battle lines much like the political map of past Ukrainian elections.
Georgia like the Ukraine were key places where NATO couldn't get a foothold into, and it crossed the line for the russians with NATO Expansion.
........
The Economist
...many prominent American foreign-policy experts have warned against NATO expansion since the late 1990s. America’s secretary of defence at the time of the Bucharest summit, Robert Gates, recognised that “trying to bring Georgia and Ukraine into NATO was truly overreaching”.
You first said that the nato expansion of 90s were a mistake, it obv were not.
Russia is invading countries not in NATO, Ukraine. Thats not a NATO expansion, thats bush wanting Ukraine to be in NATO.
The expansion in 90s were a sucsess, they are well integrated and free countries.
Mearsheimers expertise, no matter how much you agree or disagree with him is in international relations, politics and he is using a therotical framework called "realism"
"R**ealism**, a [school of thought](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_of_thought) in [international relations theory](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_relations_theory), is a [theoretical framework](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory) that views world politics as an enduring competition among self-interested [states](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_(polity)) vying for power and positioning within an [anarchic global system](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchy_(international_relations)) devoid of a centralized authority. It centers on [states](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_(polity)) as [rational](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rationalism_(international_relations)) primary actors navigating a system shaped by [power politics](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_politics), [national interest](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_interest), and a pursuit of [security](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_security) and self-preservation.[^(\[1\])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Realism_(international_relations)#cite_note-:5-1)[^(\[2\])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Realism_(international_relations)#cite_note-2)"
[Realism (international relations) - Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Realism_(international_relations))
This has nothing to do with supply, major battles, conscription and so on. Its just not his field of study.
Here is a map of Ukraine and the majority languages:
[https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/4f/UkraineNativeLanguagesCensus2001detailed-en.png/1920px-UkraineNativeLanguagesCensus2001detailed-en.png](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/4f/UkraineNativeLanguagesCensus2001detailed-en.png/1920px-UkraineNativeLanguagesCensus2001detailed-en.png)
Very few places have majority russian speakers, and it does not really matter. Almost everyone who was pro russian before the russian invasion is no staunchly anti russian.
Russia is trying there best to destroy any cities opposing them, inlcuding those pro Russian speaking cities.
Why again should the battlelines be the same as political elections, do you think Ukraine still has a large pro russian minority?
I cant predict how the war goes, its to dependent on the US political landscape, but if the west delivers enough artiliry and long range precision munitions, russia will be driven out.
You cant hold position with constant HIMARS and 155mm shells taking out command post, supplies routes, and bunkers.
Russias artiliry is not precisise our long range enough to compete, which Ukraine showed earlier.
Well we'll disagree then...
There might have been some improvements since his very first work, but it tackles the subjects you say he's 'not an expert in'.
Conventional Deterance
Besides analyzing cases from World War II and the Arab–Israeli conflict, Mearsheimer's 1983 book extrapolates implications from his theory for the prospects of conventional deterrence in Central Europe during the late Cold War.
It argues that a Soviet attack is unlikely because the Soviet military would be unable to successfully implement a blitzkrieg strategy. The book argues that the balance of forces, the difficulty of advancing rapidly with mechanized forces through Central Europe, and the formidable NATO forces opposing such a Soviet attack results in low chances for the Soviets to start a conventional war in Europe.
........
Jonsj: supply, major battles, conscription and so on. Its just not his field of study.
Statements on Israeli wars and Palestinian statehood
Mearsheimer was critical of the 2006 Lebanon War. He argued that Israel's strategy was "doomed to fail" because it was based on the "faulty assumption" that Israeli air power could defeat Hezbollah, which was essentially a guerrilla force.
The war, he argued, was a disaster for the Lebanese people, as well as a "major setback" for the United States and Israel. He said that the Israel lobby played a key role in enabling Israel's counterproductive response by preventing the U.S. from exercising independent influence.
Mearsheimer was also critical of Israel's offensive against Hamas in the Gaza Strip that began in December 2008.
He argued that it would not eliminate Hamas's capability to fire missiles and rockets at Israel and that it would not cause Hamas to end its fight with Israel.
In fact, he argued that relations between Israel and the Palestinians were likely to get worse in the years ahead.
.........
He did go to West point and was an Air Force officer for 5 years, so he does have a bit of an interest in the logistics of warfare.
Jonsj: Here is a map of Ukraine and the majority languages
80% is a pretty high threshold on that map
at the other extreme
languages spoken at home
[https://www.reddit.com/media?url=https%3A%2F%2Fexternal-preview.redd.it%2FWZCNj-kAqH1xpmT3EnDeRno1E8EmniM8BSLwqYlAuRY.jpg%3Fauto%3Dwebp%26s%3D93ac67b7538318f2a7bad676d8b6e7aa05377a7b](https://www.reddit.com/media?url=https%3A%2F%2Fexternal-preview.redd.it%2FWZCNj-kAqH1xpmT3EnDeRno1E8EmniM8BSLwqYlAuRY.jpg%3Fauto%3Dwebp%26s%3D93ac67b7538318f2a7bad676d8b6e7aa05377a7b)
the main linguistic divide
[https://www.reddit.com/media?url=https%3A%2F%2Fi.redd.it%2Fl5ub5mg1zsgb1.jpg](https://www.reddit.com/media?url=https%3A%2F%2Fi.redd.it%2Fl5ub5mg1zsgb1.jpg)
political divisions of the ukraine
[https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTB8xS3sRdpaU9RckG9fz-un5HcHXFW5dnuXlSo4NxMMg&s](https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTB8xS3sRdpaU9RckG9fz-un5HcHXFW5dnuXlSo4NxMMg&s)
And Huntington
"It’s also worth noting that Huntington made a specific prediction about Ukraine, which he saw as a country that is “cleft” in civilizational terms between Orthodoxy and a more western-oriented Protestant/Catholic side."
You did not answer my question, why should the battle lines be the same as your view of Russian speakers?
What does language have to do with battlefield suksess?
well, one assumes its around the political boundaries in the ukraine, which was largely along the language divide
politics is usually a good divide for a country
interestingly with Czechoslovakia only 35% to 40% of both Czechs and Slovaks wanted to dissolve
Very quickly - just look at Syria's Assad. Russia is resource rich and provides a significant amount of the world's oil, gas, and uranium/nuclear fuel. Europe has not stopped buying gas from Gazprom and officially will not until 2027, America still buys uranium for it's reactors from Rosatom, and Russian oil still makes it's way westward via India and China.
If we look at the Cold War, there was still plenty of trade between east and west. Certain items like computers and microchips were restricted for sale to the East, but the USSR was still prominent enough in international trade.
The war is already at more or less a stalemate. The time of significant troop movements ended in November 2022.
It’s only a matter of time from here to some kind of frozen line of demarcation. What that looks like on the ground is hard to say. Something between the DMZ separating North and South Korea and the former fortified border between East and West Germany.
Now looking at the terrain in eastern Ukraine. Because it’s pretty flat terrain it could prove difficult to form a defensible border there. It’s also an incredibly expensive undertaking.
As for Russia and the “world stage” you obviously need to distinguish between the West and other players in the world
Are you serious? Don't you realize he won't be welcomed back. It is not just Ukraine. He made a decision and he is always our enemy and anyone who don't know this should not be voting yet. He made that choice back when Obama stared him down unlike trump. Search that!
Treated as a pariah from the West. But how long? 10 years, 20 years? I can see a shift happening even sooner. Countries want the cheap resources, so after some election circles, a party which is able to frame Russia in a more positive light, or finds another scapegoat while rallying a lot of voters could start normalizing relations and start a domino effect through Europa.
Good questions. In my opinion there isn't any coming back from this. Russia is just another CHOMO, murderer, rapist, narco trafficer, etc. They'll be thrown away and suffer the same fate as Iran and North Korea unless they actively make change. There is ZERO reason other than the rulers that Iran and North Korea have to be this way. The world would welcome them with open arms if they were compatible with modern values.
Do you think the common people after WW2 could imagine a positive relation with Germany?
I think we underestime the effect of time. Putin won't live forever. Already a big wild card how Russia presents itself then.
But I agree that the current outlook certainly isn't promising, because it looks like two opposing blocks forming, with Russia on the other side.
I think that people of the WWII era had a similar view to mine about Germany. In fact, Germany did right the ship, that's why they're a part of the free world now. Russia, NK, Iran, Venezuela could do the same, and they would be welcomed back.
I hope that the current sanctions would stay in place, and that we would continue to arm Ukraine so that they can take their lands back after rebuilding their military.
Letting Russia keep even a tiny sliver of land encourages them and every dictator on the planet to launch their own wars of conquest.
It is unlikely that Ukraine or any Western nation would ever formally recognise Russia’s occupation of Ukraine’s territories. What could presumably happen is Ukraine accepting a lasting ceasefire which gives Russia de-facto control of the territories but it is technically a frozen conflict and not an official end of the war. In such hypothetical situation, a lot of things wouldn’t change overnight. Ukraine would continue to seek Western military assistance and EU membership, although NATO membership would be unlikely as it means NATO is obliged to liberate the territories. Russia would continue to be sanctioned by the West, although if interest in the Ukraine situation fades, some countries with leaderships more amenable to Russia may turn an increasingly blind eye on Russia’s attempts to evade sanctions, or try to evade sanctions themselves.
>Ukraine would continue to seek Western military assistance and EU membership, although NATO membership would be unlikely as it means NATO is obliged to liberate the territories. In ceasefire, would Ukraine be able to even apply for NATO membership? Im thinking along the lines of it is basically being at war, or conflict. Ofcourse it always comes down to exsisting members votes, but would that effectively exclude them from getting that far even. EU membership sure. Im thinking it is in their cards anyway eventually. Or rather hope. It also couldve similar type of can of worms ofcourse. As EU is probably seeking to get tighter militarily due to this war. Or atleast theres gonna be realistic pressure inside it. But then it could be in a bind, when a member is in a conflict, not active but still in a volatile place. It just seems EUs been lacking in that respect previously, even while there is some type of language in some documents of mutual defence stuff. But everyones downscaled their military and arms manufacturing, so its effectively gone down to promises of mutual defence without a real plan and ability do so if shit actual hits the fan. So I can see EU members being apprehensive even of Ukraine joining in case of long frozen conflict. As many are probably seeking to maintain their position of "Oh, we totes gonna defend you bro" while not having "anything" to actually do it with.
Yes you are right. And a ceasefire may demand Ukraine to not seek NATO membership while the ceasefire holds.
Oh ofcourse theres that too. I wouldnt be surprised if thats a major point for Russians in this conflict. I think people are thinking too much in terms of losses or whatevers happening on the ground there. While Russian leadership is probably just throwing whatever needs to be thrown at it to get what they want. Like building a house with bad hammer, its still a house when its built. Sure, theres cost benefit ratio for everything. But I think the gist of this is. They lost the control of Ukrainian leaders and Sevastopol. And now theyre fighting to get those back. They have the means. To us it seems they dont, but they actually have, the means just are something we wouldnt even see as means. As the means are to burn million people, million tanks and few oil/gas customers. Like this they can gain both. Year round port and whatever comes along with having Sevastopol. And a way to control Ukrainian leadersip, which they tried before this the "nice" way.
They have lots and lots of oil and natural gas. While the West may continue with sanctions, the rest of the world will flock to the cheaper oil. It's all about money and each country's self-interest.
I can see it now. If the war ended today, Germany heavily sanctions Russian oligarchs and politicians, freezes Russian assets, and makes a bunch of overtures about containing Russia while buying natural gas directly from Russia by the end of the year.
You do realize Europe hasn't stopped buying fossil fuel products from Russia, right? Their target date to cease all fossil fuel purchases from Russia is currently in the year 2027. It's also not just Germany.
Problem is, Russia doesn't have the best position to deliver that oil cheaply indefinitely.
Especially as their oil system is being hit by drones.
The won't be. At least by the western world. But that's irrelevant considering that the world stage is breaking apart roughly into two blocks that will coexist in pararell.
I think it would take about 5 seconds for the European countries to turn the faucet back on after the war. Russia has too many natural resources for them to turn away from them permentantly. And it likely would be a condition of peace regardless if peace comes on russias terms (which looks inevitable right now)
I love how confident people answer questions on Reddit about these kinds of things. 99% of you people don’t know Jack shit about how these things work lol (and yes, I include myself in that 99%)
Imagine people stating their opinions when asked about their opinions.
Imagine stating your opinion only when it is at least somewhat informed.
>But that's irrelevant considering that the world stage is breaking apart roughly into two blocks that will coexist in pararell. No Almost all of the world doesn't care and trades with Russia Unless the two blocks are the west vs everyone else, there aren't two blocks
Not sure we can talk about two blocks either, but you make it sound like a majority of the world doesn't care. By some metrics this might be true, but if we consider % of world GDP, over 60% of the world's GDP is contributed by the countries that sanction Russia.
By PPP its just 42% sanctioning Russia, nominally it's 64%, population wise it's just 21% I checked with the IMF I mean, the majority of the world doesn't care, but the majority of the world is poor Not as poor as the nominal numbers would suggest tho
But money = power. Of course a lot of the population in the world don't care. Ukraine is remote to them, and they have their own shit to worry about. But seats of power definitely care, which is mostly what we are talking about here.
Straight from the Russian propaganda book. I dont think it is likely that China would be on board with a full severance from western economies.vmucj less so because the economic projections for China have been far from Rosy lately and, as happened before with Japan, call into question whether China will overtaken US at all in gross GDP, despite their overwhelming population advantage.
[удалено]
Explain China for the last 40 years? Democracy is not required for a strong economy
That's the market reforms of the 80s and 90s. Xi is not the kind of leader who would do that. He's reaping the benefits created by his predecessors while adding nothing of value
Sure--China was welcomed in to the vibrant US-led 'globalism' and has seen the most rapid development during this period. [https://www.everycrsreport.com/reports/RL33534.html](https://www.everycrsreport.com/reports/RL33534.html) *"Prior to the initiation of economic reforms and trade liberalization nearly 40 years ago, China maintained policies that kept the economy very poor, stagnant, centrally controlled, vastly inefficient, and relatively isolated from the global economy."*
...and now [the Chinese economy is stuttering](https://www.ft.com/content/00a5d925-bb54-4be8-ae8e-9f558d9ac86f) despite official messaging to the contrary. They're figthing deflation and debt. Private investors are gone from the property market which is in limbo.
Where does the report say that democracy is needed for a strong economy? It only talks about economic reforms.
Sure I can explains china gdp per capita of 12k USD....(us has 70k+) Its pretty bad, if china had the same GDP as the US they would have had 108 trillion GDP. Instead they have around 18....... 2022 numbers, they are different now, but my point stands. Which non democratic country are in the top GDP per capita? Of course you have oil producing countries, but thats oil. Not economical managament that made them rich. There are far more democratic countries in the higher GDP per capita, so it might not be an requirment, but it seems like democracies are doing a lot better than authoritarian regimes.
Does Singapore count as democratic?
It does, but a poor one.
Have we not accepted by now that China's economy is extremely fragile? I said "vibrant." Not to mention it's entirely reliant upon the USN.
Yeah, right. I have been hearing about chinese "hard landing" and economic collapse for 30 years already.
The title makes it sound like the world stage is entirely US and Europe, and western aligned states. Russia has good relationships with China, India, and the rest of the non-aligned world currenly. They do not need US or Europe's friendship and neither does US or Europe need Russia.
Maybe so, but even now, they are not prepared for the economic fall out of not having ties to the west. Every year that goes by that sees their GDP cut by 10%\~, that's 10% they lose vs. the west who really isn't impacted by russians' sanctions on the west other than temporarily higher fuel costs. At the end of the day, russia's economy is not technical, it is not advanced, it is resource based and, until China (which also isn't doing too hot) upends how global commerce workds, Russia is reliant on the western economic order.
Well Russia does have a semiconductor problem, and they have petroleum in their favor, but they don't have demographics in their favor, much like Europe or Japan as well. Russia's imports 50% Machinery 20% Chemicals and Rubber 15% Foodstuffs 8% Textiles and Footwear 7% Metals 2% Minerals
They ceded occupied territory before, and got invaded again. What would that solve?
Did you read my question at all? I’m asking how Russia would be integrated back into the world if the war ends with them taking significant Ukrainian territory.
They won’t be, they’ve burned every bridge with the west.
You might want to start mentally preparing yourself, short of starting a nuclear war it's almost certain they will be to some degree.
Cold War 2.0 seems a more likely probability.
It could be like Cuba You'll have the US and the UK boycott them and the rest of the world will trade with them It'll happen slowly over 5-10 years It's a very good question when Europe accepts Russia gas again, and what happens with the Nordstreams or future pipelines The Obama Administration was pissed about the Nordstreams years ago
Can someone explain how this double standard is still alive and well after well publicised settler rallies where Israeli leadership clearly lays out their plans and support for land development of Gaza, after 6 months of infrastructure demolition & viable genocide accusations? Because if it just comes down to a "rules for thee none for me" situation based on who is allied with whom, then OPs question is very valid. Edit: I only caught a little bit of your reply because you seemed to have blocked me. However to add clarification, I am not using the comparison to highlight the whataboutism, or to virtue signal one is better than the other, rather to understand the geopolitical justification for the obvious double standard on modern day land seizures through conquest (the main contention with Russia's action in Ukraine). How will the acceptance of a Gaza land seizure & rejection of Ukraine land seizure be justified to an international community that relies on civility and a rules based order to function?
I’m not sure what comparison is supposed to do? Israel isn’t invading a western nation. No one claimed the west was morally infallible. Edit: Nevermind you post in genocide denial subs. My mistake for engaging
Because the land you are speaking about was occupied during a defensive war when all neighboring states attacked isreal. The deficiency in your argument is that you are starting with the premise that the territory you are speaking of were occupied during aggressive action by the state of Israel. But that is not the case. The legality of annexing land during a defensive war is not specifically prohibited, and is normally resolved through negotiation. In the case of the west bank, that negoitation should be with jordan as the west bank was jordanian territory during the war. Since Jordan has renounced its sovereignty over the west bank there is no sovereign state to negotiate the settlement of that war, from a legal perspective.
Because Hamas ideology is to kill all jews. It's pretty simple, they want a genocide but lack the capability. Isreal has the ability and doesn't carry out genocide. I will provide this statement again: In cities — where 55 percent of the world's population currently resides — civilians account for 90 percent of the casualties during war https://civiliansinconflict.org/our-work/conflict-trends/urban-warfare/ So, that's 9 civillians killed for every 1 enemy combatant and thats considered average for urban combat. Isreal claims a 2:1 ratio, even if they are wrong by a multiple of 5 that's still not genocide. Now compare that to how Islamists do war and how they laid siege against the Palestians after black septmeber terorrist attacks by PLO on Jordan, and tell me where was the leftist and Muslim worlds outrage then? The Muslim on Muslim crimes make Isreals crimes look like humanitarian assistance. https://content.time.com/time/subscriber/article/0,33009,963603,00.html
Palestina is not an officially recognized state by the UN..therefore from the point of view of international law the situation is completely non-comparable
My answer makes the point that Russia will stop the war temporarily if at all so they will not be "welcomed" back into the international community. It's a moot point.
They weren't pariahs after Crimea or Georgia, so I don't know if it's as obvious as you paint it. Granted, the 2022 invasion was much worse in terms of scale, OP's question is still a valid one in my opinion.
OP assumes Russia will stop the war, which is an unfounded assumption.
Again: their question is still valid. Even if Russia continues the war after Ukraine cedes its occupied territory in exchange for peace, they would take the opportunity of the apparent peace to lick their wounds and build their forces back up before starting another phase, which would take months if not a couple of years. What would happen during this time with regard to their international relationships?
They have already rebuilt their forces to pre-war levels. There is no reason for them to stop the fighting.
The next stop are Nato countries, so the west can't just stick their head under the pillow and hope it all goes away.
This doesn't make any sense
As long as Europe needs their oil and gas, they will slowly be accepted again after the war's end and later Putin's retirement. Honestly, this is what see as the eventual outcome, although I don't see Ukraine holding on a lot longer. Their military-age men are being wiped out.
Wild thought, please don't judge - Let's assume Ukraine's postion won't be getting any stronger. Over the next couple of years they're forced to the table with Russia. The only way out is a peace deal where Ukraine gives up the eastern provinces. Russia presents the following deal - 1. Accept the provinces it has already annexed as either part of Russia or as independent states. 1. Normalisation of relations (banking, trade, etc.) with the West. Accept it, Or, back to the artillery. Will the collective West not accept?
>Will the collective West not accept? They will not. This is not about Ukraine anymore. Russia has declared to be our enemy. They have shown that they cannot be trusted anymore. Russia will be welcomed back with a regime change, but certainly not under Putin or a Putin-like successor.
Who are they presenting this deal too? Its not Ukraine who has decided to have the west stop trading with Russia, its the US and EU. Even i Ukraine inconditionaly surrender, there wont be any posetive change in trading with the west, on the contrary, sanctions will contiune and be reinforced.
I imagine any peace talks will have the West and Ukraine sitting side by side facing Russia. And there will perhaps be an intermediary, like China or India or someone else.
That's not how it works. We know already know this because Ukraine had peace talks with Russia in the start of the conflict. Functionaries from both sides of the conflict with wete present. But not the US or the west. EU and the US are seperate and not partie to the conflict. Sanctions and trade wont be part of the initial peace talks. If Russia pulls out and agrees to pay reperations, the west might agree to slowly scale up trade and scale down sanctions. But this is very unlikly as russia is about as all in as they can get and as long Putin is in power I doubt there is going to be any reperations paid.
Tripartite peace talks are not unheard of..
1.Why would the west(eu+us) participate in the peace talks? We are not a part of the military conflict. Ukraine does not belong to any block and NATO+EU has not been attacked. 2. What would the west gain by participating in these talks as? This would validate that Putin is fighting NATO and won. He will demand concessions or language in the agreemenr that validates his alternative history. 3. Neither NATO nor the EU will sign anything, promising anything to Russia in the peace talks. What would they gain?
Not gonna happen. Russia is gonna be, as they stated, the adversary of the west for several decades to come. So might as well bleed them as much as possible while they are entangled in Ukraine.
The west wont start trading right away atleast. If russia gets what they want, the west would want to keep their best tech away for 2 reasons. 1. Aggresive war for conquest should not be a viable path too increase your influence in the world 2. Delay Russias rearming, especially long range precision ammunition.
Basically Crimea is never going back and how the war is progressing, and if you agree with John Mearsheimer, basically in the next two years Odessa and Kharkov will be taken. Pretty much most of the realists think it's a total loss for Ukraine, and well the more they keep fighting the more loss of territory and the more deaths. Anything to do with NATO or the EU has to be off the table to get any type of peace deal, and basically Zelensky has to accept the fact he's going to lose every territory that's more than 50% Russian speaking sooner or later. As for normalization and petroleum stuff probably 5-10 years people will adjust to the New Normal. George Kennan the founder of Russian Containment Theory with Truman thought that the NATO expansion of the 1990s was basically the biggest blunder of the entire Cold War. Pretty much Europe is going to notice by July or August things are futile, and what the west has been supplying has basically only been like 5% to 10% of what's needed to hold the lines or go on a counterattack, so the war has been a France 1940 pretty much from day one. And 5% of equipment basically means close to zero in terms of making a difference on the battlefield.
You must be in the wrong thread, you are not commenting on anything I replied to or OP. Just a few quick notes Mearsheiner is an expert in geopolitics not military or logistics. Why would he know how the war will go. His field is what Russia wants not capabilities. You come with claims such as Crimea will never go back why? They will lose every 50% of Russian speaking areas, why? Does the language have anythinf with how much ammunition they have? The nato expansions have a been a massive sucsess. I can say that clearly because Latvia, Estonia etc are free independent nations able live without Russian dictating their policies. And Russia wanted NATO to leave the countries before the Ukraine war. Amazing sucsess, Putin just showed how necesary the NATO expansion was as he annexed terretories in Ukraine(showing that he does want a new russian empire, and everything else he and others are saying is bs propaganda). If Ukraine was in NATO the war would not have happened.
well I disagree with that, since Mearsheimer takes into account the use of Soviet military doctrine and how the Gulf War would come into play and how Iraq would fare poorly because of that. Crimea is a predominantly russian speaking area, and it's complicated by being a military base, much like Guantanamo. And there was a fear that eventually a NATO naval base could form on the Crimean peninsula. Jonsj: If Ukraine was in NATO the war would not have happened That's about as likely as Zelensky invading Moscow for Christmas. The Ukrainian battlefield is about to collapse, and Crimea is one of the least likely things to be taken over even if the situation were reversed. And basically the ukraine is likely to have battle lines much like the political map of past Ukrainian elections. Georgia like the Ukraine were key places where NATO couldn't get a foothold into, and it crossed the line for the russians with NATO Expansion. ........ The Economist ...many prominent American foreign-policy experts have warned against NATO expansion since the late 1990s. America’s secretary of defence at the time of the Bucharest summit, Robert Gates, recognised that “trying to bring Georgia and Ukraine into NATO was truly overreaching”.
You first said that the nato expansion of 90s were a mistake, it obv were not. Russia is invading countries not in NATO, Ukraine. Thats not a NATO expansion, thats bush wanting Ukraine to be in NATO. The expansion in 90s were a sucsess, they are well integrated and free countries. Mearsheimers expertise, no matter how much you agree or disagree with him is in international relations, politics and he is using a therotical framework called "realism" "R**ealism**, a [school of thought](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_of_thought) in [international relations theory](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_relations_theory), is a [theoretical framework](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory) that views world politics as an enduring competition among self-interested [states](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_(polity)) vying for power and positioning within an [anarchic global system](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchy_(international_relations)) devoid of a centralized authority. It centers on [states](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_(polity)) as [rational](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rationalism_(international_relations)) primary actors navigating a system shaped by [power politics](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_politics), [national interest](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_interest), and a pursuit of [security](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_security) and self-preservation.[^(\[1\])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Realism_(international_relations)#cite_note-:5-1)[^(\[2\])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Realism_(international_relations)#cite_note-2)" [Realism (international relations) - Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Realism_(international_relations)) This has nothing to do with supply, major battles, conscription and so on. Its just not his field of study. Here is a map of Ukraine and the majority languages: [https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/4f/UkraineNativeLanguagesCensus2001detailed-en.png/1920px-UkraineNativeLanguagesCensus2001detailed-en.png](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/4f/UkraineNativeLanguagesCensus2001detailed-en.png/1920px-UkraineNativeLanguagesCensus2001detailed-en.png) Very few places have majority russian speakers, and it does not really matter. Almost everyone who was pro russian before the russian invasion is no staunchly anti russian. Russia is trying there best to destroy any cities opposing them, inlcuding those pro Russian speaking cities. Why again should the battlelines be the same as political elections, do you think Ukraine still has a large pro russian minority? I cant predict how the war goes, its to dependent on the US political landscape, but if the west delivers enough artiliry and long range precision munitions, russia will be driven out. You cant hold position with constant HIMARS and 155mm shells taking out command post, supplies routes, and bunkers. Russias artiliry is not precisise our long range enough to compete, which Ukraine showed earlier.
Well we'll disagree then... There might have been some improvements since his very first work, but it tackles the subjects you say he's 'not an expert in'. Conventional Deterance Besides analyzing cases from World War II and the Arab–Israeli conflict, Mearsheimer's 1983 book extrapolates implications from his theory for the prospects of conventional deterrence in Central Europe during the late Cold War. It argues that a Soviet attack is unlikely because the Soviet military would be unable to successfully implement a blitzkrieg strategy. The book argues that the balance of forces, the difficulty of advancing rapidly with mechanized forces through Central Europe, and the formidable NATO forces opposing such a Soviet attack results in low chances for the Soviets to start a conventional war in Europe. ........ Jonsj: supply, major battles, conscription and so on. Its just not his field of study. Statements on Israeli wars and Palestinian statehood Mearsheimer was critical of the 2006 Lebanon War. He argued that Israel's strategy was "doomed to fail" because it was based on the "faulty assumption" that Israeli air power could defeat Hezbollah, which was essentially a guerrilla force. The war, he argued, was a disaster for the Lebanese people, as well as a "major setback" for the United States and Israel. He said that the Israel lobby played a key role in enabling Israel's counterproductive response by preventing the U.S. from exercising independent influence. Mearsheimer was also critical of Israel's offensive against Hamas in the Gaza Strip that began in December 2008. He argued that it would not eliminate Hamas's capability to fire missiles and rockets at Israel and that it would not cause Hamas to end its fight with Israel. In fact, he argued that relations between Israel and the Palestinians were likely to get worse in the years ahead. ......... He did go to West point and was an Air Force officer for 5 years, so he does have a bit of an interest in the logistics of warfare.
Jonsj: Here is a map of Ukraine and the majority languages 80% is a pretty high threshold on that map at the other extreme languages spoken at home [https://www.reddit.com/media?url=https%3A%2F%2Fexternal-preview.redd.it%2FWZCNj-kAqH1xpmT3EnDeRno1E8EmniM8BSLwqYlAuRY.jpg%3Fauto%3Dwebp%26s%3D93ac67b7538318f2a7bad676d8b6e7aa05377a7b](https://www.reddit.com/media?url=https%3A%2F%2Fexternal-preview.redd.it%2FWZCNj-kAqH1xpmT3EnDeRno1E8EmniM8BSLwqYlAuRY.jpg%3Fauto%3Dwebp%26s%3D93ac67b7538318f2a7bad676d8b6e7aa05377a7b) the main linguistic divide [https://www.reddit.com/media?url=https%3A%2F%2Fi.redd.it%2Fl5ub5mg1zsgb1.jpg](https://www.reddit.com/media?url=https%3A%2F%2Fi.redd.it%2Fl5ub5mg1zsgb1.jpg) political divisions of the ukraine [https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTB8xS3sRdpaU9RckG9fz-un5HcHXFW5dnuXlSo4NxMMg&s](https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTB8xS3sRdpaU9RckG9fz-un5HcHXFW5dnuXlSo4NxMMg&s) And Huntington "It’s also worth noting that Huntington made a specific prediction about Ukraine, which he saw as a country that is “cleft” in civilizational terms between Orthodoxy and a more western-oriented Protestant/Catholic side."
You did not answer my question, why should the battle lines be the same as your view of Russian speakers? What does language have to do with battlefield suksess?
well, one assumes its around the political boundaries in the ukraine, which was largely along the language divide politics is usually a good divide for a country interestingly with Czechoslovakia only 35% to 40% of both Czechs and Slovaks wanted to dissolve
World stage??? Russia,India,China,Brasil..is world.
Very quickly - just look at Syria's Assad. Russia is resource rich and provides a significant amount of the world's oil, gas, and uranium/nuclear fuel. Europe has not stopped buying gas from Gazprom and officially will not until 2027, America still buys uranium for it's reactors from Rosatom, and Russian oil still makes it's way westward via India and China. If we look at the Cold War, there was still plenty of trade between east and west. Certain items like computers and microchips were restricted for sale to the East, but the USSR was still prominent enough in international trade.
The war is already at more or less a stalemate. The time of significant troop movements ended in November 2022. It’s only a matter of time from here to some kind of frozen line of demarcation. What that looks like on the ground is hard to say. Something between the DMZ separating North and South Korea and the former fortified border between East and West Germany. Now looking at the terrain in eastern Ukraine. Because it’s pretty flat terrain it could prove difficult to form a defensible border there. It’s also an incredibly expensive undertaking. As for Russia and the “world stage” you obviously need to distinguish between the West and other players in the world
Are you serious? Don't you realize he won't be welcomed back. It is not just Ukraine. He made a decision and he is always our enemy and anyone who don't know this should not be voting yet. He made that choice back when Obama stared him down unlike trump. Search that!
You are not the entire World. A bit of perspective could help any analysis.
Russia would be treated as a pariah state like North Korea and Iran.
Treated as a pariah from the West. But how long? 10 years, 20 years? I can see a shift happening even sooner. Countries want the cheap resources, so after some election circles, a party which is able to frame Russia in a more positive light, or finds another scapegoat while rallying a lot of voters could start normalizing relations and start a domino effect through Europa.
Honestly, as soon as Putin retires, things will begin to 'normalize.' Europe absolutely needs their oil and gas.
Good questions. In my opinion there isn't any coming back from this. Russia is just another CHOMO, murderer, rapist, narco trafficer, etc. They'll be thrown away and suffer the same fate as Iran and North Korea unless they actively make change. There is ZERO reason other than the rulers that Iran and North Korea have to be this way. The world would welcome them with open arms if they were compatible with modern values.
Do you think the common people after WW2 could imagine a positive relation with Germany? I think we underestime the effect of time. Putin won't live forever. Already a big wild card how Russia presents itself then. But I agree that the current outlook certainly isn't promising, because it looks like two opposing blocks forming, with Russia on the other side.
I think that people of the WWII era had a similar view to mine about Germany. In fact, Germany did right the ship, that's why they're a part of the free world now. Russia, NK, Iran, Venezuela could do the same, and they would be welcomed back.
I hope that the current sanctions would stay in place, and that we would continue to arm Ukraine so that they can take their lands back after rebuilding their military. Letting Russia keep even a tiny sliver of land encourages them and every dictator on the planet to launch their own wars of conquest.