Is it really, though? As you say, we'll have to see. Yes it'll be uncomfortable for quite a lot of people, probably for a long time, but lots of those uncomfortable people are going to be Russians. Russia is a country with a GDP about the same as Australia's, spread over six times as many people, and the rest of the world will just have turned that off. Maybe not North Korea levels of "off". Guess we'll see. Maybe that's not the deterrence we decadent think it is.
The world can't afford to turn off trade with China though. As you have pointed out on many occasions, 2025-ish is shaping up to be "interesting".
This whole Russia Ukraine thing is like a reply play of Hitler and Czechoslovakia, all the from the separatists to the justification for invasion. Taking a country and holding a country are two different things (as the US has discovered ever since Vietnam, and the USSR in Afghanistan). Which is what concerns me. Hitler understood this (or his generals did anyway) so they kept moving the front line past want they really super wanted to keep, so struggle zone was somewhere beyond the 'precious'. But heh I'm a pessimistic cat so I think about this stuff.
PS: If shit gets super duper escalated, would wiping Canberra off the face of the earth be of any strategic value to a super power?...um asking for a friend who lives that way.
I reckon one of the main reasons we've had a respite from 'big war' is its rapid increase in (non-human) cost. Leaving out the millions of dead, WWII devastated the economies of many countries (others did relatively well out of it) and the major wars since have mostly proved to be costly errors by the aggressors (think Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq). The other factor is the would-be aggressors have sometimes found different ways to achieve their aims (think China's soft agression through economic 'assistance' to Pacific Islands). Only some rich western countries have baulked at the human cost of war, but the USA has shown you can now invade a country with minimal loss of life from your own side, if you spend enough money on arms.
What happens in Ukraine remains to be seen, but Putin's end game of building a NATO 'buffer zone' is probably not sustainable. He likely doesn't care though, as long as he can leave some sort of legacy as a strong man.
Is it really, though? As you say, we'll have to see. Yes it'll be uncomfortable for quite a lot of people, probably for a long time, but lots of those uncomfortable people are going to be Russians. Russia is a country with a GDP about the same as Australia's, spread over six times as many people, and the rest of the world will just have turned that off. Maybe not North Korea levels of "off". Guess we'll see. Maybe that's not the deterrence we decadent think it is.
The world can't afford to turn off trade with China though. As you have pointed out on many occasions, 2025-ish is shaping up to be "interesting".
Yeah...f*** eh?
This whole Russia Ukraine thing is like a reply play of Hitler and Czechoslovakia, all the from the separatists to the justification for invasion. Taking a country and holding a country are two different things (as the US has discovered ever since Vietnam, and the USSR in Afghanistan). Which is what concerns me. Hitler understood this (or his generals did anyway) so they kept moving the front line past want they really super wanted to keep, so struggle zone was somewhere beyond the 'precious'. But heh I'm a pessimistic cat so I think about this stuff.
PS: If shit gets super duper escalated, would wiping Canberra off the face of the earth be of any strategic value to a super power?...um asking for a friend who lives that way.
I reckon one of the main reasons we've had a respite from 'big war' is its rapid increase in (non-human) cost. Leaving out the millions of dead, WWII devastated the economies of many countries (others did relatively well out of it) and the major wars since have mostly proved to be costly errors by the aggressors (think Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq). The other factor is the would-be aggressors have sometimes found different ways to achieve their aims (think China's soft agression through economic 'assistance' to Pacific Islands). Only some rich western countries have baulked at the human cost of war, but the USA has shown you can now invade a country with minimal loss of life from your own side, if you spend enough money on arms.
What happens in Ukraine remains to be seen, but Putin's end game of building a NATO 'buffer zone' is probably not sustainable. He likely doesn't care though, as long as he can leave some sort of legacy as a strong man.