Since we’re opening up with idealist metaphysics and hearsay there’s supposedly some astrology stuff in the upcoming few months that could be good for war (or bad).
Nah.
No one wants to logically push straight into a WW3 scenario because of how fast it’ll turn nuclear and therefore uncontrollable. For NATO, now is a game of racing a train with a car (or chicken, whichever is more familiar and dangerous) because of the great economic benefits for their floundering economies, especially in the case of the US and UK. Keeping the fiasco in Ukraine taking as long as possible, slower the better, keeps the overall risk lower as well.
RU wants a buffer, going full scorched earth all of a sudden goes against what they’ve currently been doing which is more methodical. There are really old historical interests as well, but that doesn’t lend itself to scorched earth, still falls under the methodical since its capturing territory
Then there’s BRICS strengthening their influence globally, making themselves slowly a viable alternative to the western-led econ game, so that also is another check against this scenario. The ruble is doing well despite all the sanctions, so it overall has a feel of not wanting to rock the boat too hard, but I’m not an expert armchair general.
The Kaliningrad blockade could go south, but then again going to second I’m not sure how serious the whole of NATO would be on throwing its weight behind LI with conditions as they are. The US for example has economic downturn and growing internal unrest which may lead it to become more isolationist. Then again, that could lead to an inclination to be more risk-seeking as a potential amelioration to at home woes, which may lead to a general worsening situation. For either side an expansion of the conflict does have potential benefits, leaning much more for NATO and friends than RU at this point in time.
Since we’re opening up with idealist metaphysics and hearsay there’s supposedly some astrology stuff in the upcoming few months that could be good for war (or bad).
Nah.
No one wants to logically push straight into a WW3 scenario because of how fast it’ll turn nuclear and therefore uncontrollable. For NATO, now is a game of racing a train with a car (or chicken, whichever is more familiar and dangerous) because of the great economic benefits for their floundering economies, especially in the case of the US and UK. Keeping the fiasco in Ukraine taking as long as possible, slower the better, keeps the overall risk lower as well.
RU wants a buffer, going full scorched earth all of a sudden goes against what they’ve currently been doing which is more methodical. There are really old historical interests as well, but that doesn’t lend itself to scorched earth, still falls under the methodical since its capturing territory Then there’s BRICS strengthening their influence globally, making themselves slowly a viable alternative to the western-led econ game, so that also is another check against this scenario. The ruble is doing well despite all the sanctions, so it overall has a feel of not wanting to rock the boat too hard, but I’m not an expert armchair general.
The Kaliningrad blockade could go south, but then again going to second I’m not sure how serious the whole of NATO would be on throwing its weight behind LI with conditions as they are. The US for example has economic downturn and growing internal unrest which may lead it to become more isolationist. Then again, that could lead to an inclination to be more risk-seeking as a potential amelioration to at home woes, which may lead to a general worsening situation. For either side an expansion of the conflict does have potential benefits, leaning much more for NATO and friends than RU at this point in time.