Going to war means let's ulter the economic progression

[Invester]

...There are many negative effect of war but no profit...[/url]

I probably read all of the wars that are written in the books. And it is actually all about profit, either by land, power, religion, and ethnicity. Wars may be costly of course but those involved especially the aggressor calculated it already and made sure that it is all worth it.

So let's talk about the example which is the current Russian invasion of Ukraine. Do we really think Putin and his cabinets didn't expect heavy sanctions and losses coming? Of course, they analyzed as many possible outcomes. Russia believes that it is worth it to invade Ukraine in order to strengthen its position in the country and the possibility of stopping it from joining NATO. If Ukraine joins NATO then there is a high possibility that nukes will be installed. Crimea a part of Ukraine that was taken earlier by Russia has been a big naval base of the Russian navy since the old times and it will be in danger if Ukraine joins NATO.

Although Russia didn't expect the war to prolong I think it will end with the aggressor holding big Crimea and the rebel regions of Luhansk and Donetsk in the east. There are only over 200 million Russians and its vast lands are rich enough for them to recover its economic losses in the coming years.

I am not saying that I am a pro-Russian invasion here. I believe wars should be prevented at all costs. But as a long-time history and current events follower, I can see the Russian point of view.

Sure, all wars start with a goal and there will be profits in it. No country spends billions of dollars to wage war without taking into account profit, profit here is about territory, people, natural resources...
Today, the world is no longer the same as before, war is very unlikely, it is no longer an invasion between big countries and small countries to win resources or assert their position. It only flares up when there are problems that cannot be solved by foreign policy and it directly affects the safety and interests of the country.

Like you, I must say that war between Russia and Ukraine is a crime and should never be supported or encouraged. But in the case of Russia, if they don't act, Ukraine joins NaTo then the safety of its people and their prosperity will be threatened as NaTo establishes military bases close to their territory. Each side has its own reasons, it is difficult to defend either side.

We'll said fellas. Everybody think that Putin is out of his mind, that includes me to be honest. But at the same time, deep in our minds, we know that things are complicated but there are profits to gain and it is even more valuable than money. Security is what inside Putin's head and Crimea together with some territories in eastern Ukraine.   

Depending on someone's perspective but negotiations are generally clear that Russia has the upper hand. Russian main demands is for Ukraine to never join NATO, officially accepts that Crimea is part of Russia and Donbas and Luhansk be granted independence. And Russia is occupying more than its primary objectives that means more cards to play in the negotiating table. Even if Russia won't achieve all of these terms in the treaty it is still a victory for them than not doing anything. 

[1714941771]

1714941771

[1714941771]

1714941771

[1714941771]

1714941771

[Shasha80]

Unfortunately people and governments have a completely different view of war, for the people a war is a horrible event, if they happen to be part of it, this means they will lose their home, jobs and even be forced to fight and lose their lives as well, but for governments war is a business, which is what makes them way more eager to want to wage it as they are not the ones carrying the heavy consequences of a protracted war, and while I think the majority of the people longs for a world without war, I do not think this is something we will live to see.

Some war are not business mind because some country don't produce war weapons but they still go on to war. The reason for the war is not only for selling of war machines but they go into war if the people in government have ego. Too much ego and pride make for selfish reason of going for war. When the head of state want to show superior to the other president, he can decide for war because of that pride and will not make peace in between the both. Pride is the problem for war like Putin of Russia not agreeing for peace no matter peace discussion agreement.

Actually, there are quite a number of reasons why wars can occur, as you said, not all wars are related to business problems. There are also countries
that do have a very good military strength and a good economy too, but in the end the country is at war with other countries. One of them as you
said is just a matter of ego, where there are countries that want to show their strengths better than other countries. That they are a strong country
and if the reason for war is just ego, it is a sad reason for war.

Which many parties were harmed because of the war, but if the reason for war is just ego, that in my opinion is really ridiculous. That's why we have
to choose a really wise country leader, and indeed prioritizes the interests of its residents above anything else. But nowadays it seems difficult to
choose such a leader, most leaders, especially in big countries, must prioritize their own interests. That's why there are so many countries whose
economy is getting worse, just because their leaders are not wise in making decisions.

[2stout]

It could mean this, but IMHO go to war could also mean that the maintaining of the existing order has been upset or disturbed for whatever reasons.  In turn these reasons can also economic ramifications.

[Furious 7]

This is indeed one of the things that can indeed be a decisive or turning point in the economy because it is clear that with the war there will definitely be an economic crisis, but the problem is that when so many lives have been lost, it is actually very sad because I still feel it is not worth it when there are so many people. Even though the existing victims were replaced with economic progress, I still don't really like this because apart from the economic impact, the psyche of the people involved in the war are definitely affected.

Killing civilians is not the main objective of fighting wars and is considered a war crime even if one person who is not a military person is killed. The problem is the exploitation of densely populated cities as hideouts and fortresses, in addition to using people as human shields during confrontations.
The rules of war that no one respects require that the conflict be between armies and not against the population. It also requires the availability of a battlefield and the provision of humanitarian corridors for civilians, while neutralizing hospitals and shelters .

This is only a word because in reality and when there is a war, it is still civilians who are the most victims despite the many arguments that say that it is not civilians who are the main targets.
As for the availability of the battlefield, this is actually only a cover because what is certain is that when something like this happens there are many reasons for it to happen, for example in a middle eastern country, which is suspected for several reasons.

[DrBeer]

For totalitarian degraded regimes, war is the only option to keep the community in order to prevent its overthrow, as a result of the global decline in the standard of living of the local population. In a sense, this "stabilizes" the economy a bit, as the entire STATE economy is switching to a "military regime", and it works 24 * 7. True, private business is almost completely dying.

[Ozero]

Overall, there's really no reason to go to war. In simple terms, war is bad and has to be avoided. If all the energy and money and other resources spent on wars would instead be focused on something else, the world condition would be a lot better.

Especially in the age of globalization, wars would really cause a lot of damage. Russia's invasion attempt of Ukraine gives us an idea of how limited violence could produce global effects.

Everything said is true. War is in any case not only bad, but terrible from any point of view. But do not forget that the war does not start by itself. It is started and fueled by the destruction and murder of people. It is not Putin alone who unleashed the bloodiest war in Europe since World War II. Do not forget that the majority of the Russian population supported Putin's actions in the war against Ukraine and called for harder bombing and shelling of Ukrainian cities and killing civilians. The 200,000-strong army that invaded Ukraine and exterminates Ukrainians are also citizens of Russia. During the seven months of the war, we did not see any significant protests against this war in Russia. Therefore, Russians all over the world should be treated as robbers, rapists and murderers, regardless of who and what of them have been doing all this time.

[beerlover]

Actually, there are quite a number of reasons why wars can occur, as you said, not all wars are related to business problems. There are also countries that do have a very good military strength and a good economy too, but in the end the country is at war with other countries. One of them as you said is just a matter of ego, where there are countries that want to show their strengths better than other countries. That they are a strong country
and if the reason for war is just ego, it is a sad reason for war.

Which many parties were harmed because of the war, but if the reason for war is just ego, that in my opinion is really ridiculous. That's why we have to choose a really wise country leader, and indeed prioritizes the interests of its residents above anything else. But nowadays it seems difficult to choose such a leader, most leaders, especially in big countries, must prioritize their own interests. That's why there are so many countries whose
economy is getting worse, just because their leaders are not wise in making decisions.

Elections and power, that's basically where it comes down to. If a nation is going into war, that usually means either the ruler wants to win some elections, or if they have no elections that they care (like China or Russia) they are willing to just show their power to the world and that's it.

Ego is a good surname for power, like what Putin did, Ukraine wanted to join Europe, and Putin showed this as a chance to prove he is powerful and if he wants to he could stop it, which he is failing so far as we can see, which was expected, Russia doesn't have even remotely the power that west has, and even just supporting Ukraine they managed to blow them back, imagine what would happen if it was a direct war.

[South Park]

This is indeed one of the things that can indeed be a decisive or turning point in the economy because it is clear that with the war there will definitely be an economic crisis, but the problem is that when so many lives have been lost, it is actually very sad because I still feel it is not worth it when there are so many people. Even though the existing victims were replaced with economic progress, I still don't really like this because apart from the economic impact, the psyche of the people involved in the war are definitely affected.

Killing civilians is not the main objective of fighting wars and is considered a war crime even if one person who is not a military person is killed. The problem is the exploitation of densely populated cities as hideouts and fortresses, in addition to using people as human shields during confrontations.
The rules of war that no one respects require that the conflict be between armies and not against the population. It also requires the availability of a battlefield and the provision of humanitarian corridors for civilians, while neutralizing hospitals and shelters .

This is only a word because in reality and when there is a war, it is still civilians who are the most victims despite the many arguments that say that it is not civilians who are the main targets.
As for the availability of the battlefield, this is actually only a cover because what is certain is that when something like this happens there are many reasons for it to happen, for example in a middle eastern country, which is suspected for several reasons.

True, even if we were to give the benefit of the doubt and believe them when they say harming civilians is not their objective at the end it does not matter because that is what ends up happening anyway, civilians which have nothing to do with the war are the ones that suffer the most as they lose everything they have worked so hard for, and if those losses stopped at material possessions many could still accept it, but when we are talking about the the massive loss of human lives that is when war in any of its forms becomes completely unacceptable to most people.

[AmoreJaz]

This is indeed one of the things that can indeed be a decisive or turning point in the economy because it is clear that with the war there will definitely be an economic crisis, but the problem is that when so many lives have been lost, it is actually very sad because I still feel it is not worth it when there are so many people. Even though the existing victims were replaced with economic progress, I still don't really like this because apart from the economic impact, the psyche of the people involved in the war are definitely affected.

Killing civilians is not the main objective of fighting wars and is considered a war crime even if one person who is not a military person is killed. The problem is the exploitation of densely populated cities as hideouts and fortresses, in addition to using people as human shields during confrontations.
The rules of war that no one respects require that the conflict be between armies and not against the population. It also requires the availability of a battlefield and the provision of humanitarian corridors for civilians, while neutralizing hospitals and shelters .

This is only a word because in reality and when there is a war, it is still civilians who are the most victims despite the many arguments that say that it is not civilians who are the main targets.
As for the availability of the battlefield, this is actually only a cover because what is certain is that when something like this happens there are many reasons for it to happen, for example in a middle eastern country, which is suspected for several reasons.

that is very correct! no matter what they say, civilians are the most affected as they have no weapon to use. they are just depending on their soldiers to protect their lives. and then what? who will supply them their basic needs during this war? yes, their govt may give them some type of survival kit, but recovering their entire life would be on their own hands. there's no winner in every war, so to speak.

[samcrypto]

that is very correct! no matter what they say, civilians are the most affected as they have no weapon to use. they are just depending on their soldiers to protect their lives. and then what? who will supply them their basic needs during this war? yes, their govt may give them some type of survival kit, but recovering their entire life would be on their own hands. there's no winner in every war, so to speak.

That’s the reality and yet the government still choose to go on a war and that could be for something. Russia won’t take that war if they are not into something, most probably they want something bigger. War is not good to humanity, every government should not pursue this at all cost because we can’t afford any world war again. I can’t imagine our country if there’s another war, probably we won’t survive.

[Ozero]

Like you, I must say that war between Russia and Ukraine is a crime and should never be supported or encouraged. But in the case of Russia, if they don't act, Ukraine joins NaTo then the safety of its people and their prosperity will be threatened as NaTo establishes military bases close to their territory. Each side has its own reasons, it is difficult to defend either side.

All the talk that Russia attacked Ukraine because it fears NATO expansion at its borders is Putin's nonsense and justification for seizing Ukrainian territories. This nonsense is completely broken even by the fact that already after the attack on Ukraine, Sweden and Finland became members of NATO and Russia received a direct border with NATO with a length of 1300 kilometers. And how did Russia react to it? After some threats, she calmed down, saying that they do not see an immediate threat from these states. But after all, we are talking about a single structure of NATO and there decisions are made from a single center.

Putin is a great strategist and calculated everything before the attack on Ukraine? Recently, Russia has been suffering colossal losses in Ukraine. In September alone, the Armed Forces of Ukraine liberated an area of ​​nine thousand square kilometers. Russia is waging war so incompetently that it has become the biggest sponsor for the Ukrainian army. Since the beginning of the full-scale invasion, Ukraine, according to documented data, has received almost 400 tanks, 700 armored vehicles and 170 artillery systems as trophies. This is more than all the largest partner countries of Ukraine supplied. Due to the fact that Putin directly leads his military and is guided primarily by political goals, the Russians at the front are now losing 400-500 people every day compared to 30-50 Ukrainians.
Today it became known about the completion of the encirclement of another large group of Russians in the area of ​​the city of Liman. This is in addition to the fact that the Armed Forces of Ukraine are systematically destroying an encircled large group of Russian troops numbering 20,000-25,000 people in the Kherson region, which are pressed against the Dnieper River, and all crossings are under heavy fire from the Armed Forces of Ukraine. The Russian cadre army is almost completely destroyed in Ukraine, so Putin announced the mobilization and hastily, without any preparation, throws mobilized and unprepared "live meat" into battle.

[Argoo]

Human civilization has stepped into the 21st century. In front of us, thanks to the rapid development of new technologies and, in particular, the Internet, there are unique opportunities to unite and direct our common efforts towards the development of medicine, education, space exploration, improving the general level and life expectancy, and much more. But instead, Putin's Russia unleashed another, the largest and most brutal war in Europe after World War II to exterminate its neighbors in Ukraine and destroy peaceful cities, the infrastructure of Ukraine, and also causing enormous damage to the environment and its fertile black soil. Last year, 50-70 thousand shells per day were produced in the Donbass. Chernozems are filled with heavy metals and other compounds harmful to agriculture.

  Russia claims that it has come to Ukraine to protect the Russian-speaking population, but instead of protecting it, it primarily kills the Russian-speaking population of Ukraine, which lives compactly in the Donbass region and, thanks to the use of the “fire shaft” tactics, destroys “liberated” settlements by 90-95 percent. The civilian population is physically destroyed for recognizing themselves as Ukrainians, as well as for discovering the attributes of the Ukrainian state. There should be no forgiveness for such crimes. At least for the next few generations. Russia, thanks to Ukraine's support from civilized states, will definitely be defeated in this war.

[DrBeer]

I, as a citizen of Ukraine, whose relatives live in Russia, will tell you what war is, in relation to our situation.
The reasons for Russia's attack on Ukraine will be left to the international war crimes court. And it will probably be considered by psychiatrists - to be such a clinical idiot as Putin, this is possibly a new mental illness.

This war is definitely destroying Ukraine. Economy, cities, lives, families, happiness, future. We will restore the economy and cities, because restoring them is only a matter of time and money. But lives, families and happiness will never be restored This is the strongest psychological trauma for hundreds of thousands of people. For millions more, this is also a strong stress, because many had to leave the country, leaving their fathers, husbands or sons here, who remained to defend their homeland from the terrorist attack of Russia.

But for the country that attacked Ukraine, this is a complete and irreversible degradation. The fact that they are sent to the front precisely in the form of cannon fodder is no longer a secret to anyone. Already the inhabitants of Russia themselves, who got to the front, squeal that they were thrown to the slaughter. BUT, they are also cowardly silent and do nothing, wildly afraid to raise their voice against the POWER. This is typical slave behavior - between life and death is NOTHING, they choose death for the sake of not opposing power. At the same time, Russia's able-bodied, productive population is being destroyed. Now more than 200,000 Russians have already died (this is taking into account gangs such as Wagner PMCs and other illegal criminal groups), more than 300,000 Russians are disabled with severe injuries.
The economy is collapsing, the army is degrading, the population is dying out. All means are thrown at the satisfaction of Putin's insane complexes. There is no money for medicine, education, social programs in Russia! And it won't, because sanctions can't be turned off like a light switch. And if the whole civilized world helps Ukraine, then no one will help Russia. And no one will support and feed Russia as it was in 1998. And even their "friends" such as China, India, Iran will simply tear apart the decrepit carcass, which they are already doing now, realizing that Russia has no future and it is necessary to quickly take away "its share" from the almost corpse of Russia ...

[Ozero]

Like you, I must say that war between Russia and Ukraine is a crime and should never be supported or encouraged. But in the case of Russia, if they don't act, Ukraine joins NaTo then the safety of its people and their prosperity will be threatened as NaTo establishes military bases close to their territory. Each side has its own reasons, it is difficult to defend either side.

Today, April 4, 2023, Finland officially became the 31st state that is part of the NATO military-political bloc. The announcement was made by US Secretary of State Anthony Blinken at the document exchange ceremony between Finland and the Alliance.

What Putin most feared happened - Russia gained about 1,300 more kilometers of direct border with the NATO country that is Finland. Before the entry of this country into NATO, the total length of the land borders of the Russian Federation with the countries of the alliance (Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland and Norway) was about 1260 kilometers. Thus, the total length of Russia's land border with NATO members is already more than 2,500 kilometers. Now we can say with confidence that the border between Ukraine and Russia will be added to this border, which is 2295 km, including the length of the sea part - 321 km, the land part - 1974 km.
Thus, Putin achieved the exact opposite effect.

[Joshapat]

The economic war is now increasingly massive, many countries have emerged with powerful new economic powers, in the past China was a weak country which was used as the object of marketing from many countries, now the opposite is happening, China has turned into a strong industrial country and almost all Chinese products are spread and dominate the world .

[Smartprofit]

There is a theory that war is beneficial to those countries that do not participate in it.  Especially if they carry out the supply of weapons and other resources to the warring parties. 

Usually destructive wars sober up people, people begin to strive for peace and avoid starting hostilities.  So in the last century there was a powerful anti-war movement in the world, no one wanted a repeat of World War II and the massive use of nuclear weapons. 

When the US authorities began deploying Pershing missiles in Western Europe, many Europeans took to anti-war demonstrations.  And then Mikhail Gorbachev came to power in the USSR and proposed a policy of disarmament...

However, now there is no mass anti-war movement in the world at all.  And all people, in principle, resigned themselves to the possibility of war with the use of nuclear weapons.  And it's very bad.

[Ahli38]

The economic war is now increasingly massive, many countries have emerged with powerful new economic powers, in the past China was a weak country which was used as the object of marketing from many countries, now the opposite is happening, China has turned into a strong industrial country and almost all Chinese products are spread and dominate the world .

even the Chinese currency (Yuan) has now been used in international trade by several countries. which shows China's current economic strength almost rivals the US. even China is now forming trade alliances with several countries that also have the goal of not being too dependent on the US Dollar. so trades are conducted in terms of money respectively or in yuan. currently joining the alliance include Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Russia, India and several countries from Central Asia.

even France has started trading with China by using the Chinese yuan currency, namely to purchase 65 thousand tons of liquefied natural gas. (Sourch) I think the global economy is starting to have a shift towards Asia right now. Dollar dominance could even weaken if this continues.

[Similificator]

Isn't it just sad that when you think about it, most of the reasons for war are simple and can easily be prevented but at the same time is also too difficult to stop? I mean, lower your ego, don't be too greedy, proving superiority over others isn't what the world needs right now, do not distinguish between allied and enemy countries when helping those in need, etc,. etc. There are things that can be done to stop all this madness but at the same time also impossible due to the stubborn human nature that most of the people can't control well especially those that are drunk on power and deluded principles or false/wrong planted patriotism. For simple people like us, we can only accept the reality of how unfixable this world has become already. Sigh, I pity the future generations, I really do.

[Yatsan]

Economic progression would be stopped for sure simply because everyone in those countries to ve involved would forcus more on surviving than to strive for the betterment of an economy. For sure there would be a recovery phase after the war but expect that it would be long enough for people to handle it with extra efforts. This is also why many countries are disengaging with war talks because it won't yield to anything positive for countries; Manpower, wealth of a country and broken relationships between countries involved in the war. This would also mean prices of imported marketable goods could either go up or down. This is also why there are alliances eixting.

[RockBell]

When it comes to conflict, its effects extend beyond only the economy to individual lives as well. Damage to infrastructure, a decline in individuals of working age, inflation, scarcity, ambiguity, a rise in debt, and disruptions to regular economic activity are all potential results. And when it comes to infrastructure, a lot of people have been displaced, looking at Russia, Ukraine's economy, and the social lives of its population, looking at Russia when it comes to oil, other countries are already taking advantage of the possibility to supply oil to other countries, all Russia care about now is the war.