War: who benefits and how!

[Smartprofit]

China is a very closed country, we know very little about the intentions of the leaders of the Chinese Communist Party...

Are the Chinese really planning to take over Taiwan?  Or do they have some alternative plans for the development of Chinese microelectronics (including military developments)?  We do not know.  Until recently, China pursued a very balanced foreign policy. 

However, with the coming to power of Xi Jinping, the Chinese Communist Party has moved from collective management to an authoritarian management model. 

Will this lead to a more aggressive Chinese foreign policy?  Will China go to war?  These questions are difficult to answer unambiguously. 

But it is possible.

[1714810418]

1714810418

[1714810418]

1714810418

[1714810418]

1714810418

[wmaurik]

Yes, That's right  . The other  Items  than the Journalist's trade may be one of the ones that benefit from being able to cover the latest news and developments. this is especially relevant because the Public often has a keen interest in war-related content, making it profitable for journalists to report on it. To me War is a lose-lose situation, and the impact on the world economy can be significant.

And only those who have lost a war can truly feel how it impacts the economy. As for the news reporter who has been in the war area very often and often takes news from every incident, perhaps they will not feel a bad economic impact because they make money through the news coverage they present to the public.

But if we draw general conclusions, in fact every country that is at war is equally experiencing its own losses, even though one side is winning, the costs that have been incurred by the countries to win the war are also not small. So that those who won the war must also be considered a loss through costs and the destruction of the places they have, because when the state begins to repair the destroyed places, of course the state must also pour fresh funds into this matter.

[DrBeer]

China is a very closed country, we know very little about the intentions of the leaders of the Chinese Communist Party...
Are the Chinese really planning to take over Taiwan? Or do they have some alternative plans for the development of Chinese microelectronics (including military developments)? We don't know. Until recently, China pursued a very balanced foreign policy.
However, with the coming to power of Xi Jinping, the Chinese Communist Party has moved from collective management to an authoritarian management model.
Will this lead to a more aggressive Chinese foreign policy? Will China go to war? These questions are difficult to answer unambiguously.
But it is possible.

China, like any empire (namely, China is trying to become an empire), there always comes a moment of "hard times." These are times when the internal population begins to ask uncomfortable questions, and distrust of the authorities appears. Anything can be a trigger for this - a bad economic situation, a drop in living standards, failure to fulfill promises ... And what can be done to "smooth out" tension? That's right - a classic set: "external enemy", "internal enemy", "small victorious war". Well, or do you think the rulers of empires will CORRECT THEIR MISTAKES and begin to save the economy, raise the standard of living of people, urgently fulfill their promises?

[Ozero]

I personally judged it from the war between the two countries, Russia. Even though it was battered by many European sanctions, Russia was still able to reduce the inflation rate for 7 months in a row. This means that Russia also benefits. Then America is the most profitable from the sale of weapons and energy sources to Europe. The biggest loser is Ukraine. Really have to cry, drenched in blood and crying blood.
Russia is bad because it has been fighting Ukraine, but the US and its Alliance are in fact much worse because in all aspects they are very selfish.

Putin's Russia wanted to capture Ukraine with its huge human, economic and industrial resources in a few days and then, using them, direct its aggression against the Baltic countries and Europe. Of no small importance was the Kremlin's desire to appropriate the history of Ukraine's development as Russia's own history. After all, the history of the formation of Ukraine dates back to the 9th century, when Kievan Rus, one of the most powerful states in Europe, was born and grew stronger. And the history of present-day Russia is only a few centuries old and there is nothing special to brag about.

But Russia will definitely be a big loser after the end of its attack on Ukraine, if, of course, it survives as a single state at all. Ukraine has no other choice but to defend itself against the military aggression of its neighbor. But after the war, Ukraine will still receive financial and material assistance from the United States and European countries. In addition, the world powers are able to force the defeated Russia to pay reparations for the damage suffered by Ukraine from the war. This can completely renew Ukraine and make it even better than it was before this war.

[DrBeer]

I personally judged it from the war between the two countries, Russia. Even though it was battered by many European sanctions, Russia was still able to reduce the inflation rate for 7 months in a row. This means that Russia also benefits. Then America is the most profitable from the sale of weapons and energy sources to Europe. The biggest loser is Ukraine. Really have to cry, drenched in blood and crying blood.
Russia is bad because it has been fighting Ukraine, but the US and its Alliance are in fact much worse because in all aspects they are very selfish.

Putin's Russia wanted to capture Ukraine with its huge human, economic and industrial resources in a few days and then, using them, direct its aggression against the Baltic countries and Europe. Of no small importance was the Kremlin's desire to appropriate the history of Ukraine's development as Russia's own history. After all, the history of the formation of Ukraine dates back to the 9th century, when Kievan Rus, one of the most powerful states in Europe, was born and grew stronger. And the history of present-day Russia is only a few centuries old and there is nothing special to brag about.

But Russia will definitely be a big loser after the end of its attack on Ukraine, if, of course, it survives as a single state at all. Ukraine has no other choice but to defend itself against the military aggression of its neighbor. But after the war, Ukraine will still receive financial and material assistance from the United States and European countries. In addition, the world powers are able to force the defeated Russia to pay reparations for the damage suffered by Ukraine from the war. This can completely renew Ukraine and make it even better than it was before this war.

It is very nice to hear a sober assessment of the situation.

The only thing I would add is that there is an idea that modern Russia, if it loses this war, which is only a matter of time, will turn into a kind of giant North Korea. A totally isolated, militarized, backward, degraded country and nation. I will say this is an optimistic scenario
The problem is that modern Russia (a legacy of the USSR) is a forcibly "united" structure. Where many regions were forcibly, through wars, destruction, driven into slavery to the Kremlin, to provide and maintain it. But the populations of these regions have not been reduced to the condition in which the population of North Korea is. The population of Russia, in the "golden noughties" (2000+, when oil and gas prices began their wild rise), had the opportunity to earn money, travel the world, and live rich and well. Not all, but a noticeable part of Russia. And as history has shown - only Russia began the second phase of the war against Ukraine - quite a large part of the "middle class" and the most productive, but not tainted with ties to the criminal regime - fled the country. And many stayed. And they don't want to go back to either the USSR or North Korea. All the more so inside russia there are many "frozen" conflicts, great discontent with the "central government" and the absolutely unfair distribution of resources. If the economy collapses, which is already happening, and the authorities are impotent (Prigozhin's demarche showed this), "centrifugal forces" and discontent in the "outskirts of Russia" will grow. In the end, this will lead to the "rupture" of this artificially created country. Bottom line: the collapse of Russia into several (most likely about 10+) independent republics is what we will see in the next few years. No, it's not 2024, it will most likely take 3 to 10 years.

So the Kremlin's project, which according to their plans was supposed to be a benefit (strengthening and building an empire), will lead to their destruction and disintegration

[Argoo]

War has always been beneficial to the military-industrial complex of all countries, especially if these countries are not involved in a military conflict. During armed conflicts, large and small wars, the demand and prices for weapons increase, especially effective for waging war in specific conditions and time frames. But countries that are directly at war always lose. After all, war destroys human and material resources, which then cannot be covered by any profit from the sale of these weapons and military equipment.

In the current war against Ukraine, Russia counted on an easy and quick victory. If the Kremlin knew how the attack on Ukraine would turn out for them, they would not have made such a mistake, which became fatal for Russia.

[CryptoHeadlineNews]

The ongoing war between Russia and Ukraine which has been on for almost a year now and the effects of the war between these two is not only on the two warring countries alone but has gone so far as affecting the economies of many countries of the world that have no involvement or interference in the said war. countries of Europe are experiencing a fall short in gas supply, while those of Africa and other continent suffer from economic downfall as a result of certain products and services that are no longer in-coming due to the war effect.
With this Russia Ukraine war which the effect is felt in almost all parts of the world directly and indirectly, I want to ask are there beneficiaries to this war and in what ways are they benefiting from it.

For me, I simply don't think any nation is benefiting from this Russia/Ukrain war that have lasted over a year now, but all countries who depended on Russia's most exported products will be having shortage of products, which petrol/fuel was one of Russia most exported products all around the world, including others such as fertilizers, aluminum, copper, cereals, inorganic chemicals and precious metals. Which whatever country depended on any of those products will surely be in shortage.

[serveria.com]

I personally judged it from the war between the two countries, Russia. Even though it was battered by many European sanctions, Russia was still able to reduce the inflation rate for 7 months in a row. This means that Russia also benefits. Then America is the most profitable from the sale of weapons and energy sources to Europe. The biggest loser is Ukraine. Really have to cry, drenched in blood and crying blood.
Russia is bad because it has been fighting Ukraine, but the US and its Alliance are in fact much worse because in all aspects they are very selfish.

Putin's Russia wanted to capture Ukraine with its huge human, economic and industrial resources in a few days and then, using them, direct its aggression against the Baltic countries and Europe. Of no small importance was the Kremlin's desire to appropriate the history of Ukraine's development as Russia's own history. After all, the history of the formation of Ukraine dates back to the 9th century, when Kievan Rus, one of the most powerful states in Europe, was born and grew stronger. And the history of present-day Russia is only a few centuries old and there is nothing special to brag about.

But Russia will definitely be a big loser after the end of its attack on Ukraine, if, of course, it survives as a single state at all. Ukraine has no other choice but to defend itself against the military aggression of its neighbor. But after the war, Ukraine will still receive financial and material assistance from the United States and European countries. In addition, the world powers are able to force the defeated Russia to pay reparations for the damage suffered by Ukraine from the war. This can completely renew Ukraine and make it even better than it was before this war.

Another big fat chunk of propaganda! I hope you're at least being paid. 

What makes you think Russia wants to capture or annex Ukraine? Was it mentioned somewhere? Did Putin say this? If not, what are your sources then? SOMA (Straight Outta My Ass)?

Why do you think Russia wants to confront NATO by attacking the Baltic states and Europe? Did Russia claim that?

Your statement about Russia losing the war is just laughable. Just to remind you, nuclear superpowers can't lose in a military conflict. 

[Wend]

I personally judged it from the war between the two countries, Russia. Even though it was battered by many European sanctions, Russia was still able to reduce the inflation rate for 7 months in a row. This means that Russia also benefits. Then America is the most profitable from the sale of weapons and energy sources to Europe. The biggest loser is Ukraine. Really have to cry, drenched in blood and crying blood.
Russia is bad because it has been fighting Ukraine, but the US and its Alliance are in fact much worse because in all aspects they are very selfish.

Putin's Russia wanted to capture Ukraine with its huge human, economic and industrial resources in a few days and then, using them, direct its aggression against the Baltic countries and Europe. Of no small importance was the Kremlin's desire to appropriate the history of Ukraine's development as Russia's own history. After all, the history of the formation of Ukraine dates back to the 9th century, when Kievan Rus, one of the most powerful states in Europe, was born and grew stronger. And the history of present-day Russia is only a few centuries old and there is nothing special to brag about.

But Russia will definitely be a big loser after the end of its attack on Ukraine, if, of course, it survives as a single state at all. Ukraine has no other choice but to defend itself against the military aggression of its neighbor. But after the war, Ukraine will still receive financial and material assistance from the United States and European countries. In addition, the world powers are able to force the defeated Russia to pay reparations for the damage suffered by Ukraine from the war. This can completely renew Ukraine and make it even better than it was before this war.

Another big fat chunk of propaganda! I hope you're at least being paid. 

What makes you think Russia wants to capture or annex Ukraine? Was it mentioned somewhere? Did Putin say this? If not, what are your sources then? SOMA (Straight Outta My Ass)?

Why do you think Russia wants to confront NATO by attacking the Baltic states and Europe? Did Russia claim that?

Your statement about Russia losing the war is just laughable. Just to remind you, nuclear superpowers can't lose in a military conflict. 

I think if Ukraine had not stubbornly joined Nato, there would have been no conflict, but many people still insist that Russia is trying to occupy and annex Ukraine. War has never been beneficial to any country as it will stifle their economic development. Only countries that specialize in exporting weapons and making money from the sale of military weapons want war, but they will never directly go to war.
I agree, the possibility that a leading nuclear power in the world loses in a small war like this is very unlikely, sounds like a myth.

[Popkon6]

War is one thing that no society should engage themselves into as its effect is devastating and unforgettable upon generations. When two or more countries are warring it is said that there are other countries that benefits in one way or the other from the war as it prolongs and intensifies, especially economical benefits is one of such.
 The ongoing war between Russia and Ukraine which has been on for almost a year now and the effects of the war between these two is not only on the two warring countries alone but has gone so far as affecting the economies of many countries of the world that have no involvement or interference in the said war. countries of Europe are experiencing a fall short in gas supply, while those of Africa and other continent suffer from economic downfall as a result of certain products and services that are no longer in-coming due to the war effect.
With this Russia Ukraine war which the effect is felt in almost all parts of the world directly and indirectly, I want to ask are there beneficiaries to this war and in what ways are they benefiting from it.

The biggest beneficiary of the war between Russia and Ukraine is the United States. Because during this war, they are trading arms and giving loans to the economic crisis of the country due to the war between the two countries. Thus the amount of debt to the country is fixed and the import and export of the country is disturbed. Especially the countries of the Middle East are under the most threat of economic crisis because the country is struggling in the crisis in oil, gas, coal and many others. Due to this dire situation in the current country, can the United States be filed and in this case China is involved. More and more countries are benefiting in different contexts.

[CryptoBuds]

War is one thing that no society should engage themselves into as its effect is devastating and unforgettable upon generations. When two or more countries are warring it is said that there are other countries that benefits in one way or the other from the war as it prolongs and intensifies, especially economical benefits is one of such.
 The ongoing war between Russia and Ukraine which has been on for almost a year now and the effects of the war between these two is not only on the two warring countries alone but has gone so far as affecting the economies of many countries of the world that have no involvement or interference in the said war. countries of Europe are experiencing a fall short in gas supply, while those of Africa and other continent suffer from economic downfall as a result of certain products and services that are no longer in-coming due to the war effect.
With this Russia Ukraine war which the effect is felt in almost all parts of the world directly and indirectly, I want to ask are there beneficiaries to this war and in what ways are they benefiting from it.

The biggest beneficiary of the war between Russia and Ukraine is the United States. Because during this war, they are trading arms and giving loans to the economic crisis of the country due to the war between the two countries. Thus the amount of debt to the country is fixed and the import and export of the country is disturbed. Especially the countries of the Middle East are under the most threat of economic crisis because the country is struggling in the crisis in oil, gas, coal and many others. Due to this dire situation in the current country, can the United States be filed and in this case China is involved. More and more countries are benefiting in different contexts.

You have been very straightforward in naming the country that benefits the most as the US but many people will think what you say is a fabrication, and they will believe that Russia is the country that started the war, so they are the ones who benefit the most. People who are not Americans, but support the US government will object to your statement.

The war has lasted 2 years, the US and its allies are still aggressively supplying weapons to Ukraine. It shows that they do not want the war to be stopped soon by one arrow hitting two targets, which can both push Russia into a long-term war and take advantage of the opportunity to sell weapons to other countries. The US was the biggest beneficiary of the war, but many people still blindly defended it.

[Promocodeudo]

War is never a good idea for conflicting countries, dialogue is always the best means for actualizing lasting peace between two nations that are in disagreement.

When there is war, the manufacturers of weapons benefit more, because they see it as an opportunity to either sell their weapons or test-run their new weapons in other to know the actual capacity and function of such weapons, in case of future use.

Mercenaries also benefit, as the case may be, either of these countries hires their services in the end they get paid for it, it doesn't matter if they will win or not, whichever way they will get their payment because of the existing agreement.

Note there might be a winner, but the question is, the nation we perceived as the winner was there no casualties recorded by them?
To me, when there is a war between two countries, I don't see any victory of any kind, because in most cases both countries record high casualties and infrastructural damage. Rebuilding and rehabilitating this country involved, takes a lot of time, in some cases, there may not be rebuilding and even though there is, are they going to rebuild the dead ones, the answer is no.

Say no to war, dialogue remains the best option for the resolution of conflict.
 

[ancafe]

War is one thing that no society should engage themselves into as its effect is devastating and unforgettable upon generations. When two or more countries are warring it is said that there are other countries that benefits in one way or the other from the war as it prolongs and intensifies, especially economical benefits is one of such.

War will cause big wounds to society and war will also kill the economic growth sector, so there are many negative sides to the war that occurs. Everyone does not want this to happen because civil society will continue to be victims, children will lose their chance to live a decent life and they will not be able to go to school. Older people who have responsibility for their families lost their jobs because of the war. Any sector is in suspended animation and cannot run amid conditions of war, thus making the country even more difficult and in the end the war never ends and vice versa will lead to prolonged conflict.

Countries that produce weapons or tools for war will always benefit and they never care about the fate of people affected by war. On the other hand, those who produce medical supplies and will distribute them to warring areas, so that other benefits cannot be separated from political interests and the interests of certain countries.

[dothebeats]

War is never a good idea for conflicting countries, dialogue is always the best means for actualizing lasting peace between two nations that are in disagreement.

When there is war, the manufacturers of weapons benefit more, because they see it as an opportunity to either sell their weapons or test-run their new weapons in other to know the actual capacity and function of such weapons, in case of future use.

Mercenaries also benefit, as the case may be, either of these countries hires their services in the end they get paid for it, it doesn't matter if they will win or not, whichever way they will get their payment because of the existing agreement.

Note there might be a winner, but the question is, the nation we perceived as the winner was there no casualties recorded by them?
To me, when there is a war between two countries, I don't see any victory of any kind, because in most cases both countries record high casualties and infrastructural damage. Rebuilding and rehabilitating this country involved, takes a lot of time, in some cases, there may not be rebuilding and even though there is, are they going to rebuild the dead ones, the answer is no.

Say no to war, dialogue remains the best option for the resolution of conflict.
 

You made great points here. Those who will "benefit" from war will only live thru their attained benefits temporarily. Soon enough they will also feel the consequences of the war, which will surely last for so long. Not only that but it is something that will constantly visit them as people will keep on looking back on the happenings of the war.

[Victan22]

 There's this popular slants that says one man's food is another man's poison.so for the man who benefits from the poison, he will continually wish for more poison to be served for him to benefit.
  To this end it is obvious that some countries In the west and other parts of the globe are benefiting direct or indirect as a result of war among nations. Some countries aid warring nations in arms and other amenities instead of engaging both warring nations in peace talk.
Notably, the Ukraine and Russia war is another means through which some countries has identified an economic opportunity therefore choose to exploit it.

[DrBeer]

War is never a good idea for conflicting countries, dialogue is always the best means for actualizing lasting peace between two nations that are in disagreement.

When there is war, the manufacturers of weapons benefit more, because they see it as an opportunity to either sell their weapons or test-run their new weapons in other to know the actual capacity and function of such weapons, in case of future use.

Mercenaries also benefit, as the case may be, either of these countries hires their services in the end they get paid for it, it doesn't matter if they will win or not, whichever way they will get their payment because of the existing agreement.

Note there might be a winner, but the question is, the nation we perceived as the winner was there no casualties recorded by them?
To me, when there is a war between two countries, I don't see any victory of any kind, because in most cases both countries record high casualties and infrastructural damage. Rebuilding and rehabilitating this country involved, takes a lot of time, in some cases, there may not be rebuilding and even though there is, are they going to rebuild the dead ones, the answer is no.

Say no to war, dialogue remains the best option for the resolution of conflict.
 

As a resident of Ukraine who has directly experienced everything since 2014, I will say one thing: when a crazy, inhibited, homicidal maniac aims to rob and kill you, and has prepared everything necessary for this, plus a bunch of stupid and embittered executors - to "talk" is only to prolong the agony. History knows one rule - if the aggressor is not resisted and destroyed, you will lose. Ukraine has no other option but to WIN. I hope the world has also realized that it has no options to live in peace as long as there is such a terrorist entity on the planet earth, and it must be defeated and destroyed.
I will also bring such an interesting historical observation - as soon as the USSR/Russia had real difficulties and they slipped into another bottom, the number of terrorist, active, groups, and all kinds of terrorist events - fell sharply ALL OVER THE WORLD! In this statistics you can easily see for yourself.
And I hope the cause and effect are quite clear ?
The USSR was given a chance and saved in the second world war. In the hope that the USSR would become an adequate world leader. But they were wrong... Even earlier the USSR and Muscovy were saved from starvation and riots by the West...Hoping that the USSR/Moscow would be adequate partners...They were wrong. I don't think the world wants to be wrong again.

Speaking of benefits. There is one quite proven and logical, economic "justification" for a terrorist country to attack Ukraine. In 2006-2012, the largest shale gas deposits in Europe were discovered and explored on the territory of Lugansk and Donetsk regions ! If you search history, you will be surprised that from about 2008-2010, the Kremlin started pouring huge amounts of money into the propaganda "shale gas is an earth killer". Although, if you go deeper into the issue, you will also find out that Russia produces a lot of hydrocarbons using this technology, and no problems
After the propaganda failed and Western production companies actually came to the finish line, to sign contracts for the beginning of production, came 2013/2014. As you will notice, it is the areas where the main shale gas deposits are located that are temporarily occupied by Russia. And here the "economic benefit of Russia" in this war is quite clear - to prevent Ukraine from producing and selling gas to the EU, especially since Ukraine has a well-developed gas network (gas pipelines, storage facilities), while Russia does not have it and moreover would get a competitor.
But now all the "benefit of russia" has turned into the collapse of the economy, impoverishment of the population, and the status of a pariah country

[wmaurik]

You made great points here. Those who will "benefit" from war will only live thru their attained benefits temporarily. Soon enough they will also feel the consequences of the war, which will surely last for so long. Not only that but it is something that will constantly visit them as people will keep on looking back on the happenings of the war.

And those who often take advantage of a war will also continue to be highlighted by the media, both when the war is over and when the war is already underway so that they will only benefit temporarily. In this world there are always parties who are harmed when a party benefits from something, but if the benefits are obtained through war, of course everyone will find it easier to find out and criticize if the benefits obtained are at the expense of other people's suffering.

[Wimex]

I personally judged it from the war between the two countries, Russia. Even though it was battered by many European sanctions, Russia was still able to reduce the inflation rate for 7 months in a row. This means that Russia also benefits. Then America is the most profitable from the sale of weapons and energy sources to Europe. The biggest loser is Ukraine. Really have to cry, drenched in blood and crying blood.
Russia is bad because it has been fighting Ukraine, but the US and its Alliance are in fact much worse because in all aspects they are very selfish.

Putin's Russia wanted to capture Ukraine with its huge human, economic and industrial resources in a few days and then, using them, direct its aggression against the Baltic countries and Europe. Of no small importance was the Kremlin's desire to appropriate the history of Ukraine's development as Russia's own history. After all, the history of the formation of Ukraine dates back to the 9th century, when Kievan Rus, one of the most powerful states in Europe, was born and grew stronger. And the history of present-day Russia is only a few centuries old and there is nothing special to brag about.

But Russia will definitely be a big loser after the end of its attack on Ukraine, if, of course, it survives as a single state at all. Ukraine has no other choice but to defend itself against the military aggression of its neighbor. But after the war, Ukraine will still receive financial and material assistance from the United States and European countries. In addition, the world powers are able to force the defeated Russia to pay reparations for the damage suffered by Ukraine from the war. This can completely renew Ukraine and make it even better than it was before this war.

Another big fat chunk of propaganda! I hope you're at least being paid. 

What makes you think Russia wants to capture or annex Ukraine? Was it mentioned somewhere? Did Putin say this? If not, what are your sources then? SOMA (Straight Outta My Ass)?

Why do you think Russia wants to confront NATO by attacking the Baltic states and Europe? Did Russia claim that?

Your statement about Russia losing the war is just laughable. Just to remind you, nuclear superpowers can't lose in a military conflict. 

I think if Ukraine had not stubbornly joined Nato, there would have been no conflict, but many people still insist that Russia is trying to occupy and annex Ukraine. War has never been beneficial to any country as it will stifle their economic development. Only countries that specialize in exporting weapons and making money from the sale of military weapons want war, but they will never directly go to war.
I agree, the possibility that a leading nuclear power in the world loses in a small war like this is very unlikely, sounds like a myth.

You are right, although I think that whether Ukraine had joined NATO or not, the conflict would have been executed sooner or later, the more land a country has, the more benefits they will have either for trade or for simple territorial expansion, joining in an organization was not going to save him from such a situation, however if I speed up the process, this would harm the Russian government, since having a neighboring country allied with its opponent is not very helpful for its military strategies but even so  I think that it is not the only reason..Or because you think that China wants to re-integrate Taiwan, it is very clear, because in addition to alienating the United States from its district, this gives it direct access to international trade and this, to say the least of the privileges they will have when achieving their mission. it is true that most wars are created to be able to sell weapons, but it is not always for that purpose, sometimes it is for strategy.

[DrBeer]

I think if Ukraine had not stubbornly joined Nato, there would have been no conflict, but many people still insist that Russia is trying to occupy and annex Ukraine. War has never been beneficial to any country as it will stifle their economic development. Only countries that specialize in exporting weapons and making money from the sale of military weapons want war, but they will never directly go to war.
I agree, the possibility that a leading nuclear power in the world loses in a small war like this is very unlikely, sounds like a myth.

Very interesting assertion, well, or attempted justification
Can you tell me - when did Ukraine OFFICIALLY adopt legislative acts on NATO plans ?

So that you don't have to search for real information contradicting your statement, I'll give you a clue
1. in 2015-2017 it was decided to... No, not about joining NATO..... Due to the sabotage and almost complete collapse of the AFU by the previous president Yanukovych, the AFU was reorganized according to the standards of the advanced countries of the West - from the transition to weapons formats to the restructuring of the army structure itself.
2 In 2018, at the end of the year, an official document on Ukraine's plans and prospects for NATO membership really appeared.

Let me remind you that the first wave of attack on Ukraine, with the annexation of Crimea and the creation of two cloaks DNR and LNR, began in February 2014.

According to you, in a cause and effect system, cause follows effect ?

I assume that you have secret information that Yannukovych wanted to bring Ukraine into NATO in 2013, early 2014 ? Please share it here !

[marcous]

The answer is very complex if it is only limited to who benefits, we can see with the naked eye that Russia comes out as the winner of the most profits. However, we must objectively assess that Russia's invasion of Ukraine has a long and complicated background to explain. What is clear is that the benefits in the war cannot be felt directly either by the country that wins the battle, expanding the influence of power and exploring Ukraine's natural resources is an advantage for Russia in the future.

However, economically the two countries spent a sizable amount of war money to carry out their mission, if it was used to develop the country it would produce significant progress. Apart from the notion that the two countries are in conflict due to the interference of other countries, I think peace is better for the two countries.