The impact of war on global economy.

[posi]

Of course, war is not intended to benefit all the countries around the world. It benefits the victor most of the time. And as you said, the rich people are the least likely to be affected if not benefitting from it. At least nowadays most countries are democratic unlike in the past when most were ruled by kings where the main goal was the kingdom first before the people. It's like North Korea which is led by the Kim family. They prefer to prioritize the budget for arms and weapons while the majority of its people suffer from malnutrition.

When war does not benefit any country, but the countries that are fighting the war are likely to cause more destruction, and this has often been the case. Then why these countries prefer to fight war despite being aware of the worst effects of war. I do not think that war can benefit any victor because destruction on both sides is assured.

The countries which have progressed and laid a network of roads and built big buildings in their country, all of them become a pile of ashes in a few days during the war. People have to face severe hardships and problems arise for both the rich and the poor. Fighting and profiting may be personal satisfaction for one person, but it can never be beneficial for a country and its people.

If war brings no benefits then why does war always happen? Although even the winning country will have losses, the spoils they gain are not small, so war is not completely useless to some people. Another thing is that we are ignoring countries that are not directly involved in the war but are benefiting a lot by selling weapons and lending money to the warring parties. They are people who lose almost nothing but gain huge profits. They are even the ones who create those wars, because they are the ones who get rich from selling weapons.

[1714308141]

1714308141

[Tony116]

In short, there's no one getting any benefits after the war except for those people that sell firearms, weapons, and those wealthy people that likes to hide in the shadow. While the majority of people always suffer due to the damages because of wars that leads to poverty, malnutrition, different kind of diseases, and so many more.

I don't really know what's the motive of war, I mean what are you gonna do with so much money profiting from a war if the world you're living in was destroyed already and full of toxic chemicals from nuclear bombs.

I even believe that it is the people who traffic in weapons and guns who always seek to cause conflicts and create wars between countries. Because as you said, they are the ones who benefit the most when war happens.

Yes, the earth is becoming worse and worse due to human destruction. But those greedy people will not think much about humanity and they will only try to satisfy their greed in the short term without caring about the long-term consequences. Some people's passion for power and ambition to dominate and control the world is pushing humanity toward destruction, but they will never realize it until it happens.

[DrBeer]

Judging by the press reviews - the world economy is getting back to a better state, this applies to the US and EU as well. As for the pariah countries and the world terrorist - everything is the same there, only in reverse

Russia, playing "god" missed the point of no return, when it was necessary to make a decision and try to get out of the situation somehow "well". But... idiocy took over. Now, in addition to the fact that Russia has no good solutions on the horizon, so it with its idiocy, rallied and "restarted" the Western alliance, NATO. Which, first of all, has created problems for the... China ! Now China has a "bouquet of problems" - growing economic problems due to the destruction of ties with the West, the realization that there will be no soft measures towards China.

[inthelongrun]

Of course, war is not intended to benefit all the countries around the world. It benefits the victor most of the time. And as you said, the rich people are the least likely to be affected if not benefitting from it. At least nowadays most countries are democratic unlike in the past when most were ruled by kings where the main goal was the kingdom first before the people. It's like North Korea which is led by the Kim family. They prefer to prioritize the budget for arms and weapons while the majority of its people suffer from malnutrition.

When war does not benefit any country, but the countries that are fighting the war are likely to cause more destruction, and this has often been the case. Then why these countries prefer to fight war despite being aware of the worst effects of war. I do not think that war can benefit any victor because destruction on both sides is assured.

The countries which have progressed and laid a network of roads and built big buildings in their country, all of them become a pile of ashes in a few days during the war. People have to face severe hardships and problems arise for both the rich and the poor. Fighting and profiting may be personal satisfaction for one person, but it can never be beneficial for a country and its people.

If war brings no benefits then why does war always happen? Although even the winning country will have losses, the spoils they gain are not small, so war is not completely useless to some people. Another thing is that we are ignoring countries that are not directly involved in the war but are benefiting a lot by selling weapons and lending money to the warring parties. They are people who lose almost nothing but gain huge profits. They are even the ones who create those wars, because they are the ones who get rich from selling weapons.

I guess people saying that war has totally no benefit have little knowledge about history. War has been part of the human civilization. Be it power, territorial, race, religious, and influence. The Russian invasion of Ukraine for example has huge benefits if successful. It's just that the Russians did not expect the war to continue this long. Nonetheless, it is still holding Ukrainian territories especially the Crimean peninsula which is a very strategic location in the Black Sea. The effects may not be reflected right away since there are human, structures, and financial losses but in the long term, it is mostly worth it. Just like when the Americans risked and declared war on the Mexicans.

[DrBeer]

If war brings no benefits then why does war always happen? Although even the winning country will have losses, the spoils they gain are not small, so war is not completely useless to some people. Another thing is that we are ignoring countries that are not directly involved in the war but are benefiting a lot by selling weapons and lending money to the warring parties. They are people who lose almost nothing but gain huge profits. They are even the ones who create those wars, because they are the ones who get rich from selling weapons.

I guess people saying that war has totally no benefit have little knowledge about history. War has been part of the human civilization. Be it power, territorial, race, religious, and influence. The Russian invasion of Ukraine for example has huge benefits if successful. It's just that the Russians did not expect the war to continue this long. Nonetheless, it is still holding Ukrainian territories especially the Crimean peninsula which is a very strategic location in the Black Sea. The effects may not be reflected right away since there are human, structures, and financial losses but in the long term, it is mostly worth it. Just like when the Americans risked and declared war on the Mexicans.
[/quote]

Russia has no benefits. More precisely, if the whole world once again turned a blind eye to Russian terrorism, then yes, there would be benefits.

But now Russia is “going to the bottom”, bombarding the Armed Forces of Ukraine with “meat assaults”, having already destroyed more than 50% of its “second army of the world”, its economy, demography, financial system, and having forever lost its partnership with an adequate world.

Crimea does not have any strategic significance - the Black Sea is a closed water area, the entry into which is controlled by a NATO member country, and the entire route “to the world” is also blocked by NATO countries. The only purpose of Crimea is the mental masturbation of the Kremlin Fuhrer, and a convenient place for continuing terrorist attacks on Ukraine.

After Russia's defeat, it will not be saved; there will be no Marshall Plans for it. It will become the world's "bottom" for decades and will pay reparations to all countries that previously suffered from it.

[justdimin]

Russia has no benefits. More precisely, if the whole world once again turned a blind eye to Russian terrorism, then yes, there would be benefits.

But now Russia is “going to the bottom”, bombarding the Armed Forces of Ukraine with “meat assaults”, having already destroyed more than 50% of its “second army of the world”, its economy, demography, financial system, and having forever lost its partnership with an adequate world.

Crimea does not have any strategic significance - the Black Sea is a closed water area, the entry into which is controlled by a NATO member country, and the entire route “to the world” is also blocked by NATO countries. The only purpose of Crimea is the mental masturbation of the Kremlin Fuhrer, and a convenient place for continuing terrorist attacks on Ukraine.

After Russia's defeat, it will not be saved; there will be no Marshall Plans for it. It will become the world's "bottom" for decades and will pay reparations to all countries that previously suffered from it.

The "profit" is different from not being needed. I agree that war has no profit for humanity right now, it is not a profit to gain a land, maybe it is for the government because they could go around saying that they attacked and got the nation another piece of land, and back in the day that was the case but today even that is not valid.

Many Russians literally fled out of Russia not to be part of the army to go attack Ukraine because they do not really want that land, they do not care about that land, only Putin and his people do. And not like you can tell Putin to stop, hell Wagner leader literally tried that and he murdered a mercenary units leader. Imagine being so powerful that you kill someone who has his own personal army. That's why this isn't any profitable to anyone ever, it is the most useless war we have seen in a long time.

[ndutndut]

If war brings no benefits then why does war always happen? Although even the winning country will have losses, the spoils they gain are not small, so war is not completely useless to some people. Another thing is that we are ignoring countries that are not directly involved in the war but are benefiting a lot by selling weapons and lending money to the warring parties. They are people who lose almost nothing but gain huge profits. They are even the ones who create those wars, because they are the ones who get rich from selling weapons.

Of course, in war there are definitely those who gain and there are also those who suffer losses, but generally the impact of war is loss. The only ones who benefit are countries that sell weapons. What is certain is that the impact of the War only produces sadness, misery, loss and fear. Heroes only exist for winners, and fortune only exists for rulers. War will also bring various kinds of psychological trauma, even because killing often becomes a habit that is difficult to break.

Example of war between Russia and Ukraine, In a war situation!! which is prolonged is a waste of costs in all sectors (life/destruction of buildings and ecosystems/all expensive war equipment and mental health). Both Ukraine and Russia are spending war funds that are no joke.

[Antotena]

1. Increase in the national GDP is least likely to be caused by a war.
2. Oil is considered the most crucial resource in modern warfare.
3. War affects the stock market by causing a decline in stock prices.

What do you guys think? Is this true or false?

Greed is the reason why we have war today and selfish interest. When a war start, each party always think they will win but when it get deep and deep, one suffer more casualties than the other but eventually, the two of them most lost one or two things along the line, it's even possible that what they plan to achieve in the beginning may not go as expected, this is why war is not good for everyone.

Politics are the major cause of this and we must avoid the games they play, when the war succeed as they plan, it's always in their own favor and when it doesn't they don't have neither family that fight the war, it's always other less privileged families that do the job and die. We must be United for all and defend humanity everyday everytime.

[DrBeer]

Russia has no benefits. More precisely, if the whole world once again turned a blind eye to Russian terrorism, then yes, there would be benefits.

But now Russia is “going to the bottom”, bombarding the Armed Forces of Ukraine with “meat assaults”, having already destroyed more than 50% of its “second army of the world”, its economy, demography, financial system, and having forever lost its partnership with an adequate world.

Crimea does not have any strategic significance - the Black Sea is a closed water area, the entry into which is controlled by a NATO member country, and the entire route “to the world” is also blocked by NATO countries. The only purpose of Crimea is the mental masturbation of the Kremlin Fuhrer, and a convenient place for continuing terrorist attacks on Ukraine.

After Russia's defeat, it will not be saved; there will be no Marshall Plans for it. It will become the world's "bottom" for decades and will pay reparations to all countries that previously suffered from it.

The "profit" is different from not being needed. I agree that war has no profit for humanity right now, it is not a profit to gain a land, maybe it is for the government because they could go around saying that they attacked and got the nation another piece of land, and back in the day that was the case but today even that is not valid.

Many Russians literally fled out of Russia not to be part of the army to go attack Ukraine because they do not really want that land, they do not care about that land, only Putin and his people do. And not like you can tell Putin to stop, hell Wagner leader literally tried that and he murdered a mercenary units leader. Imagine being so powerful that you kill someone who has his own personal army. That's why this isn't any profitable to anyone ever, it is the most useless war we have seen in a long time.

The key problem is that these "many people who fled" are not against the war, they just don't want to die. But most people in russia support the kremlin's imperial ambitions, and support the murder of Ukrainians, and the kremlin's goal is to DESTROY Ukraine as an independent state that rebelled in 2014, against a totalitarian and criminal ruler and government similar to the kremlin regime

[serveria.com]

My question is why are you still here? Why are you not fighting against Russia in the east? Your country needs you, you have to enroll with the AFU and leave ASAP! 

Nonetheless, it is still holding Ukrainian territories especially the Crimean peninsula which is a very strategic location in the Black Sea. The effects may not be reflected right away since there are human, structures, and financial losses but in the long term, it is mostly worth it. Just like when the Americans risked and declared war on the Mexicans.

Forget about Crimea. It is no longer Ukrainian and will never be one. Russia has annexed it and according to their laws it's their territory, which essentially means that Russia has a right to use nuclear weapons in case there is an assault on Crimea. It's all over, let go.

But now Russia is “going to the bottom”, bombarding the Armed Forces of Ukraine with “meat assaults”, having already destroyed more than 50% of its “second army of the world”, its economy, demography, financial system, and having forever lost its partnership with an adequate world.

Last time I checked, it was Ukraine trying to attack heavily fortified Russian defences with Western tanks (Leopard, Challenger) and APCs but as they quickly ran out of armor they are now sending their troops to attack Russian strongholds and minefields. And you're talking about "meat assaults" bro?   

Crimea does not have any strategic significance - the Black Sea is a closed water area, the entry into which is controlled by a NATO member country, and the entire route “to the world” is also blocked by NATO countries.

By NATO member you mean Turkey right? Turkey reminds me of a prostitute, who is doing only what is profitable for her. They are signing all kinds of agreements and deals with anyone including Russia. They are afraid of losing Russian tourists and Russian gas and oil as it will finish off their struggling economy.

After Russia's defeat, it will not be saved; there will be no Marshall Plans for it.

Remember, you can't defeat a Global nuclear superpower. You are completely delusional and your claims are hilarious.

It will become the world's "bottom" for decades and will pay reparations to all countries that previously suffered from it.

I'd love to see the US paying reparations "to all countries that previously suffered from it" that would be expensive 

[Argoo]

Remember, you can't defeat a Global nuclear superpower.

I wonder what is the basis for your assertion that it is impossible to defeat a nuclear power, which, as follows from the text, means Russia? Everything happens for the first time. Until the recent attack by the Ukrainian Armed Forces on the port of Russian-occupied Sevastopol, there had never been a case of a missile hitting a submarine. Ukraine has successfully opened such an account.

Do you mean that Russia, with a military defeat from Ukraine, will begin to bomb Ukraine with nuclear strikes or even the whole world? Firstly, Ukraine does not yet intend to seize Russian territory within its internationally recognized borders. That is, Ukraine is not going to attack Russia, but is only defending its independence and territorial integrity. Whatever the outcome, it should be clear to sensible Russians that in this war Russia is attacking, not defending, and therefore the need to use nuclear weapons on a neighboring country, receive nuclear contamination from their own bombs and die from it is completely absurd.

  Secondly, in order to use nuclear weapons, in Russia the president must transmit a code signal to unlock nuclear weapons and thereby authorize their use. This signal is transmitted through a portable nuclear briefcase control system. The Minister of Defense and the Chief of the General Staff have the same devices. The actual possibility of a nuclear strike is feasible if permission comes from all three devices. Then the signal goes to a special service of the General Staff, which, in turn, transmits the order to the specific command in whose location the nuclear forces are located. After this - from the command to the specific officer responsible for the actual launch. In addition, the president is always accompanied by a group of General Staff officers responsible for the “nuclear briefcase.” The chain is long enough, so it seems to be foolproof. On the other hand, if this fool nevertheless decides to use nuclear weapons, will all the military in this chain want to carry out this criminal order and expose themselves, their relatives, loved ones, and so on to the danger of destruction?

As for non-strategic (tactical) nuclear weapons, the chain is even longer. The troops do not have tactical warheads. It must be picked up from a centralized storage warehouse, transported, media prepared, loaded, and military training conducted. It's a long chain, and at every step there may be doubts about whether we really want it. In addition, all this is tracked. US and NATO intelligence will quickly discover this, and NATO has developed, in case of such a danger of using nuclear weapons, a preventive non-nuclear strike, as a result of which any such state will cease to exist within thirty minutes.

  Now some states are simply afraid that as a result of long-term military failures in Ukraine, a wave of protests and centrifugal influences may rise in Russia itself, which in turn could lead to the disintegration of Russia into a number of separate independent state entities and nuclear weapons will fall into the hands of uncontrolled individuals. All other options for the use of nuclear weapons are still unrealistic, even if Russia loses to Ukraine in this war.

[DrBeer]

....

I've always been amazed by your "one twist in the brain and life is beautiful" show.

I won't waste much time on you, it's more efficient to spend it just doing nothing One fact - a pathetic parody of the Nazi Fuhrer, has already signed an order to conscript 150,000 meat to pelt the advancing AFU forces. That's the open part. There is also a "closed part" - attempts to create "volunteer units", and negotiations with the criminals, previously murdered by Putin, Prigozhin, that it is time to recruit thieves, rapists, pedophiles, murderers from prisons to Wagner again. Guess who doesn't have enough live, disposable force ?

PS I'll let you keep making up stupid fuschte "facts" for the amusement of the forum audience  

[serveria.com]

Remember, you can't defeat a Global nuclear superpower.

I wonder what is the basis for your assertion that it is impossible to defeat a nuclear power, which, as follows from the text, means Russia? Everything happens for the first time. Until the recent attack by the Ukrainian Armed Forces on the port of Russian-occupied Sevastopol, there had never been a case of a missile hitting a submarine. Ukraine has successfully opened such an account.

Do you mean that Russia, with a military defeat from Ukraine, will begin to bomb Ukraine with nuclear strikes or even the whole world? Firstly, Ukraine does not yet intend to seize Russian territory within its internationally recognized borders. That is, Ukraine is not going to attack Russia, but is only defending its independence and territorial integrity. Whatever the outcome, it should be clear to sensible Russians that in this war Russia is attacking, not defending, and therefore the need to use nuclear weapons on a neighboring country, receive nuclear contamination from their own bombs and die from it is completely absurd.

  Secondly, in order to use nuclear weapons, in Russia the president must transmit a code signal to unlock nuclear weapons and thereby authorize their use. This signal is transmitted through a portable nuclear briefcase control system. The Minister of Defense and the Chief of the General Staff have the same devices. The actual possibility of a nuclear strike is feasible if permission comes from all three devices. Then the signal goes to a special service of the General Staff, which, in turn, transmits the order to the specific command in whose location the nuclear forces are located. After this - from the command to the specific officer responsible for the actual launch. In addition, the president is always accompanied by a group of General Staff officers responsible for the “nuclear briefcase.” The chain is long enough, so it seems to be foolproof. On the other hand, if this fool nevertheless decides to use nuclear weapons, will all the military in this chain want to carry out this criminal order and expose themselves, their relatives, loved ones, and so on to the danger of destruction?

As for non-strategic (tactical) nuclear weapons, the chain is even longer. The troops do not have tactical warheads. It must be picked up from a centralized storage warehouse, transported, media prepared, loaded, and military training conducted. It's a long chain, and at every step there may be doubts about whether we really want it. In addition, all this is tracked. US and NATO intelligence will quickly discover this, and NATO has developed, in case of such a danger of using nuclear weapons, a preventive non-nuclear strike, as a result of which any such state will cease to exist within thirty minutes.

Let's start with that Russia suffering a military defeat from Ukraine is not very feasible simply because Russia has way more people than Ukraine. As simple as that. Russia's population is about 143 million, Ukraine (according to their own recent data) has about 23 million left. That's a huge difference. So far, Russia only had one wave of mobilization and according to their officials, they are even planning to vacate all mobilized troops because of the huge number of new contract troops recruited. So they have huge mobilization reserves, probably many millions of fighters. Simple math.

In the first days of invasion Putin said that Russia is going to protect it's territory using every possible weapons they have, including nukes. As Russia considers Crimea their territory, in case some country (any country) will try to invade it, nuclear strike will be carried out. I read your bs above, well, what can I say: "preventive non-nuclear strike" is nonsense. Any kind of strike will lead to a counter-strike by Russia, turning Washington, London, Berlin, Warsaw to dust within minutes. That's exactly why it's not possible to defeat a nuclear superpower - the entire world will lose as everything will be destroyed. There will be no winners. Do you want to find out if Putin is capable of this? Frankly, I don't. 

  Now some states are simply afraid that as a result of long-term military failures in Ukraine, a wave of protests and centrifugal influences may rise in Russia itself, which in turn could lead to the disintegration of Russia into a number of separate independent state entities and nuclear weapons will fall into the hands of uncontrolled individuals. All other options for the use of nuclear weapons are still unrealistic, even if Russia loses to Ukraine in this war.

What kind of failures? like building a solid line of defense and destroying the attacking enemy? And don't start with that "Russia is going to disintegrate into many independent states" propaganda. It's simply hilarious. 

[meser#]

Crimea does not have any strategic significance - the Black Sea is a closed water area, the entry into which is controlled by a NATO member country, and the entire route “to the world” is also blocked by NATO countries.

By NATO member you mean Turkey right? Turkey reminds me of a prostitute, who is doing only what is profitable for her. They are signing all kinds of agreements and deals with anyone including Russia. They are afraid of losing Russian tourists and Russian gas and oil as it will finish off their struggling economy.

I like your perspective, man. It's nice to call anyone who chooses what is more profitable for them a prostitute. So can I call you prostitute? Because as far as I can see, you are advertising sherbet.com instead of your OWN site, serveria.com. I can't blame you because you have chosen what is most profitable for you.

Just because you don't like someone's behavior does not give you the right to insult him or them!

[serveria.com]

Crimea does not have any strategic significance - the Black Sea is a closed water area, the entry into which is controlled by a NATO member country, and the entire route “to the world” is also blocked by NATO countries.

By NATO member you mean Turkey right? Turkey reminds me of a prostitute, who is doing only what is profitable for her. They are signing all kinds of agreements and deals with anyone including Russia. They are afraid of losing Russian tourists and Russian gas and oil as it will finish off their struggling economy.

I like your perspective, man. It's nice to call anyone who chooses what is more profitable for them a prostitute. So can I call you prostitute? Because as far as I can see, you are advertising sherbet.com instead of your OWN site, serveria.com. I can't blame you because you have chosen what is most profitable for you.

Just because you don't like someone's behavior does not give you the right to insult him or them!

That's a weird comment man. Just read some of DrBeer's posts - there are tons of insults in each and every post. Yet you pretend to not see it and pick one comparison which was not even meant as an insult in my post. 

[Argoo]

Let's start with that Russia suffering a military defeat from Ukraine is not very feasible simply because Russia has way more people than Ukraine. As simple as that. Russia's population is about 143 million, Ukraine (according to their own recent data) has about 23 million left. That's a huge difference. So far, Russia only had one wave of mobilization and according to their officials, they are even planning to vacate all mobilized troops because of the huge number of new contract troops recruited. So they have huge mobilization reserves, probably many millions of fighters. Simple math.

In the first days of invasion Putin said that Russia is going to protect it's territory using every possible weapons they have, including nukes. As Russia considers Crimea their territory, in case some country (any country) will try to invade it, nuclear strike will be carried out. I read your bs above, well, what can I say: "preventive non-nuclear strike" is nonsense. Any kind of strike will lead to a counter-strike by Russia, turning Washington, London, Berlin, Warsaw to dust within minutes. That's exactly why it's not possible to defeat a nuclear superpower - the entire world will lose as everything will be destroyed. There will be no winners. Do you want to find out if Putin is capable of this? Frankly, I don't. 

On November 30, 1939, Russia, then still part of the Soviet Union, attacked Finland, trying to move the border from Leningrad and create a pro-Soviet puppet government in the country. Soviet military leaders planned to end the war in 20 days and march to Helsinki, giving Stalin a birthday present on December 21. The population of Finland at that time was 3.7 million people, and the USSR was more than 180 million.

On February 24, 2022, Russia launched a large-scale attack on Ukraine, ostensibly attempting to push back possible NATO borders while installing a pro-Russian government in Ukraine. Putin planned to end the war in 3-7 days and on May 9 to hold a parade of his troops on Khreshchatyk in Kyiv. But the war has been going on for more than a year and a half, and the successes of the Russians in this war are more than doubtful.

Many researchers and analysts now compare these two wars and find a lot in common, including the fact that these wars were the greatest disgrace for the USSR/Russia and their armies. As in the war against Finland, many Russians now do not know why they are dying in Ukraine, and low morale leaves a big imprint on the results of any wars, largely leveling out the population in the countries of the aggressor and the victim of the attack.

Russia declared its territory not only the Ukrainian Crimean peninsula, but also the Zaporozhye, Kherson, Lugansk and Donetsk regions of Ukraine. Moreover, even those territories that were never occupied in this war. Why doesn’t Putin use nuclear weapons, since the Ukrainian Armed Forces are now located in the officially annexed territories of Russia?
Now the Ukrainian Armed Forces are very actively attacking Russian military installations on the territory of Crimea with the help of missiles and drones, periodically conducting landings and openly declaring the imminent liberation of Crimea. Where is the retaliatory nuclear strike?

[Sayeds56]

1. Increase in the national GDP is least likely to be caused by a war.
2. Oil is considered the most crucial resource in modern warfare.
3. War affects the stock market by causing a decline in stock prices.

What do you guys think? Is this true or false?

Indeed, the destruction of infrastructure and loss of human capital, and diversion of resources to support the war effort typically lead to economic decline rather than growth. Additionally, your observation regrading decline stock market is also valid as people prefer to buy food and medicines for their survival rather than investing in risky assets like stock market.

It is important to note that once the war concludes, economy often experiences a significant boost as reconstructions activities surge and international financial initiations such as world bank and many international development banks frequently provide funding for rebuilding of infrastructure, which contributes to economic recovery and growth.

[Rupok]

War is not good for any country, because a country is not only economically damaged due to war, all the people of that country are afraid of losing their lives and all the image of that country is ruined.  We have already noticed that the war between Russia and Ukraine has caused a lot of damage to the two countries and their neighboring countries, and many people have been injured and killed. The war has caused a lot of damage, from the energy of the country to the financial sector, the trade sector and the international level, especially in the economy and deep and has a lasting effect.

[serveria.com]

Let's start with that Russia suffering a military defeat from Ukraine is not very feasible simply because Russia has way more people than Ukraine. As simple as that. Russia's population is about 143 million, Ukraine (according to their own recent data) has about 23 million left. That's a huge difference. So far, Russia only had one wave of mobilization and according to their officials, they are even planning to vacate all mobilized troops because of the huge number of new contract troops recruited. So they have huge mobilization reserves, probably many millions of fighters. Simple math.

In the first days of invasion Putin said that Russia is going to protect it's territory using every possible weapons they have, including nukes. As Russia considers Crimea their territory, in case some country (any country) will try to invade it, nuclear strike will be carried out. I read your bs above, well, what can I say: "preventive non-nuclear strike" is nonsense. Any kind of strike will lead to a counter-strike by Russia, turning Washington, London, Berlin, Warsaw to dust within minutes. That's exactly why it's not possible to defeat a nuclear superpower - the entire world will lose as everything will be destroyed. There will be no winners. Do you want to find out if Putin is capable of this? Frankly, I don't. 

On November 30, 1939, Russia, then still part of the Soviet Union, attacked Finland, trying to move the border from Leningrad and create a pro-Soviet puppet government in the country. Soviet military leaders planned to end the war in 20 days and march to Helsinki, giving Stalin a birthday present on December 21. The population of Finland at that time was 3.7 million people, and the USSR was more than 180 million.

On February 24, 2022, Russia launched a large-scale attack on Ukraine, ostensibly attempting to push back possible NATO borders while installing a pro-Russian government in Ukraine. Putin planned to end the war in 3-7 days and on May 9 to hold a parade of his troops on Khreshchatyk in Kyiv. But the war has been going on for more than a year and a half, and the successes of the Russians in this war are more than doubtful.

Many researchers and analysts now compare these two wars and find a lot in common, including the fact that these wars were the greatest disgrace for the USSR/Russia and their armies. As in the war against Finland, many Russians now do not know why they are dying in Ukraine, and low morale leaves a big imprint on the results of any wars, largely leveling out the population in the countries of the aggressor and the victim of the attack.

Russia declared its territory not only the Ukrainian Crimean peninsula, but also the Zaporozhye, Kherson, Lugansk and Donetsk regions of Ukraine. Moreover, even those territories that were never occupied in this war. Why doesn’t Putin use nuclear weapons, since the Ukrainian Armed Forces are now located in the officially annexed territories of Russia?
Now the Ukrainian Armed Forces are very actively attacking Russian military installations on the territory of Crimea with the help of missiles and drones, periodically conducting landings and openly declaring the imminent liberation of Crimea. Where is the retaliatory nuclear strike?

You forgot to mention that Ukraine was also a part of the Soviet Union and therefore technically you attacked Finland. 

In Finland, Russia wasn't fighting against the whole white world like in Ukraine. They were not backed by CIA, military intelligence satellites, tanks, APCs, drones, HIMARS, artillery systems, Starlink, their troops were not trained by NATO. Finland's budget wasn't sponsored by US and EU. Still see no difference? 

[meser#]

Crimea does not have any strategic significance - the Black Sea is a closed water area, the entry into which is controlled by a NATO member country, and the entire route “to the world” is also blocked by NATO countries.

By NATO member you mean Turkey right? Turkey reminds me of a prostitute, who is doing only what is profitable for her. They are signing all kinds of agreements and deals with anyone including Russia. They are afraid of losing Russian tourists and Russian gas and oil as it will finish off their struggling economy.

I like your perspective, man. It's nice to call anyone who chooses what is more profitable for them a prostitute. So can I call you prostitute? Because as far as I can see, you are advertising sherbet.com instead of your OWN site, serveria.com. I can't blame you because you have chosen what is most profitable for you.

Just because you don't like someone's behavior does not give you the right to insult him or them!

That's a weird comment man. Just read some of DrBeer's posts - there are tons of insults in each and every post. Yet you pretend to not see it and pick one comparison which was not even meant as an insult in my post. 

I haven't seen his posts yet but I'll check it soon. I'll give you an advise for Turks be careful on your words. Even if you don't want to be mean but be careful on your comparisions. Some words might be troublesome for you. Maybe it's not a insult for you but it might be others.

If you had expressed the above analogy in Turkey, you would probably have opened your eyes in a hospital.