The June 19 defense pact signed between Russia and North Korea included a promise to provide military assistance to one another – within days Pyongyang said it was sending troops to Ukraine.
We just waiting for the other shoe to drop... Is US Marines landing in Crimea or other wild scenario where everyone goes: " well damn and that's how it turned into ww3"
They didn't start calling WWII what it is until 1944, but I think we can all agree it didn't start in 1944.
Just like later historians placed the start of WWII on multiple different events depending on which country you're in, the start of World War III will be long before we start calling it that.
I'm in the camp that the start of WW3 will be the Russian invasion of Ukraine if things continue to escalate the way they're going, because that's when you really started seeing lines being drawn between the axis and allies.
Russia, China, Iran, and NK are the most recognizable names that have aligned themselves with the axis so far.
The lines are already drawn and future events will dictate whether or not we're currently living in WW3 today.
Pretty sure Iran adopted "Axis of Resistance" already. Least they already know what side they are on.
Really getting sick of people deciding to just like...starting shit instead of focusing on constructive competitions like science or space races to other planets. Why do people feel the need to kill the shit out of each other and subjugate their population whilst climate change is bearing down on us? :p
I am also sick to the core about this aspect of humanity. I feel that we as a species are just about developed enough to understand how a better world would look like, and how people should act, what's "the right thing to do" - and very much not developed enough to overcome our egoism and narcissism to make it happen, so we do the wrong thing despite knowing better far too often.
For most of history you would be better off if you could kill the next village over. You want to be friends with the people in your village, but if you kill the next one you can expand your farm/hunting/gathering grounds and then leave it to your kids - while otherwise you won't have enough food for all the kids and your DNA is in danger of not getting passed on.
In our modern world we mostly have plenty of food (and when we don't lack of land is not the issue), but that isn't what our DNA is evolved to "think"
For most of history you would be better off if you could kill the next village over.
That is an incredibly stupid take. For most of history, the planet was so vast that people had plenty of room to hunt / farm / whatever.
And no, killing other humans is not in our DNA, the only people who feel like that are those with brain damage / development defects.
Most of the planet was not accessable. It was there but your local population grew until the land couldn't support more. There wasn't much opportunity to move as the surronding villages had the same problem.
of course when a famon came you got a few generations of peace here and there
And some would argue that WW1 was WW2 and WW2 WAS WW3. The 7 years war/French and Indian (not French vs Indian) war are commonly referred to as the real first world war. And then the Nepoleonic wars are similarly thought of by some to have been a world war of sorts
WWI was called the great war, and the war to end all wars until WWII broke out. I sometimes call WWII just the great war part 2 - the treaties that "ended" WWI were clearly setup (on hindsight!) to make the war break out again in the future when Germany got sick of those treaties.
The point is names are added after the fact and often don't make a lot of sense if you know details.
He was right for the wrong reasons. He believed the treaty was too lenient, when in retrospect it seems pretty clear that the punitive nature of the treaty was a significant factor in Hitler rising to power and then WW2 starting.
The Korean War had over a million NATO troops and also tens of thousands of Soviet troops and, somehow, remained a proxy war. A particularly bloody one, but there was still no actual open full-scale warfare between NATO and the Warsaw Pact. Even China and America remained officially at peace, despite making up the majority of the forces on each side
Apologies, I was using "NATO troops" as a shorthand for the large number of countries involved rather than the specific command structure. You are right to bring that up
Russia is actively in Syria from the end of 2015 as an official belligerent, it's not something new for Russia to fight directly while others use only proxies.
But I can see your point; still - officially - this is only a three days military operation. When that stance will finally change in the official channels, it will mean they can't hold the mask anymore.
Things to look out for as signs of WW3 will be Chinese troops amassing in North Korea, conflict reported in the Strait of Malacca, Bank Accounts being depleted by foreign hackers, and communications Satellites failing.
To me, it does not seem wise to just let these two continue along this path, but I am certain there are numerous internet experts out there who can explain to me why we should not intervene.
Nobody's average soldier age is 45. Has nothing to do NK being rock bottom in country rankings. And the younger you are in NK, the more you are probably screwed.
So like Poland was the worst country in Europe to live in at the start of WW2. Not because Poland was bad but because Germany and Russia were bad and would both soon be just as bad to live in as Poland.
Hmmm. While that would technically stop Russia from needing the troops in Ukraine, I don't think that just giving a dictator sections of land because he claimed them is a good path.
"Just give up when I take your shit" is a shit take.
Israel and Hezbollah have been exchanging rocket fire, and Israel is talking about a ground invasion.
Hezbollah has a defense treaty with Iran, Iraq, Russia, and another ME country I'm blanking on.
If Israel invaded Lebanon in an attack on Hezbollah, that draws in Russia, and likely NK.
Israel and Russia are the two countries invading others that I believe are the primary drivers towards WW3. NK is just a long for the ride until/unless they launch an attack on SK.
But I think before that happens, we'll solidly be in WW3. I think NK is onboard now, with the promise to be backed against SK later. No one is attack NK unless NK starts some shit, they don't need a defense treaty.
Pretty asymmetric that isn't it. On one side you have a nation that is rapidly running out of, well basically everything, and on the other side you've got an alliance of nation states which contain among many other things the largest most powerful military on the planet.
Finally the nation that is running out of resources is now getting military support from quite possibly the worst place they could get it from.
It's going to be one of those ridiculous situations that only happens in Civilization, where you're bombing cavemen with nukes because your adversary has failed to advance through the tech tree fast enough.
Unfortunately China is not running out of everything and they are looking like they might back Russia here. Iran is also backing Russia and not to be underestimated.
I honestly think he might legitimately believe that a couple platoons of NK soldiers will clear this whole mess right up and then the world will have to take them seriously.
The North Korean leadership is not exactly well known for their excellent grasp of reality.
It never leads anywhere though. North Korea has always been fobbed off with decades-old technology,it's not like they will know.
So everyone continues to ignore them because they continue not to be a threat. It's not in Russia's interest to give them anything really advanced, assuming they have anything left to give them. The best thing Russia could give them would be infrastructure engineers but they're probably not interested in their own populace enough to consider that a worthy exchange.