What country is biggest threat to peace?

[Tigerace117]

I'm merely going by the facts as they exist.

Again, it'll take ~14-15 years for Russia to take the remainder of Eastern Ukraine at its present rate, and even if you are extremely optimistic about how long Russia's economy can last, it certainly won't be anywhere close to 14 years. Hell, even if we assumed it could conquer the whole of this territory in half the time, perhaps because of limited military support to UKR, 7 years is almost certainly more than the Russian economy can plausibly last under current strictures even if we were to be exceedingly generous.

Russia can only realistically 'win' if it either manages to eliminate the choking sanctions on its economy, or negotiates a relatively swift end to the conflict that would allow it to retain captured land before economic catastrophe, and even so, it will have paid dearly for it, and expanded NATO historically in the process.

Assuming the same present rate is, once again, assuming an awful lot given the declining Ukrainian morale, and the loss of much, if not all, Western aid—because of Trump does even half of what he claims all those countries are going to need everything they need to protect themselves from the U.S.

The U.S. is rendering the “expansion of NATO” worthless, having demonstrated the fact that NATO isn’t actually a deterrent against aggression—as Denmark and Canada could both now attest—and with the planned occupation and ethnic cleansing of Gaza by the U.S., which will undoubtedly draw in NATO troops to help them as well.

 

[trixare4kids]

Worded differently, "Which nation's radical leftists are most butthurt..."

I'd like to buy a vowel for $250, Pat. I'd like to buy an "a".
___a n a___a

 

[EdwinWillers]

America's territorial ambitions (so far) include Canada, Denmark, Panama and Gaza.

And it's not even a full three weeks.

Well geez, while we're at it, why not mention the other 6 continents as well?

The gullibility of some people is just astounding.

 

[Captain Adverse]

Iran can be crazy enough if they get biological/nukes
Russia isn't a threat
NK isn't a threat

I voted China - they are smart, buying up US farmlands, steel mills, the trade deals etc ............... they take advantage of our laws and use them against us

Our government needs to wake up to the economic and military threats China poses.

I am all in favor of Trump developing the USA's oil, mineral, lumber, and water resources to ensure the USA stays the No. 1 power in the world at least as long as I live.

Whatever happens after I die...not my problem any more.

 

[NoMoreDems-Reps]

Russia for invading a country!
Iran for financing Proxies to attack their neighbors (thanks to Biden unfreezing their assets)
China for supporting these 2 countries!.....

So it's more of a cabal and not 1 country.

 

[Phys251]

Simple question - which country is currently the greatest threat to the western world?

Before 1/20/25, Russia. After, us.

 

[Teatime]

Simple question - which country is currently the greatest threat to the western world?

Honestly, we're all hotheads competing for resources and willing to do whatever it takes to come out on top.

 

[Surrealistik]

Your arguments remind me of the curious case of the flying bee:


<<<
According to all known laws of aviation, there is no way that a bee should be able to fly. Its wings are too small to get its fat little body off the ground," the opening of Bee Movie says. "The bee, of course, flies anyway. Because bees don't care what humans think is impossible."
<<<


Lets see how it goes if we apply it to Russia:

According to all known laws of war and economics, there is no way that Russia is a threat. Its military is too antiquated to get its fat body off the ground," the opening of Bee Movie says. "Russia, of course, fights anyway. Because Russia don't care what @Surrealistik thinks is impossible."

See literally everything I have mentioned to Tigerace in this thread.

Suffice to say, anyone who legitimately thinks that the hamstrung Russia of the present, bogged down as it is by Ukraine and sanctions, poses not only a credible threat to the West, but one that exceeds China, has a delusional understanding of its power that apparently confuses it with the height of Soviet strength. The fact is that China at the moment surpasses it handily as a threat in just about every regard that matters; technologically, militarily, industrially, in terms of espionage, soft power and influence, and so on.

If you are claiming that Russia poses a threat albeit not one on par with China despite its current handicaps, sure, but that threat is almost wholly reducible to hybrid warfare and espionage, not standing armies which have, as stated, zero chance versus NATO in a conventional conflict of standing armies, and its resources to conduct even this limited aggression against the West are under increasing strain by the day due to its ill-advised war in Ukraine.

 

[Surrealistik]

Assuming the same present rate is, once again, assuming an awful lot given the declining Ukrainian morale, and the loss of much, if not all, Western aid—because of Trump does even half of what he claims all those countries are going to need everything they need to protect themselves from the U.S.

The U.S. is rendering the “expansion of NATO” worthless, having demonstrated the fact that NATO isn’t actually a deterrent against aggression—as Denmark and Canada could both now attest—and with the planned occupation and ethnic cleansing of Gaza by the U.S., which will undoubtedly draw in NATO troops to help them as well.

Like I said, you could double the RUS rate of advance, and it wouldn't fundamentally matter; the outcome would be much the same; even quadrupling it may not be enough.

There would have to be a wholesale collapse of Ukraine's defense within roughly the next 2 years, and I very much wouldn't bet on it.

And once again, Trump's bluster being what it is doesn't invalidate NATO; it's only when he has Congressional supermajorities to possibly translate his insane ramblings into reality that I would begin to get concerned, at which point it's the US that would top the threat meter.

 

[Tigerace117]

Like I said, you could double the RUS rate of advance, and it wouldn't fundamentally matter; the outcome would be much the same; even quadrupling it may not be enough.

There would have to be a wholesale collapse of Ukraine within the next 2 years, and I wouldn't bet on it.

And once again, Trump's bluster being what it is doesn't invalidate NATO; it's only when he has Congressional supermajorities to possibly translate his insane ramblings into reality that I would begin to get concerned, at which point it's the US that would top the threat meter.

When, exactly, has Congressional opposition ever stopped a president from invading another country? It sure didn’t stop Iraq. Nor did it stop the Vietnam War, for that matter.

What’s invalidated NATO is the fact that when faced with an actual, looming threat that isn’t just “one of the countries the US doesn’t like” it doesn’t seem able to pose any sort of deterrent to that threat.

And again, if your narratives were true the Ukrainians’ own attacks would have gone much better than they have. The steep decline in morale and willingness to fight certainly doesn’t send signals that they are just making the Russians do what they want, nor the loss of multiple bastions that had significant time, effort, propaganda and men devoted to holding them.

 

[Josie]

Holy crap. Why live here if you think your country is the biggest threat to peace?

 

[Surrealistik]

When, exactly, has Congressional opposition ever stopped a president from invading another country? It sure didn’t stop Iraq. Nor did it stop the Vietnam War, for that matter.

What’s invalidated NATO is the fact that when faced with an actual, looming threat that isn’t just “one of the countries the US doesn’t like” it doesn’t seem able to pose any sort of deterrent to that threat.

I would suggest that an invasion of Canada and Denmark is obviously very different from Iraq and Vietnam, and would absolutely require a loyal and reliable Congressional majority which Trump simply doesn't have.

As to NATO not serving as a deterrent to foreign conventional military aggression that would trigger the likes of Article 5, can you point to specific examples where a NATO country has been attacked in this way?

And again, if your narratives were true the Ukrainians’ own attacks would have gone much better than they have. The steep decline in morale and willingness to fight certainly doesn’t send signals that they are just making the Russians do what they want, nor the loss of multiple bastions that had significant time, effort, propaganda and men devoted to holding them.

To be clear, and to underline the point I have made throughout this entire thread, Ukraine doesn't need to destroy every last Russian tank and soldier, and physically recapture every taken piece of land to win; it merely needs to outlast the Russian economy which is extremely plausible given current facts, particularly their rate of advance and economic condition.

 

[Tigerace117]

I would suggest that an invasion of Canada and Denmark is obviously very different from Iraq and Vietnam, and would absolutely require a loyal and reliable Congressional majority which Trump simply doesn't have.

As to NATO not serving as a deterrent to foreign conventional military aggression that would trigger the likes of Article 5, can you point to specific examples where a NATO country has been attacked in this way?


To be clear, and to underline the point I have made throughout this entire thread, Ukraine doesn't need to destroy every last Russian tank and soldier, and physically recapture every taken piece of land to win; it merely needs to outlast the Russian economy which is extremely plausible given current facts, particularly their rate of advance and economic condition.

I think you are vastly overestimating how much the US actually considers the other NATO members “allies” instead of subjects who exist mainly to do what the US wants.

Which is, once again, a rather large assumption, especially given the trends in Ukraine’s own military.

 

[Surrealistik]

I think you are vastly overestimating how much the US actually considers the other NATO members “allies” instead of subjects who exist mainly to do what the US wants.

If you want to opine, without evidence, that Article 5 is toothless, you certainly can.

Which is, once again, a rather large assumption, especially given the trends in Ukraine’s own military.

I don't find that it's a big assumption at all; Ukraine's army has been under similar strains for much of 2024, and the Russian rate of advance was slower than its historical average.

A bigger assumption, by far, would be that Russia can more than quadruple its 2024 rate of advance for the next 2 years in order to clinch this and seize all of Eastern Ukraine before its economy implodes.

 

[Tigerace117]

If you want to opine, without evidence, that Article 5 is toothless, you certainly can.


I don't find that it's a big assumption at all; Ukraine's army has been under similar strains for much of 2024, and the Russian rate of advance was slower then than its historical average.

A bigger assumption, by far, would be that Russia can more than quadruple its 2024 rate of advance for the next 2 years in order to clinch this and seize all of Eastern Ukraine before its economy implodes.

Okay, so what’s your evidence that the other NATO countries will actually step in to help instead of just denying the U.S. would go after Canada or Greenland?

Because I’m not seeing any.

The Ukrainians didn’t have entire significant size units simply melting away without firing a shot before.

 

[upsideguy]

Trump says a lot of bullshit.

Congress isn't going to allow a war over a watery ditch, or a sheet of ice.

You still think we have three co-equal branches of government? That is quaint. Pay attention, we don't. Trump is going to do what Trump wants to do and no one is going to stop him.

 

[Jetboogieman]

Everything you need to know about people on this forum that rate USA #1

Depends on how you view it.

Trump has threatened the sovereign territory of allies… more than once.

He is taking action to isolate the United States and undermine its ability to influence and stabilize nations and regions.

Trumpists don’t see big pictures, their thinking is extremely 1 dimensional and in that sense, he is laying the foundations for a more dangerous world as we speak.

Trumpists will do their clown show.

History shows us the truth, the inevitable results of your actions.

 

[Surrealistik]

Okay, so what’s your evidence that the other NATO countries will actually step in to help instead of just denying the U.S. would go after Canada or Greenland?

Because I’m not seeing any.

The notion that NATO would lose literally all credibility, and effectively be invalidated as an institution by a non-response? Speaking realistically, what's more likely, that it does, or does not honour an unambiguous trigger of A5?

To be clear, I am speaking specifically as to the efficacy of NATO as a deterrent to present enemies of the West; if Trump somehow did manage to persuade Congress to lose its collective minds and trigger an A5 event by invading Canada and Greenland, I don't pretend to know whether NATO would indeed band together against the US, which is part of why I would consider it to be the number one threat to the West at that point.

The Ukrainians didn’t have entire significant size units simply melting away without firing a shot before.

As have the Russians; the problem is that you are banking on these sorts of anomalies proving the norm to such an extent that it more than quadruples the Russian rate of advance. If you would like to bet on what's implausible, because that's convenient for and consistent with your world view and repeatedly demonstrated ardent support of Russia, you are of course welcome to that. My interest is in known facts and what's probable, not partisan possibilities however remote or unlikely. I have told you what it would take for Russia to win this war; if you want to assume a wholesale Ukrainian collapse would happen, and choose to believe that is more probable than not without substantive evidence, you are welcome to do so; I am not going to try to persuade you otherwise.

 

[justoneman]

Simple question - which country is currently the greatest threat to the western world?

Russia, It is actively at war.

 

[Tigerace117]

The notion that NATO would lose literally all credibility, and effectively be invalidated as an institution by a non-response? Speaking realistically, what's more likely, that it does, or does not honour an unambiguous trigger of A5?

To be clear, I am speaking specifically as to the efficacy of NATO as a deterrent to present enemies of the West; if Trump somehow did manage to persuade Congress to lose its collective minds and trigger an A5 event by invading Canada and Greenland, I don't pretend to know whether NATO would indeed band together against the US, which is part of why I would consider it to be the number one threat to the West at that point.


As have the Russians; the problem is that you are banking on these sorts of anomalies proving the norm to such an extent that it more than quadruples the Russian rate of advance. If you would like to bet on what's implausible, because that's convenient for and consistent with your world view and repeatedly demonstrated ardent support of Russia, you are of course welcome to that. My interest is in known facts and what's probable, not partisan possibilities however remote or unlikely. I have told you what it would take for Russia to win this war; if you want to assume a wholesale Ukrainian collapse would happen, and choose to believe that is more probable than not without substantive evidence, you are welcome to do so; I am not going to try to persuade you otherwise.

Except the US going after Canada or Denmark is significantly more likely than the Chinese or Russians doing so at this point, because, again, America is an inherently deeply jingoistic nation in the first place and its elected a “unstable genius” as president yet again, despite knowing full well what he stands for.

What’s a known fact is that every claim of imminent Russian defeat or collapse over the last two years has proven to be spectacularly wrong, between the Wagner Mutiny, the Ukrainian push into Kursk, the “D-Day” offensive, etc. Claims of over a thousand Russian KIA a day are not the sort of things being put out when the war is going well for the side claiming them.

As stated, I think the likelihood of Ukraine being fully annexed is rather slim at this point, but I find the West’ claims of Russian collapse to be fairly worthless given how often they’ve been repeated.

 

[Surrealistik]

Except the US going after Canada or Denmark is significantly more likely than the Chinese or Russians doing so at this point, because, again, America is an inherently deeply jingoistic nation in the first place and its elected a “unstable genius” as president yet again, despite knowing full well what he stands for.

I'm not concerned with determining the relative probabilities involved here when I have zero way of knowing them; what I can say with confidence, sticking to the relevant topic, is that NATO is far more likely than not to honour an A5 trigger versus its current enemies.

What’s a known fact is that every claim of imminent Russian defeat or collapse over the last two years has proven to be spectacularly wrong, between the Wagner Mutiny, the Ukrainian push into Kursk, the “D-Day” offensive, etc. Claims of over a thousand Russian KIA a day are not the sort of things being put out when the war is going well for the side claiming them.

As stated, I think the likelihood of Ukraine being fully annexed is rather slim at this point, but I find the West’ claims of Russian collapse to be fairly worthless given how often they’ve been repeated.

As repeatedly stated at this point, Russia's economy wasn't in dire straights two years ago; it is now, including dire admissions by its own central bank. That is the key difference.

Moreover, I am not claiming collapse tomorrow, I am claiming collapse is extremely probable well before Russia can plausibly seize all of Eastern Ukraine, which, short of a complete implosion in the Ukrainian military, will almost certainly take upwards of 3 years at least, and it is more likely going to take more than several times that.

 

[Gatsby]

Not a chance.

They would have been, at their present level, a very serious threat in 1990.

China's manufacturing base is a lot more powerful than ours and they have more naval strength than we do in the South China Sea. They wouldn't beat America in a true world war, but in a narrower conflict over Taiwan? It's not at all clear to me that the United States would win that.

 

[PeacefulWarrior]

I agree. USA isn't really a threat to peace, unless we're talking domestic peace.

LOL.

Iraq, Afghanistan, Vietnam, et al tell you that?

 

[Airyaman]

LOL.

Iraq, Afghanistan, Vietnam, et al tell you that?

Currently.

 

[Hamish Howl]

China's manufacturing base is a lot more powerful than ours and they have more naval strength than we do in the South China Sea. They wouldn't beat America in a true world war, but in a narrower conflict over Taiwan? It's not at all clear to me that the United States would win that.

Yes, they have lots of ships.

It's just that those ships are crap.