that is very correct! no matter what they say, civilians are the most affected as they have no weapon to use. they are just depending on their soldiers to protect their lives. and then what? who will supply them their basic needs during this war? yes, their govt may give them some type of survival kit, but recovering their entire life would be on their own hands. there's no winner in every war, so to speak.
That’s the reality and yet the government still choose to go on a war and that could be for something. Russia won’t take that war if they are not into something, most probably they want something bigger. War is not good to humanity, every government should not pursue this at all cost because we can’t afford any world war again. I can’t imagine our country if there’s another war, probably we won’t survive. 
Topic: Going to war means let's ulter the economic progression - page 5. (Read 1167 times)
This is indeed one of the things that can indeed be a decisive or turning point in the economy because it is clear that with the war there will definitely be an economic crisis, but the problem is that when so many lives have been lost, it is actually very sad because I still feel it is not worth it when there are so many people. Even though the existing victims were replaced with economic progress, I still don't really like this because apart from the economic impact, the psyche of the people involved in the war are definitely affected.
Killing civilians is not the main objective of fighting wars and is considered a war crime even if one person who is not a military person is killed. The problem is the exploitation of densely populated cities as hideouts and fortresses, in addition to using people as human shields during confrontations.The rules of war that no one respects require that the conflict be between armies and not against the population. It also requires the availability of a battlefield and the provision of humanitarian corridors for civilians, while neutralizing hospitals and shelters .
As for the availability of the battlefield, this is actually only a cover because what is certain is that when something like this happens there are many reasons for it to happen, for example in a middle eastern country, which is suspected for several reasons.
that is very correct! no matter what they say, civilians are the most affected as they have no weapon to use. they are just depending on their soldiers to protect their lives. and then what? who will supply them their basic needs during this war? yes, their govt may give them some type of survival kit, but recovering their entire life would be on their own hands. there's no winner in every war, so to speak.
This is indeed one of the things that can indeed be a decisive or turning point in the economy because it is clear that with the war there will definitely be an economic crisis, but the problem is that when so many lives have been lost, it is actually very sad because I still feel it is not worth it when there are so many people. Even though the existing victims were replaced with economic progress, I still don't really like this because apart from the economic impact, the psyche of the people involved in the war are definitely affected.
Killing civilians is not the main objective of fighting wars and is considered a war crime even if one person who is not a military person is killed. The problem is the exploitation of densely populated cities as hideouts and fortresses, in addition to using people as human shields during confrontations.The rules of war that no one respects require that the conflict be between armies and not against the population. It also requires the availability of a battlefield and the provision of humanitarian corridors for civilians, while neutralizing hospitals and shelters .
As for the availability of the battlefield, this is actually only a cover because what is certain is that when something like this happens there are many reasons for it to happen, for example in a middle eastern country, which is suspected for several reasons.
Actually, there are quite a number of reasons why wars can occur, as you said, not all wars are related to business problems. There are also countries that do have a very good military strength and a good economy too, but in the end the country is at war with other countries. One of them as you said is just a matter of ego, where there are countries that want to show their strengths better than other countries. That they are a strong country
and if the reason for war is just ego, it is a sad reason for war.
Which many parties were harmed because of the war, but if the reason for war is just ego, that in my opinion is really ridiculous. That's why we have to choose a really wise country leader, and indeed prioritizes the interests of its residents above anything else. But nowadays it seems difficult to choose such a leader, most leaders, especially in big countries, must prioritize their own interests. That's why there are so many countries whose
economy is getting worse, just because their leaders are not wise in making decisions.
Elections and power, that's basically where it comes down to. If a nation is going into war, that usually means either the ruler wants to win some elections, or if they have no elections that they care (like China or Russia) they are willing to just show their power to the world and that's it.and if the reason for war is just ego, it is a sad reason for war.
Which many parties were harmed because of the war, but if the reason for war is just ego, that in my opinion is really ridiculous. That's why we have to choose a really wise country leader, and indeed prioritizes the interests of its residents above anything else. But nowadays it seems difficult to choose such a leader, most leaders, especially in big countries, must prioritize their own interests. That's why there are so many countries whose
economy is getting worse, just because their leaders are not wise in making decisions.
Ego is a good surname for power, like what Putin did, Ukraine wanted to join Europe, and Putin showed this as a chance to prove he is powerful and if he wants to he could stop it, which he is failing so far as we can see, which was expected, Russia doesn't have even remotely the power that west has, and even just supporting Ukraine they managed to blow them back, imagine what would happen if it was a direct war.
Overall, there's really no reason to go to war. In simple terms, war is bad and has to be avoided. If all the energy and money and other resources spent on wars would instead be focused on something else, the world condition would be a lot better.
Especially in the age of globalization, wars would really cause a lot of damage. Russia's invasion attempt of Ukraine gives us an idea of how limited violence could produce global effects.
Everything said is true. War is in any case not only bad, but terrible from any point of view. But do not forget that the war does not start by itself. It is started and fueled by the destruction and murder of people. It is not Putin alone who unleashed the bloodiest war in Europe since World War II. Do not forget that the majority of the Russian population supported Putin's actions in the war against Ukraine and called for harder bombing and shelling of Ukrainian cities and killing civilians. The 200,000-strong army that invaded Ukraine and exterminates Ukrainians are also citizens of Russia. During the seven months of the war, we did not see any significant protests against this war in Russia. Therefore, Russians all over the world should be treated as robbers, rapists and murderers, regardless of who and what of them have been doing all this time. Especially in the age of globalization, wars would really cause a lot of damage. Russia's invasion attempt of Ukraine gives us an idea of how limited violence could produce global effects.
For totalitarian degraded regimes, war is the only option to keep the community in order to prevent its overthrow, as a result of the global decline in the standard of living of the local population. In a sense, this "stabilizes" the economy a bit, as the entire STATE economy is switching to a "military regime", and it works 24 * 7. True, private business is almost completely dying.
This is indeed one of the things that can indeed be a decisive or turning point in the economy because it is clear that with the war there will definitely be an economic crisis, but the problem is that when so many lives have been lost, it is actually very sad because I still feel it is not worth it when there are so many people. Even though the existing victims were replaced with economic progress, I still don't really like this because apart from the economic impact, the psyche of the people involved in the war are definitely affected.
Killing civilians is not the main objective of fighting wars and is considered a war crime even if one person who is not a military person is killed. The problem is the exploitation of densely populated cities as hideouts and fortresses, in addition to using people as human shields during confrontations.The rules of war that no one respects require that the conflict be between armies and not against the population. It also requires the availability of a battlefield and the provision of humanitarian corridors for civilians, while neutralizing hospitals and shelters .
As for the availability of the battlefield, this is actually only a cover because what is certain is that when something like this happens there are many reasons for it to happen, for example in a middle eastern country, which is suspected for several reasons.
It could mean this, but IMHO go to war could also mean that the maintaining of the existing order has been upset or disturbed for whatever reasons. In turn these reasons can also economic ramifications.
Unfortunately people and governments have a completely different view of war, for the people a war is a horrible event, if they happen to be part of it, this means they will lose their home, jobs and even be forced to fight and lose their lives as well, but for governments war is a business, which is what makes them way more eager to want to wage it as they are not the ones carrying the heavy consequences of a protracted war, and while I think the majority of the people longs for a world without war, I do not think this is something we will live to see.
Some war are not business mind because some country don't produce war weapons but they still go on to war. The reason for the war is not only for selling of war machines but they go into war if the people in government have ego. Too much ego and pride make for selfish reason of going for war. When the head of state want to show superior to the other president, he can decide for war because of that pride and will not make peace in between the both. Pride is the problem for war like Putin of Russia not agreeing for peace no matter peace discussion agreement.
Actually, there are quite a number of reasons why wars can occur, as you said, not all wars are related to business problems. There are also countries
that do have a very good military strength and a good economy too, but in the end the country is at war with other countries. One of them as you
said is just a matter of ego, where there are countries that want to show their strengths better than other countries. That they are a strong country
and if the reason for war is just ego, it is a sad reason for war.
Which many parties were harmed because of the war, but if the reason for war is just ego, that in my opinion is really ridiculous. That's why we have
to choose a really wise country leader, and indeed prioritizes the interests of its residents above anything else. But nowadays it seems difficult to
choose such a leader, most leaders, especially in big countries, must prioritize their own interests. That's why there are so many countries whose
economy is getting worse, just because their leaders are not wise in making decisions.
...There are many negative effect of war but no profit...[/url]
I probably read all of the wars that are written in the books. And it is actually all about profit, either by land, power, religion, and ethnicity. Wars may be costly of course but those involved especially the aggressor calculated it already and made sure that it is all worth it.
So let's talk about the example which is the current Russian invasion of Ukraine. Do we really think Putin and his cabinets didn't expect heavy sanctions and losses coming? Of course, they analyzed as many possible outcomes. Russia believes that it is worth it to invade Ukraine in order to strengthen its position in the country and the possibility of stopping it from joining NATO. If Ukraine joins NATO then there is a high possibility that nukes will be installed. Crimea a part of Ukraine that was taken earlier by Russia has been a big naval base of the Russian navy since the old times and it will be in danger if Ukraine joins NATO.
Although Russia didn't expect the war to prolong I think it will end with the aggressor holding big Crimea and the rebel regions of Luhansk and Donetsk in the east. There are only over 200 million Russians and its vast lands are rich enough for them to recover its economic losses in the coming years.
I am not saying that I am a pro-Russian invasion here. I believe wars should be prevented at all costs. But as a long-time history and current events follower, I can see the Russian point of view.
Sure, all wars start with a goal and there will be profits in it. No country spends billions of dollars to wage war without taking into account profit, profit here is about territory, people, natural resources...
Today, the world is no longer the same as before, war is very unlikely, it is no longer an invasion between big countries and small countries to win resources or assert their position. It only flares up when there are problems that cannot be solved by foreign policy and it directly affects the safety and interests of the country.
Like you, I must say that war between Russia and Ukraine is a crime and should never be supported or encouraged. But in the case of Russia, if they don't act, Ukraine joins NaTo then the safety of its people and their prosperity will be threatened as NaTo establishes military bases close to their territory. Each side has its own reasons, it is difficult to defend either side.
We'll said fellas. Everybody think that Putin is out of his mind, that includes me to be honest. But at the same time, deep in our minds, we know that things are complicated but there are profits to gain and it is even more valuable than money. Security is what inside Putin's head and Crimea together with some territories in eastern Ukraine.
Depending on someone's perspective but negotiations are generally clear that Russia has the upper hand. Russian main demands is for Ukraine to never join NATO, officially accepts that Crimea is part of Russia and Donbas and Luhansk be granted independence. And Russia is occupying more than its primary objectives that means more cards to play in the negotiating table. Even if Russia won't achieve all of these terms in the treaty it is still a victory for them than not doing anything.
...There are many negative effect of war but no profit...[/url]
I probably read all of the wars that are written in the books. And it is actually all about profit, either by land, power, religion, and ethnicity. Wars may be costly of course but those involved especially the aggressor calculated it already and made sure that it is all worth it.
So let's talk about the example which is the current Russian invasion of Ukraine. Do we really think Putin and his cabinets didn't expect heavy sanctions and losses coming? Of course, they analyzed as many possible outcomes. Russia believes that it is worth it to invade Ukraine in order to strengthen its position in the country and the possibility of stopping it from joining NATO. If Ukraine joins NATO then there is a high possibility that nukes will be installed. Crimea a part of Ukraine that was taken earlier by Russia has been a big naval base of the Russian navy since the old times and it will be in danger if Ukraine joins NATO.
Although Russia didn't expect the war to prolong I think it will end with the aggressor holding big Crimea and the rebel regions of Luhansk and Donetsk in the east. There are only over 200 million Russians and its vast lands are rich enough for them to recover its economic losses in the coming years.
I am not saying that I am a pro-Russian invasion here. I believe wars should be prevented at all costs. But as a long-time history and current events follower, I can see the Russian point of view.
Sure, all wars start with a goal and there will be profits in it. No country spends billions of dollars to wage war without taking into account profit, profit here is about territory, people, natural resources...
Today, the world is no longer the same as before, war is very unlikely, it is no longer an invasion between big countries and small countries to win resources or assert their position. It only flares up when there are problems that cannot be solved by foreign policy and it directly affects the safety and interests of the country.
Like you, I must say that war between Russia and Ukraine is a crime and should never be supported or encouraged. But in the case of Russia, if they don't act, Ukraine joins NaTo then the safety of its people and their prosperity will be threatened as NaTo establishes military bases close to their territory. Each side has its own reasons, it is difficult to defend either side.
Unfortunately people and governments have a completely different view of war, for the people a war is a horrible event, if they happen to be part of it, this means they will lose their home, jobs and even be forced to fight and lose their lives as well, but for governments war is a business, which is what makes them way more eager to want to wage it as they are not the ones carrying the heavy consequences of a protracted war, and while I think the majority of the people longs for a world without war, I do not think this is something we will live to see.
Some war are not business mind because some country don't produce war weapons but they still go on to war. The reason for the war is not only for selling of war machines but they go into war if the people in government have ego. Too much ego and pride make for selfish reason of going for war. When the head of state want to show superior to the other president, he can decide for war because of that pride and will not make peace in between the both. Pride is the problem for war like Putin of Russia not agreeing for peace no matter peace discussion agreement.
War has always been associated with altered economic progression for citizens who then become victims of the harsh economic realities they will have to face as a result of crisis. But there are some people and companies that benefit and are not really affected whenever there is a crisis for instance, the manufacturers of guns and ammunitions, pharmaceutical supplies as well and relief materials are always in profit.
Unfortunately people and governments have a completely different view of war, for the people a war is a horrible event, if they happen to be part of it, this means they will lose their home, jobs and even be forced to fight and lose their lives as well, but for governments war is a business, which is what makes them way more eager to want to wage it as they are not the ones carrying the heavy consequences of a protracted war, and while I think the majority of the people longs for a world without war, I do not think this is something we will live to see.War has always been associated with altered economic progression for citizens who then become victims of the harsh economic realities they will have to face as a result of crisis. But there are some people and companies that benefit and are not really affected whenever there is a crisis for instance, the manufacturers of guns and ammunitions, pharmaceutical supplies as well and relief materials are always in profit.
Unfortunately people and governments have a completely different view of war, for the people a war is a horrible event, if they happen to be part of it, this means they will lose their home, jobs and even be forced to fight and lose their lives as well, but for governments war is a business, which is what makes them way more eager to want to wage it as they are not the ones carrying the heavy consequences of a protracted war, and while I think the majority of the people longs for a world without war, I do not think this is something we will live to see. 
I see this that lets go to war means let us ulter the existence of certain economic progression
No one prays for war to occur because there will be unrest everywhere and the cost of lives to it will be without numbers with these among other loses but in other way round, let's consider if there should ever be a need for engaging into war if it's as important as many thought of, when a country, it's leaders or a particular set of people engage in an illegal act or activities that is against the growth and development of the people, lives and property and thereby holding the people on hostage denying them freedom amd right to a good and free living, then comes in an intervention from other countries more in power to fight for the oppressed through engaging into war with each other just to safe humanity and lives, such basis for war is genuine and acceptable because it free the people from being hypnotized and got colonized by rebels or bad leaders.
The war could not only ruin and end lives but also kills the economy as it gets worse each day. The innocent lives of those who are trying to survive are highly affected by economic progression. Even huge capitalists and investors are affected. It could cause a global economic crisis just like what is happening right now due to the war between Russia and Ukraine.
As much as possible, small countries that couldn't deal with the effects of war are trying to avoid it but there are powerful countries that want invasion since they're fully equipped and prepared for its consequences just to pursue their desires. It could definitely affect people not just physically but also emotionally and could even cause trauma. If the current war wouldn't end as soon as possible, there will be a huge effect globally that we might experience in the future especially since Russia has a huge role in the oil supply globally.
Lives are at stake and that is much worse than the economy part, I understand people all around the world who are not involved in this war doesn't care about the possibility of death, because they are not living there.As much as possible, small countries that couldn't deal with the effects of war are trying to avoid it but there are powerful countries that want invasion since they're fully equipped and prepared for its consequences just to pursue their desires. It could definitely affect people not just physically but also emotionally and could even cause trauma. If the current war wouldn't end as soon as possible, there will be a huge effect globally that we might experience in the future especially since Russia has a huge role in the oil supply globally.
But, imagine being a person from Ukraine, and how there is a possibility that Russia could literally bomb you and kill you and cause you so much pain, in fact worst thing could be them killing everyone you love and not killing you, making you suffer through life knowing that everyone you loved has died in agony due to war. Hence, bad economy or not, I accept even worse economy if the war would end, but it would also help the economy too, so ending the war has super amazing results.
A friend of mine recounted an ordeal at his workplace, in which, fighting between colleagues cost them their jobs. War is expensive, in whatever form it comes and as such it must be avoided.
Although most cases require that both parties throw a few punches to buttress a point, with modernization and the ability for disagreeing parties to sit together and reach a compromise, it shouldn't resort to tearing down infrastructures or taking lives before listening ears interfere to prevent a breakdown of economic and political order.
But, it will also look wrong if you won't fight back if your opponents are the ones who started the fight and not you and then they keep on bothering you even if you distance yourself from them. This is why some don't have a choice but to fight back as well only for their dignity and for safety. Your friend should get a sympathy and those who witness it should help him financially because he lost his job or they can also help him to find another job replacement.Although most cases require that both parties throw a few punches to buttress a point, with modernization and the ability for disagreeing parties to sit together and reach a compromise, it shouldn't resort to tearing down infrastructures or taking lives before listening ears interfere to prevent a breakdown of economic and political order.
Same with what happened in Ukraine. They also receive a help from other countries because other countries know that it wasn't really their fault but they only fight back only to defend their country and to save lots of innocent lives and properties.
The degradation of environment is also there if war happen and this is major effect on agricultural produce leading into the food shortage and insecurities around that.
The military industrial complex can profit a lot from war, if they are so inclined. It usually involves an incestuous relationship between the private sector and government. The citizens pay, the members of government gets their kickbacks and the war industrial companies profit.
The Russian war is different insofar as "for-profit" wars are concerned. The effects wouldn't be so debilitating had there not been so much focus on environmental concerns within the context of energy production. The entirety of Europe can hardly afford the price hike in energy and winter is coming. Who cares about the environment? The reduction in agricultural industries are because of fertilizer shortages, not the environment.
Overall, there's really no reason to go to war. In simple terms, war is bad and has to be avoided. If all the energy and money and other resources spent on wars would instead be focused on something else, the world condition would be a lot better.
Especially in the age of globalization, wars would really cause a lot of damage. Russia's invasion attempt of Ukraine gives us an idea of how limited violence could produce global effects.
Especially in the age of globalization, wars would really cause a lot of damage. Russia's invasion attempt of Ukraine gives us an idea of how limited violence could produce global effects.
There's no reason to go for war and the people that ends up fighting the war do so against their wish because they are obliged by the law to do so in thr name of defence of their country's territory or prestige. Some of the soldiers don't know the actual reason for fighting and if they know, they wouldn't want to fight.
War alters the economic progression for the mean time and for the future. Its effect is so severe that it affects the posterity.
Peace is priceless, let's pursue peace and shaun war.
I see this that lets go to war means let us ulter the existence of certain economic progression. Apart from death of people both soldiers and the civilian, it take back the system backward from the party in the war but the effect is more on the people not in the fighting, the world at large. It is effect more on the world as it increase inflation and reduce the living of the people of the world if the countries have major contribution for the world economy.
The effect of war include rising inflation, extreme poverty, increasing food insecurity, deglobalization, and worsening environmental degradation. All the effect here are what we see in the Ukraine and Russia war, example is inflation that is affecting different country in their economy because products going out from Ukraine like wheat or corn leaving out there in small quantity and expensive. Russia is not supplying energy to Europe neighborhood and that slow access to production in the region there and causing life to be difficult.
The degradation of environment is also there if war happen and this is major effect on agricultural produce leading into the food shortage and insecurities around that.
There are many negative effect of war but no profit and rebalancing fiscal priorities could prove quite challenging even in advanced economies.
The effect of war include rising inflation, extreme poverty, increasing food insecurity, deglobalization, and worsening environmental degradation. All the effect here are what we see in the Ukraine and Russia war, example is inflation that is affecting different country in their economy because products going out from Ukraine like wheat or corn leaving out there in small quantity and expensive. Russia is not supplying energy to Europe neighborhood and that slow access to production in the region there and causing life to be difficult.
Quote
Russia is a major supplier of fossil fuels, especially to Europe. Disruptions to supplies of these commodities are driving up prices.
The degradation of environment is also there if war happen and this is major effect on agricultural produce leading into the food shortage and insecurities around that.
There are many negative effect of war but no profit and rebalancing fiscal priorities could prove quite challenging even in advanced economies.
War is easy, in the sense that it just requires destruction and hate, it does not produce anything good. It's a lot harder to be constructive and creative, which blossom best in a free society. Unfortunately in many authoritarian style governments these sad old men, who are getting close to death and have nothing else to lose, are content to kill many people in their pointless conquests. Take Putin for example, he has positively shattered any illusion that Russia is a real superpower in the world, it's economy is now in tatters and generations more Russian's will suffer into the future because of his arrogance. The Russian military has been exposed as a terrible joke and he threw away any image of strength that might have existed before this year started.
Jump to: