Topic: War: who benefits and how! - page 3. (Read 1854 times)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

But it is possible.

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

Whether I like it or not, the fact is that China, in the current situation, INSIDE THE COUNTRY, really needs demonstrative "great victories" to "distract attention" from those problems that now and in the future exist in the economy and social tensions, China .
After choosing a new vector for China (this is some mixture of socialism, imperial ambitions, totalitarianism), it will be difficult to explain such a turn, to the inhabitants of the "Celestial Empire" why yesterday there were freedoms and tomorrow they are gone. They need to present something in the form of a gift and a resounding victory. According to the plans - it should have been Taiwan. But this should have been after "a quick and crushing victory for Russia, with the capture of Ukraine, and the shock and silence of the West." Russia is now acting as a "guinea pig" for China. But everything went wrong, Russia lost the war to the West, rallied the West, and showed that the aggressor would be severely punished. What broke all the plans of China and its government. Now, I do not rule out that a possible object of "victory" will be ... The territory of Russia, which China will have at its disposal. Not without reason, before the visit of the Chinese leader to Moscow, new maps were printed in China, where the vast territories of Russia are marked with historical Chinese names, and described as "historical territories of China." Moreover, today Russia has degraded economically, morally and in terms of military power, and it needs a "powerful master", which China can very well become. A sort of patron, and owner of part of the land ...

PS But I will add - Taiwan was needed not only as a "moral victory", but also as the most high-tech platform in the world. And as part of the current trend of Western technology leaving China, high-tech production is vital for China ... Well, either slowly watch how China again slides into the last century, becoming a huge third world agrarian country.

There are many implicit treaties between nations, and we don't know about them. In my view, China will still seek to take back Taiwan but not now or in the near future. In my opinion, China's immediate goal is still to surpass the US to become the world's number one power and continue to move closer to Russia to strengthen its military power. Once they have claimed the world's No. 1 position, taking back Taiwan will be much quicker and less expensive. Taiwan is still their target, but not a priority. The expansion or encroachment of small countries is what big countries always want, IMO.

Winning a war in general is indeed an advantage, but I would not see it as an advantage because a country that wins a war also suffers a lot of damage in its infrastructure sector even though not all of it is damaged, but the country that wins the war also has to make some improvements which require they pay for it.

So those who win actually don't benefit either and in my opinion the most profitable in these conditions are journalists who always get the latest news and who are able to make the latest news based on facts that occur because war content is usually very much interested in reading it.

One of the "accidental" beneficiaries turned out to be ... INDIA
See what an interesting situation turns out:
India bought, well, when they did not yet understand that this was fake air defense, C400 complexes from Russia. The contract amount was close to $3 billion. Russia shipped $2 billion worth of "unparalleled" fake data to India. And then .. sanctions came.

India is a law-abiding country, and international agreements for India are agreements, India sticks to its word.

But the sanctions say that a terrorist country cannot be paid in dollars. Well, in general, as a terrorist country, it wanted to, when it squealed that the EU would buy gas and oil only for rubles, well, you remember this humoresque!

India says - "we have an agreement with Russia, there are sanctions. We are in the BRICS - let's pay you $ 2 billion, only in rupees?" Russia has already sold oil for rupees, and now does not know what to do with them, so she said - "No, India, we are a great country, and please let us have American dollars, which no one needs, uuu! Well, please, give us dollars, they we need it very very very badly! Give give give give!"

And India says - "no, there are obligations to you and to the normal world, but we recognize the debt and will pay - either rupees, or we are waiting for the lifting of sanctions! ))

Understand how beautiful it turns out!? And it's good for India! It turns out ... India is an interested country .. And this means!? ....

The people who are just benefiting from the wars are not citizens but the government and their businesses. Citizens are the victim in every war, imagine we people pay taxes for us to comply to government, and for us to have security. But sometimes, these government are the ones who give us the war that we don't need. There are some business behind this waf and benefitting with it, some are from pharmaceutical and some are the distributor of the weapons.

People who benefit from war are not the parties fighting but those who seem to be on the sidelines but are behind fuelling the conflict through whatever means.

We do not always know who these people behind the scenes are but we know that they are powerful people from developed countries that have to score a point with war regarding defense budget, neocolonialism, resources exploitation etc.

And these people are everywhere whether in war between countries (Russia vs Ukraine) or among countries (for example what is going on in Sudan right now)