The most likely locations for future wars?

[TheRejectionist]

What do you think that the most likely locations for future wars are? I mean other than Russia-Ukraine, since that war is essentially already going on right now in the Donbass due to covert Russian troops likely helping the Donbass separatists in their war against Ukraine.

PS I think it will be "it always ends in pizza" as we say in Brasil...probably just like 2014/2015.

 

[WolfBear]

PS I think it will be "it always ends in pizza" as we say in Brasil...probably just like 2014/2015.

Where? The Donbass?

 

[PsihoKekec]

This is an off-topic question, but what are your thoughts about the idea of resettling Shi'a Afghan refugees (especially Hazaras) in Syria in large numbers if they will want to flee the Taliban?

Syria has serious economic troubles and government can only just barely keep lid on things, adding hundreds of thousands refugees would make everything even worse.

Nobody gets along in the Balkans, with exception of MAYBE Sloven with Croats and vice versa, though they went from try to ethnically cleanse each other to just angrily stare at each other.

I don't recall any Slovenia vs. Croatia murderfests, except the bloodbath after the end of WWII and even that was mostly done by others. For the most part people get along just fine, despite repeated attempts by ruling elites to stoke the tensions for short term political gains.

 

[Scottty]

Small border wars over fringe territories (eg the Falklands War) are more likely than serious "try to conquer the other country and impose a new government on them" ones.

 

[TheRejectionist]

Where? The Donbass?

Yes.

Syria has serious economic troubles and government can only just barely keep lid on things, adding hundreds of thousands refugees would make everything even worse.


I don't recall any Slovenia vs. Croatia murderfests, except the bloodbath after the end of WWII and even that was mostly done by others. For the most part people get along just fine, despite repeated attempts by ruling elites to stoke the tensions for short term political gains.

Yeah Sorry I should have structured my sentence Better. I meant between other ethnicities. Hope this Is formulated better.
You are right on the politicians, I think the situation Is similar in Israel/West Bank-Palestine. Not Gaza of course.

 

[WolfBear]

Syria has serious economic troubles and government can only just barely keep lid on things, adding hundreds of thousands refugees would make everything even worse.

They can also get Iranian, Russian, and Chinese investment, no?

 

[Cherico]

Middle East is a safe bet

 

[PsihoKekec]

They can also get Iranian, Russian, and Chinese investment, no?

Technically yes, but in reality not, as all three nations have limited finances. Iran has been financially propping up Syrian government, but due to financial hardships of their own can't afford it anymore. Russia can finance rebuilding of some infrastructure, but can't and won't finance refugee resettlement. China likewise would only finance infrastructure that would bring monetary return and refugees are not that kind of infrastructure.
The only nation that can finance such ventures is USA as it's finances are nearly unlimited.

 

[TheRejectionist]

They can also get Iranian, Russian, and Chinese investment, no?

God forbid Chiese investment.

 

[Bear Ribs]

At this point, I suspect China's more likely to break out in monkey bites with India rather than Taiwan. Taiwan is a big deal in the news with a lot of people keeping their eyes on it, and any buildup China does to try to get enough shipping to invade is going to immediately draw the attention of Japan, Korea, the US, and probably a few others. India, however, has a land connection, a chunk of territory is disputed and claimed by both sides, and there have been shots fired multiple times over the past year or so and at least 20 deaths.

In my mind that has a big potential to suddenly explode into major violence and a full-on war if somebody gets the idea their pride is on the line and takes it too far. Especially with China now getting in bed with the Taliban, hence with Pakistan, which is India's archenemy for life.

 

[WolfBear]

Technically yes, but in reality not, as all three nations have limited finances. Iran has been financially propping up Syrian government, but due to financial hardships of their own can't afford it anymore. Russia can finance rebuilding of some infrastructure, but can't and won't finance refugee resettlement. China likewise would only finance infrastructure that would bring monetary return and refugees are not that kind of infrastructure.
The only nation that can finance such ventures is USA as it's finances are nearly unlimited.

What about having Europe finance this?

At this point, I suspect China's more likely to break out in monkey bites with India rather than Taiwan. Taiwan is a big deal in the news with a lot of people keeping their eyes on it, and any buildup China does to try to get enough shipping to invade is going to immediately draw the attention of Japan, Korea, the US, and probably a few others. India, however, has a land connection, a chunk of territory is disputed and claimed by both sides, and there have been shots fired multiple times over the past year or so and at least 20 deaths.

In my mind that has a big potential to suddenly explode into major violence and a full-on war if somebody gets the idea their pride is on the line and takes it too far. Especially with China now getting in bed with the Taliban, hence with Pakistan, which is India's archenemy for life.

The logistics of conducting a war in the Himalayas would be daunting, no?

God forbid Chiese investment.

Why? Chinese debt traps?

 

[Bear Ribs]

The logistics of conducting a war in the Himalayas would be daunting, no?

Ask Tibet about that.

 

[PsihoKekec]

What about having Europe finance this?

EU does not recognize Syrian government as legitimate and had declared it won't give financial aid to areas under governmental control.

 

[WolfBear]

EU does not recognize Syrian government as legitimate and had declared it won't give financial aid to areas under governmental control.

Interesting.

I wonder where else Afghan Hazaras could be resettled in large numbers. Iran, Pakistan, and the West, I'm presuming? They could need a safe haven:

Why the Hazara people fear genocide in Afghanistan

With a long history of persecution, the Hazaras fear the worst under Taliban rule.

www.aljazeera.com

Opinion | A religious minority faces a second genocide in Afghanistan. Jews must act now

The Hazaras have faced violent persecution for centuries for their appearance, language, and Shiite Muslim faith.

forward.com

 

[PsihoKekec]

Iran is not too keen on hosting them, even if they share faith and Pakistan is hostile to Shias.

 

[WolfBear]

Iran is not too keen on hosting them, even if they share faith and Pakistan is hostile to Shias.

So, that only leaves the West then, eh?

Anyway, the reason that I brought up resettling them in Syria is because it would fit in very well with the Assad regime's apparent desire to alter Syria's religious demographics:

Shia crescent - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Also, off-topic, but please check your PM folder.

 

[PsihoKekec]

The problem with Hazare is that they are completely different from Syrians, different language, customs, looks.... Racism and xenophobia are something natural outside the West and even their coreligionists (sort of, Alawites could only tenously be called Shias) would consider them bloody foreigners. Not to mention that due to rising water issues within Syria, any area you place their population will see strife over water rights and land expropriation, with government having already enough internal issues, the only place I could see them settling Hazare would be the contested border are, which would not be much of an improvement.

 

[WolfBear]

The problem with Hazare is that they are completely different from Syrians, different language, customs, looks.... Racism and xenophobia are something natural outside the West and even their coreligionists (sort of, Alawites could only tenously be called Shias) would consider them bloody foreigners. Not to mention that due to rising water issues within Syria, any area you place their population will see strife over water rights and land expropriation, with government having already enough internal issues, the only place I could see them settling Hazare would be the contested border are, which would not be much of an improvement.

Well, you might very well be right about the racism part, unfortunately. One would think that the Assad regime would want as many loyal supporters as they could in order to prevent another Sunni uprising in the future, though.

As for rising water issues, this should be less of an issue right now considering that millions of Syrians have fled, no? So, the Hazaras will simply push Syria's population back to what it was before the start of the war even if all of them will be resettled in Syria, which I admit is not very likely.

 

[PsihoKekec]

Even with the reduced population, the water issues remain acute, with continuous droughts and Turkey reducing the flow of Euphrates. Also, contrary to common perception Syrian government is trying to remain in good graces of some Sunni population, especially middle class, not to mention that Chrisitians and Druze would also be against Hazare settlement.

 

[WolfBear]

Even with the reduced population, the water issues remain acute, with continuous droughts and Turkey reducing the flow of Euphrates. Also, contrary to common perception Syrian government is trying to remain in good graces of some Sunni population, especially middle class, not to mention that Chrisitians and Druze would also be against Hazare settlement.

The Sunnis to whom Assad is trying to appeal are the more secular types, right?

BTW, @Butch R. Mann, what about resettling large numbers of Hazaras in Turkey?