War and systems

War in the Ukraine has taken a decisive turn with the destruction of a Malaysia airliner. War starts for obvious reasons, but their origins are often a decisive point in their later development. The recession may be worsening the west's position over Ukraine, but the war started over the annexation of Crimea and the development of Russian policy towards Ukraine, the destruction of the airliner threatens to draw international attention to the issue and expose Russia to its enemies and domestic opponents. I would expect this to be taken as the start of a war over separatism.

Wars are externally powered and internally suffered and decided. The Ukraine issue is unimportant to Russians and Ukraine is internally divided. The threat is from intervention by outside powers and the European Union is not one. I suggest Russia has interests in the region that could threaten its national power base, and this is why it is vulnerable on the issue. Ukraine has more to loose but is being determined by western interests. he conflict is between these interests and Russia fears, and unluckily for the US government Russia is no longer territorially dominated by the future of the Moscow leadership.

War is a threat when technological powers interlock, their existence depends on resolution because of the interests created. Russian fears are great because the west is involved and the south threatens the west with new abilities and resources which it finds difficult to control. War is a witches broth and Shakespeare is too often taken seriously on this issue. Ukraine is starting to interest the west, and this could indicate a longer period of conflict than political actors are expecting. Nationalism is a force in the west and east and unlike other Communist nations the interaction is likely to spill over into other integration issues.

The cost of war is often ignored is figures as well as resources and tragedy. The post-decade undermines those who benefitted because of these reasons. The tactics ensure this is a result because of global status and new alignments like Nato are often misjudged as benefitting host nations. The threat is determining the outcome in terms of nationalism, but is the outcome determining the cause. The cost of war would logically prohibit it, but like the origins Ukraine is an issue which was avoided and developed because of its central geographical position.

Wars can be stopped, not by political actors, but external powers and influential individuals who have the time and money to invest in human resources. They can also be accelerated and the threat is greater than the growth of casualties or expenditure. War is a terrorist force and history accepts its verdict. The common man has the vote but not enough influence to save his or her life. Rights are decided by the victors and Nato worsens their chances, not supports them. I argue the victory is complete when the hypothesis is accepted of the reason and benefit of the outcome.