(EQ): Explained By An Average Idiot

Of Conflicts and Catastrophes

An example in history to help answer your question:

During the first several years of WWII, America had no geopolitical reasons for joining the war. Even though our allies were constantly pleading with us to help, to intervene against Nazi Germany, the mantra was why should we pay in American lives for someone else's war, especially when we're already supporting our allies with funding. (Pearl Harbor was the attack which would change America's position on the War, it forced America to take action in that Hemisphere during a time when Nazi Germany was getting closer and closer to our own boarders in the other hemisphere.)

However, before Pearl Harbor prompted American military action; America's strategy was near-genius. Before WWII Europe was still considered the dominant world power, and it had been in power for a long, long time. Russia was the runner-up. What determined those positions in power? The amount of natural resources a country had under it's control, and within it's boarders. Primarily fuel and metals. (You can have almost no money to your name, and seemingly be in a state of poverty, but if your land has a gold and copper mine; you can see how that shifts the balance of power.) This is why Europe had such a strong hold on global GDP for so long; they colonized most of their side of the world, in doing so gained control of the resources from places like India, and South Africa.

Russia was the runner up - that's right; because they had the second largest geographical mass rich with natural resources.

Now here comes war. Europe was still in the process of restructuring its economy and replenishing its resources from the costs of WWI when WWII arrived. America had an opportunity to rise to dominant power by staying on the side-lines for many years while its allies (who were also considered competitors) - Europe and Russia - dwindled their resources to a point where the only feasible way to win a successful defense against Germany was to incur debt with America (who by 1943 had the most strategic and resource-rich geography under its control in the entire world. A pretty high reward when all it cost was patience.)

This did more than put America at the top of the resource food chain, it effectively gave America controlling authority in contractual agreements between other countries as well.

2,000,000 Russian civilian lives were lost during Germanys invasion in WWII.

And for years, America watched, and kept Russia fighting by supplying munitions and vehicles. And if you spend some time in the Library of Congress, you'll even see in those contractual agreements that nearly everything that happened post WWII (From the Korean War to the Russian invasion of Afghanistan) were direct results of contracts (or "treaties") that the American government refused to honor in the era following the world wars.

Why would China wage war if all they have to do to win in the long run is sit there, and let everyone else drain their resources in a conflict on the other side of the world? Because if it gets to a certain point, we'll end up defenseless against China taking control of the Black Sea after Russia is defeated.

I cannot stress this enough; game theory.

Why isn't the UN more concerned and doing more about the war in Ukraine and Russian aggression causing countless deaths than being obsessed about Israel building apartments in the West Bank?

I would encourage those asking these questions to study the geopolitical history of the first two World Wars, and apply a little game theory to the mix. When you factor in the advancement of warfare technology over the last one hundred and fifty years; it's very clear why the conflict is being allowed to play out in the Ukraine.

The UN is composed of Nations and Micro Nations which all have their own self-interests. They don't meet to figure out how to bring peace to the world, they meet to mitigate economic impacts from geopolitical actions and decisions (right now, their continued primary concern is logistical replacements for business [import and export] they lost from all the tariff wars). Think of it like a trade agreement that's designed to give a voice to the little players, so the bigger players don't wipe them out during their business transactions - preventing any single business from becoming a monopoly, while also allowing these businesses to merge, dissolve, and trade-off assets. Being a member of the Union gives them certain assurances that they won't be left to fend for themselves, and additionally, they won't have to worry about unfavorable trade agreements between other Union members which might cause them to go 'bankrupt'. The Ukraine was not a member of the U.N. when Russia strategized against them. However, the U.N. is protecting all of her affiliates and their interests by supporting the Ukraine through lend-lease agreements, even though Ukraine isn't a member; at least wasn't a member.

So right now, the UN is happy - and it's a win-win for the Western front; Europe has a supplemental energy contracts for the business they lost with Russia, Russia is traumatically bleeding resources that it cannot afford to replace, which is by proxy bringing the United States back into an economically dominant position; impressive in light of the debt ceiling. Russia only cares about the oil reserves underneath the black seas, because if Russia could control that oil reserve, it would mean that Russia, and her allies would control 3/4 of the entire worlds oil reserves.

Can you imagine what that would do to the value of the Euro and the Dollar? Not to mention countless other less-stable currencies.

Putin is willing to go all-in on this, because if he doesn't win; he's effectively set the Russian economy back somewhere around a hundred years. Which spells one fate for his regime; it will likely end in a coup before it escalates into a nuclear exchange - something the governments analysts have had figured since the day that Russia invaded Ukraine. Death is as much a cost as copper in war; that's the ugly nature of the military-industrial complex.

As for Israel and the West Bank. This has all been residual blow-back from geopolitical decisions made in that region over the last two centuries. Much of the violent conflict stems from political instability stemming from a series of breach of contracts and land grabs throughout the first two world wars. Many of these issues were the precursors for the development of the U.N. However, religious beliefs and debates take traction away from these failed treaties and it's commonly portrayed and reinforced as a continuing millennia-long holy war. It's not a holy war. It's a very long history of very poor leadership and very great leadership that's been swindled by tyrants.