Malaysia Airlines MH17 Lost Over Ukraine - Shot Down?

[Bananas]

I think the question really is do the majority of people in the East want more ties with Russia?

 

I don't believe they do, they boycotted the last elections.

 

You could then end up with "unionists" fighting to reunite Ukraine.

 

Potentially this has the makings of the east/West Germany split and that didn't go so well

[foofighterjim]

Potentially this has the makings of the east/West Germany split and that didn't go so well

 

The difference is that the Germany split was enforced after WW2, it was never "voted" for by the public.

[localzuk]

The Ukrainians have 'lost' at least 45% of their army, they don't know where they are. They are currently defending their 'homeland' in the east, as are many civilians. Even though it has not been announced, the country is gripped in a civil war.

 

The Ukraine government is in shambles, the president has quit and there will be new elections that will hopefully mean everyone can get around the table and resolve things with dialogue. The main problem Ukraine has is Kiev and the western side want closer ties with the EU, the eastern side don't.

 

I personally think the country will split.

 

*sigh* Its like you get information from somewhere the rest of us can't access. As far as I'm aware, the President of Ukraine has not quit. His government has resigned as they feel they have failed the country. The Prime Minister has resigned with them.

 

I don't know if they will split. The thing that has been pretty evident from all sides is that while the separatists have been somewhat effective up until now, when the Ukrainian army focuses itself, it quickly overwhelms the separatists, recapturing some of the deep strongholds in the east pretty quickly. The push back appears to happen most when the separatists get their hands on heavy weaponry and training. My thought is that there simply isn't enough time for the separatists to become strong enough to force such a split - unless Russia actually steps in.

 

I do think the outcome for the EU will be relatively considerable. I believe the crisis, along with the downed flight, will be used as evidence for the strengthening of EUFOR/Eurocorps/EUMS/EGF - and basically the creation of a more general EU military force.

Edited July 25, 2014 by localzuk

[Bananas]

The difference is that the Germany split was enforced after WW2, it was never "voted" for by the public.

 

So you think it'll be a fair vote then do you?

 

That's a touch naive to be honest. The previous vote was universally condemned.

 

Let's face it putin is the king of vote rigging (imho)

 

Would you go to vote against Russia (effectively) knowing there would be a militia outside to intimidate.

 

There is absolutely no way they would have a free & fair vote, not going to happen. In fact if there is one I'll bet they refuse to allow international observers in to monitor the vote.

 

If it happens make no mistake it's enforced one way or the other, either by annexation (ie Crimea) or by vote rigging.

 

The moment the leave the Ukraine vote is announced 20, 000 Russian troops will cross the border to "secure" the area.

[foofighterjim]

Did I say it was fair?

 

Did the Germans get to vote about their country being divided up?

 

What I am saying is that is so different from what happened with Germany (particularly Berlin) that you can't draw a comparison.

[localzuk]

*sigh* I have russian TV, I have family in Russian and Ukraine. This mean I first hand information, even before 'i know how to use google' zuk. THe news of the Pm will filter down to mere mortals soon, just keep tapping refresh.

 

You said the PRESIDENT had resigned. Not the Prime Minister. Huge difference. In fact its so different that it might change the course of the entire conflict. For example, an election is likely to end up filling parliament with an even more pro-EU government... Not to mention, it has already been shown multiple times over that many Russian TV stations are propagandising the conflict, with simple lies that can be disproven very quickly. This article by Time gives a good rundown of RT's manipulation of information relating to the plane downing - Malaysia Airlines Ukraine Crash Spotlights Russian TV Propaganda - TIME. If that's not enough, the mentioned StopFake - is pretty darn good also...

 

The Ukraine will split, they speak a different first language and have closer ties to Russia and don't want to be just another EU debt.

 

We'll see.

[localzuk]

"For example, an election is likely to end up filling parliament with an even more pro-EU government... "

For example, an election is likely to end up filling parliament with an even more pro-Putin government... Your point ?

 

It isn't a "just say the opposite" match you know. I'm going by what analysts are saying about the likely outcome of an election in Ukraine, if it were to occur now. The issue is that such an election would harden the East vs West thinking, and prolong the current crisis. Many are saying that the entire country needs to be taking part in the election, but its unlikely to happen, as those separatist strongholds wouldn't allow polling stations to be set up and run in their areas.

 

You also didn't bother to actual pick up on the difference between the President and Prime Minister resigning.

 

"Not to mention, it has already been shown multiple times over that THE MEDIA are propagandising the conflict, with simple lies that can be disproven very quickly."

Fixed it, wouldn't want to be biased.

 

Oh, of course the west is propagandising. You do appear to be very pro-Russian media though, regularly spouting what is essentially the Russian line on the crisis.

 

"This article by Time gives a good rundown of RT's manipulation of information relating to the plane downing - Malaysia Airlines Ukraine Crash Spotlights Russian TV Propaganda - TIME. If that's not enough, the mentioned StopFake - is pretty darn good also..."

Or there is the british press, they have been really informative front page propaganda pushing all different favours of excrement. Lets not ignore them keeping us informed of the 'truth', they have shown the world how 'informed' we are LOL. Lets slag off some media site in xyz and totally ignore our own, job well done.

 

Sorry, what? You stated "I have russian TV" as if to say this was a good reason to take what you're saying as truthful. You can't even be bothered to present the right information when called on your errors (president/prime minister), or when pointing out that "Russian TV" is biased. Were we talking about our media? No. YOU brought up "russian TV".

[localzuk]

You seem to be missing the point I'm making a bit. You're stating things, quite clearly as if they are fact. When called on the validity of those things (the president resigning, as an example) you state that you know because you have Russian TV and relatives in the area. I show to you that "Russian TV" is biased and that you were factually wrong (the president has not resigned) and now you try to distract with claims of my agreeing with everything the EU/Nato/Obama(??) says, still ignoring the initial problem - that you stated that the President had resigned!

 

This has nothing to do with google skills or social skills or whatever, it has to do with you making claims that are demonstrably false whilst using known propaganda peddlers and anecdotes as evidence to try and back you up.

 

Why you bring up the Middle East issue, I have no idea...

Edited July 25, 2014 by localzuk

[localzuk]

Ok. I'll explain my obsession with the Prime Minister/President thing. The President resigning would mean a complete end to the current regime in Ukraine. It'd effectively mean an end to the military operations as the stand at present, as they were ordered by the President as a battle to reclaim the East from "terrorists" (to use his rhetoric).

 

The Prime Minister resigning on the other hand doesn't make any difference to the ongoing crisis, other than setting up the country for elections for MPs. It won't change the President. It will likely strengthen the President's hand, as a new election is likely to exclude the East due to the ongoing crisis (through the fault of both sides - the President isn't likely to push too hard to set up polling stations there (why would he try and weaken his own strengths?) and the separatists are unlikely to want them to, as they believe they have a mandate for independence) and therefore fill the Ukrainian parliament with Pro-EU/Pro-President ministers. Compare the concept to the USA. If the leader of the majority party in Congress resigns, the country carries on just fine. If the President resigns, then the entire executive government changes.

 

Hence my focus on that single seemingly minor error - it seems minor but makes a *huge* difference to the debate and to the crisis in general.

 

My pointing out errors is not an attack on your freedom of expression is it? You can still express them quite freely, but a freedom of expression does not include a freedom from criticism.

 

Regarding Russian TV - even one of RT's journalists has just resigned over their manipulation of the truth! A journalist that stood pretty steadfast in support of her network when criticised previously by other media sources.

 

Another example of how RT are attempting to twist things - http://pressimus.com/Interpreter_Mag/press/3500, basically asking leading questions in an attempt to make it look like the Ukrainian army are the aggressors.

Edited July 25, 2014 by localzuk

[localzuk]

Ok. I give up. Your discussion style appears to be "ignore 90% of each reply, focus on one bit, take it way out of context and confuse the hell out of the matter". So, I'm gonna give up as I simply don't know how to discuss with you - everything just seems to get ignored.

[truebluesteve]

Ok. I give up. Your discussion style appears to be "ignore 90% of each reply, focus on one bit, take it way out of context and confuse the hell out of the matter". So, I'm gonna give up as I simply don't know how to discuss with you - everything just seems to get ignored.

 

I bailed ages ago trying to argue with him about this for exactly the same reason. That's the problem with conspiracy theorists! It's impossible to have a reasoned debate because so many of them are unable to critically analyse sources of information.

 

Rumour has it that Neil Armstrong didn't actually set foot on the moon....

[localzuk]

The reason I "ignore" what you posted is that I have no idea what you were saying. I posted a transcript of an attempted interview by an RT journalist, who used leading questions and attempted to put words into the mouth of the interviewee but failed. Your response made literally no sense in the context of that. There was no "admission by the site on the second paragraph is interesting its its slant on the situation", it simply doesn't exist on the link I posted! Its a transcript! I simply do not understand what you're attempting to post.

 

And now, you've posted another video from RT, an agency that has been shown time and time again to be twisting the truth on a grand scale, to the effect that one of their journalists was ejected from Ukraine and another 2 have resigned over the wholesale manipulation of information. I simply do not trust what RT are saying. Its as simple as that. Nor RIA Novosti, which is actually operated by the government. They both have long histories of being the mouthpiece of their government. Other Russian channels do very similar things, for example 1tv have been shown to use footage of completely different countries to try and make things up - FAKE: «. I could go on but I fear you'll just ignore the wealth of evidence that has been presented.

[truebluesteve]

nice, ignore what I posted after discussing your 'proof' and then be accused of ignoring posts and not answering posts. Love that logic.

Looking from another viewpoint is also in the realm of conspiracy theorist, in the same league of the nutjobs who think we didn't land on the moon. I can see you guys are clear set in your mind sheeple and not open minded in search of facts.

 

More Ukrainian army propaganda, civilians lying. Nothing on BBC news. A conspiracy theorists imagination.

LiveLeak.com - Documentary: Ukraine's Refugees

 

The west are supporting this: http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=87b_1406357550

Nice people, BBC news falling over themselves to report this.

 

What an earth has this got to do with anything.... Again no sources quoted, no child soldiers - just clips of a few racists who exist in every country. If we want to look for intolerance then we could always start with Russia's (and Putin's) take on homosexuality.

 

Research what you post - find out who's behind the links and stories rather than doing a quick Google and sticking up the first link you find. I think I'm reasonably open minded when presented with facts and not assertions, hearsay and downright biased information. The BBC may not be perfect but I'd believe it any day over one of Putin's mouthpieces.

[truebluesteve]

A few racists? yup... just a few.

 

Intolerance of Homosexuals in Russia? If only everything was so black and white. Here's a nice wiki site what explains your fear, all the name of protecting minors. Remember that when you in london while gay pride is running and you have big hairy gay bikers with tongues down each others throats, I don't think terrorism laws will help you then, not when you have gay rights and all.

Again, how dare the Russians protect their children to this *shrugs*.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_Protecting_Children_from_Information_Harmful_to_Their_Health_and_Development

 

What fear do I have exactly? Of people being persecuted for their beliefs perhaps. But your comments do reveal quite a lot about how you see the world.

 

What exactly are the Russians protecting their children from?

 

For the record Gay Pride is in Brighton and as a Sussex Police Officer I shall be there enjoying what is a very good natured event. And if I see any bikers - hairy or otherwise, with their tongues down each other's throat, I shall be sure to explain to them your views. Should I give them a good beating with my baton too?

[SYNACK]

Um, lets keep this civil shall we before it moves too far away from being a discussion

[localzuk]

I could say 'I have no idea what you are saying. Your response makes no sense.' , but that would make no sense. Its in English, what don't you understand?

" I could go on but I fear you'll just ignore the wealth of evidence that has been presented."

I commented on what you posted, its proof of nothing, its making claims out of thin air, you posted this link: Pressimus | Press | Published by Interpreter_Mag

On a link on that page :- Trip Wire | The Interpreter

It clearly shows A negative interpretation of RT clarifying the situation was attempted.

 

"His employers at RT, facing the fact that even their most credulous viewers would notice the discrepancy between the video and Graham Phillips’ report about it, posted his video on their website with text that tells another version. They have attempted to explain the difference between their reporting about this video and that of their reporter, claiming that troops shot at him either off camera or at some unspecified other time."

 

If you watch the clip, the one you posted, it clearly shows what happened but the reported is clearly in a state of panic as he runs into the sunset screaming like a girl.

 

Where he is now is anyone's guess.

 

Ok. You must read things in a totally different way than I do. As far as I can see, the interview I posted had a woman being interviewed by Richard Phillips, who was working for RT. He asked many leading questions, attempting to get the woman to attack her country's army and failing. That was why I posted it. Not anything to do with tripping wires/being shot at. The leading questions alone was enough for me to attack the RT journalist. He later tripped a trip-wire and set of a flare, which he tried to frame as being shot at by the Ukrainian army. RT later had to back pedal because it was nonsense and even with their usual propaganda levels people were not convinced, especially as the video I linked to had been published. He even continued to claim he had been shot at even though his OWN video showed a trip wire...

 

Where he is now? Well, having been deported he is not in Ukraine. As he appears to be British, I imagine he's on his way back here. Something which you earlier posted! His feed on Twitter is still live and it would have taken you a matter of seconds to confirm.

 

A few racists? yup... just a few.

 

Intolerance of Homosexuals in Russia? If only everything was so black and white. Here's a nice wiki site what explains your fear, all the name of protecting minors. Remember that when you in london while gay pride is running and you have big hairy gay bikers with tongues down each others throats, I don't think terrorism laws will help you then, not when you have gay rights and all.

Again, how dare the Russians protect their children to this *shrugs*.

 

Sorry, but are you saying that those men shouldn't be allowed to show their love in public like a heterosexual couple is? Laws that prevent people from going about their normal loving lives, like heterosexuals, are a massive sign of intolerance. Its backwards and discriminatory against something that harms no-one. It doesn't harm children, that's for sure. The only thing that harms children is damaging relationships - abusive parents, parents that are abusive to each other, parents who engage in substance abuse etc... If 2 men love each other, and have a child they don't automatically harm that child. Conversely, a heterosexual couple can cause serious damage to children - in fact, the majority of damage to children is caused by heterosexual relationships!

 

I have a question for you. You don't have to answer it. Are you Russian?

Edited July 26, 2014 by localzuk

[localzuk]

I've just realised something. @Galway, you focus on largely overt things - like journalists being "beaten" or being shot at, whereas I'm focusing on relatively subtle things like the constitutional difference between the Prime Minister and President resigning, and about journalists asking leading questions for example. It goes a long way to explaining our difference of opinion here. Edited July 26, 2014 by localzuk

[DPrince]

I don't know about WW3 breaking out with Russia, but I'm sure getting scared of this forum!

[localzuk]

"I posted had a woman being interviewed by Richard Phillips, who was working for RT." I presume you mean Graham, I will go with this and not make a fuss over it if its ok.

 

Indeed, dunno why my brain changed Graham to Richard there.

 

I knew he had been deported to the UK, after being arrested and allegedly stripped of his bullet proof vest and belongings, as you say I linked it earlier. I also know hes equipment was wiped ( to protect what?) but I don't know his exact whereabouts. Why you take exception to me not posting this, when I was only just commenting on a post you made is unclear.

Of course, if there was footage of his capture or the events after this were at hand or we had anything to evaluate then were only going to be able to speculate indeed when he said he was shot at. I think looking at the clip he mistook the flare and firecracker sounds as an attempted shooting, which RT themselves said shortly after. He was clearly shook up by the incident, and he was there when he was told not to as it was dangerous. Anyway, he a british national ( I know! can u believe it!) and the BBC are covering it: BBC News - British journalist Graham Phillips held in Ukraine

 

Actually, you don't *know* his equipment was wiped. You know he said his equipment was wiped. I've not seen any confirmation of this yet. To be fair, our police often go overboard and do things like that too - just look at the whole Snowden info/Guardian thing a while back.

 

Your views and my views on the sexual matters discussed would be an interesting thread, but is thankfully beyond the scope of this thread. What I will say is the law was passed with a view to protecting the interests of children. If the Russians consider this to be required, then who am I to use my moral values to argue for or against.

 

You are a free thinking person with your own moral values. Just like I am. It is entirely acceptable to attack a country for an unjust and poorly thought out law that is based on incorrect assertions and discrimination. The UK constantly tries to introduce laws "in the interests of children" and we still complain about them. For example the ill thought out internet filtering nonsense.

 

Your question about my nationality is interesting. Clearly you are thinking it unlikely any Yorkshire person could be defending the Russians and doubting the 'news' presented through 'our' media.

 

Nope. You're taking an inference from the question. I was just being inquisitive. See how easy it is to manipulate what someone says?

[localzuk]

I am offering an alternate view. You brought up the shooting journalists in trying to reason your discrediting of RT, I looked at and do not think your justifications in mentioning it are valid. Indeed I think you finding what you did in it to justify posting it made me chuckle.

 

I didn't mention the shooting part at all. I highlighted a transcript of a conversation with leading questions. Look back, you'll see that I didn't mention the shooting at all, and then was very confused as to why you were bringing it up.

 

To be honest, I think the USA are sore that Russia proved itself oh so easy to take back Ukraine, and saved the people there from a civil war. Now this concerns how shooting down a civilian plane or influencing the shooting down of a civilian plane helps their cause? I mean, its not the first time the Ukraine has shot down a civilian place, only this time the finger pointers are out in force.

 

The USA are annoyed, absolutely. However, I don't think Russia has stopped anything happening - they've caused a civil war in the East. There's video evidence of Russia actually shooting at Ukraine army positions now too, so they're actually encouraging a civil war.

[localzuk]

Do you understand the concept of leading questions? IE. Asking questions in such a way as to lead the interviewee to respond in a certain way. The link I posted shows an interview filled with such questions. A journalist should ask questions such as "what are your feelings on the current situation?" not say things like "but they killed children!!"

 

The point of the link along with the other info, for example 2 separate journalists resigning, was to show a bias. To show that RT has a habit of twisting things to present a pro-Russia/anti-Ukraine narrative. The stopfake site has dozens more examples.

Edited July 26, 2014 by localzuk

[localzuk]

I don't think I could follow that thinking personally, but hey to each their own... People do things for many reasons, such as accolades, money, or other more nefarious reasons. I don't trust someone just because they'll go into a dangerous situation.

 

An unrelated example for you: the BBC have a habit of altering the numbers of people present at protest marches in the UK. Things like careful cropping of imagery, or using police figures over the figures of organisers etc... It is *really* easy to manipulate such information and as such you shouldn't take journalists based purely on them being there.

 

Another example, a while ago the Daily Mail started a string of false publishing a while back regarding a Polish dentist removing all the teeth in her ex's mouth. Turns out, the entire article was fabricated by one of their agency contacts and a journalist's name was attributed to it. The journalist in question had never even seen the story!

[localzuk]

Its in interesting one, but is very difficult to believe without any actual evidence. One journalist saying it, with their source being anonymous doesn't carry a lot of weight.

 

There's also the conspiracy theory that MH-17 was actually MH-320 and its a giant false flag operation... Which seems a little far fetched, to say the least.

[AMLinington]

I bailed ages ago trying to argue with him about this for exactly the same reason. That's the problem with conspiracy theorists! It's impossible to have a reasoned debate because so many of them are unable to critically analyse sources of information.

 

Rumour has it that Neil Armstrong didn't actually set foot on the moon....

 

I remember having to Critically analyse news reports when I did modern world history and we studied things like the Manchurian and Abyssinian crisis's. The bottom line in ANY conflict is that YOU CANT TRUST A WORD ANYONE SAYS ABOUT IT BECAUSE THEY ALL HAVE AN AGENDA! So you cannot trust Russian news any more than you can trust Ukrainian news. Just like you can't trust UK, US or European news agencies to be unbiased either. The skill that most people seem to be lacking is that you have to UNDERSTAND that what you're watching/reading/hearing is 10% fact, 90% male-cow-excrement and you have to read/watch/listen/form opinions bearing in mind that what has just been presented to you may not be COMPLETE or 100% ACCURATE. Which is why it often pays to read multiple sources from both sides of the conflict and assume that the truth lies somewhere in the middle (privately I like to call this the 'Media Median').

 

As an example: Let us say Anti-Russian media provides 'proof' and exposition on how Russia is incontrovertibly responsible for MH17. Then lets look at Pro-Russian media which 'proves' incontrovertibly that Anti-Russian troops are responsible for MH17. They can't BOTH be responsible so the art of critical thinking is to look at the evidence presented, read other news articles to flesh out the scene a bit more and then decide for yourself which is more LIKELY. So lets say that Anti-Russian news agencies report on Russian military attacking a civilian village 2 miles away from where the missile was launched. With photographs and videos. This places the Russian Military in the area, so if, for example, pro-russian media categorically states that Russian ground troops weren't with 20 miles of the launch site, we immediately have evidence to the contrary. And so it goes on. It's all about forming your own conclusions based on what is essentially probability and statistical mathematics.

 

Well, that's how I do it anyway. Unless I was right there witnessing it happen I always keep an open mind on Guilt/Innocence.

 

Before people start screeching about the above, I should stress that it is an ENTIRELY HYPOTHETICAL EXAMPLE OF HOW I, PERSONALLY, GO ABOUT ASSESSING NEWS REPORTS and is not in ANY WAY representative of fact.

 

Um, lets keep this civil shall we before it moves too far away from being a discussion

 

I know, right? Reading this thread is torturous! It seems there have been a number of 'inflamed' threads recently and it seems to be the same subset of users each time.

 

I don't know about WW3 breaking out with Russia, but I'm sure getting scared of this forum!

 

Agreed. Also, re: WW3 I wouldn't be at all surprised if that wasn't where we are heading. After all, North Korea aren't at all happy with the US (or South Korea for that matter) over that James Franco film amongst other things (they have allegedly released a statement calling it an act of war but I'll take that with a pinch of salt), so I can see things kicking off in North Korea, things are already kicking off in Russia and the Ukraine, we have the usual Israel/Palestine/Gaza conflict flaring up, the Arab spring is still rumbling along a bit with what is going on in Syria with ISIS and other middle eastern countries, Iraq and Afghanistan are still moderately unresolved (otherwise my cousin wouldn't be facing his third tour in Af. would he?), we have the Boko Haram stuff going on in Nigeria etc etc. All these things are involving multiple countries so I would not be at all surprised for WW3 to be declared.

Edited July 28, 2014 by AMLinington

[localzuk]

I remember having to Critically analyse news reports when I did modern world history and we studied things like the Manchurian and Abyssinian crisis's. The bottom line in ANY conflict is that YOU CANT TRUST A WORD ANYONE SAYS ABOUT IT BECAUSE THEY ALL HAVE AN AGENDA! So you cannot trust Russian news any more than you can trust Ukrainian news. Just like you can't trust UK, US or European news agencies to be unbiased either. The skill that most people seem to be lacking is that you have to UNDERSTAND that what you're watching/reading/hearing is 10% fact, 90% male-cow-excrement and you have to read/watch/listen/form opinions bearing in mind that what has just been presented to you may not be COMPLETE or 100% ACCURATE. Which is why it often pays to read multiple sources from both sides of the conflict and assume that the truth lies somewhere in the middle (privately I like to call this the 'Media Median').

 

As an example: Let us say Anti-Russian media provides 'proof' and exposition on how Russia in incontrovertibly responsible for MH17. Then lets look at Pro-Russian media which 'proves' incontrovertibly that Anti-Russian troops are responsible for MH17. They can't BOTH be responsible so the art of critical thinking is to look at the evidence presented, read other news articles to flesh out the scene a bit more and then decide for yourself which is more LIKELY. So lets say that Anti-Russian news agencies report on Russian military attacking a civilian village 2 miles away from where the missile was launched. With photographs and videos. This places the Russian Military in the area, so if, for example, pro-russian media categorically states that Russian ground troops weren't with 20 miles of the launch site, we immediately have evidence to the contrary. And so it goes on. It's all about forming your own conclusions based on what is essentially probability and statistical mathematics.

 

Well, that's how I do it anyway. Unless I was right there witnessing it happen I always keep an open mind on Guilt/Innocence.

 

Absolutely. The problem we have here is that both sides are turning to each other and shouting "photoshopped!" about the photos and videos. So, its difficult to draw any conclusion other than "it was shot down, it looks like it could have been a Russian system in the hands of rebels, but we just don't know, and likely will never know due to the site being messed about with". America released a set of photos yesterday showing that it was highly likely that rocket systems have been fired from Russian territory into Ukrainian territory. Within hours, there were articles from RT and RIA Novosti stating that the evidence was not evidence at all...

 

Agreed. Also, re: WW3 I wouldn't be at all surprised if that wasn't where we are heading. After all, North Korea aren't at all happy with the US (or South Korea for that matter) over that James Franco film amongst other things (they have allegedly released a statement calling it an act of war but I'll take that with a pinch of salt), so I can see things kicking off in North Korea, things are already kicking off in Russia and the Ukraine, we have the usual Israel/Palestine/Gaza conflict flaring up, the Arab spring is still rumbling along a bit with what is going on in Syria with ISIS and other middle eastern countries, Iraq and Afghanistan are still moderately unresolved (otherwise my cousin wouldn't be facing his third tour in Af. would he?), we have the Boko Haram stuff going on in Nigeria etc etc. All these things are involving multiple countries so I would not be at all surprised for WW3 to be declared.

 

I doubt North Korea would be much of an issue - sure they have some rockets but they've got a very poor history of reliability and accuracy, and their standing army are very poorly armed. If North Korea kicked off, I doubt China would do much except try to keep it away from their own land - they prefer an easy life and don't like to interfere with other countries' affairs.

 

The Middle East is a real powder keg that could ignite significantly - especially if ISIS continues as well as they are (although, many are pointing out that ISIS aren't quite as strong as they seem but are very good at PR).

 

Israel would undoutably win any conflict in the Middle East - they're armed to the teeth, and all the surrounding areas have weakened military forces due to recent wars of their own.

 

I think we may actually look back at this entire period as WW3 if anything - its been a continual set of wars, all inter-linked, since 9/11. Its just not happening directly in Europe like the last 2.