Could The War In Ukraine Have A Secondary Purpose?

‘Written by a Human’

This article is not about the Falklands War per-se’ but the reasoning behind many wars could show there could be a deeper reason for world conflicts and, ‘and one, You Would Not Expect.’

Wikipedia explains The Falklands War this way with a Research Link HERE.

The Falklands War (Spanish: Guerra de las Malvinas) was a ten-week undeclared war between Argentina and the United Kingdom in 1982 over two British-dependent territories in the South Atlantic: the Falkland Islands and its territorial dependency, South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands.

The conflict began on 2 April, when Argentina invaded and occupied the Falkland Islands, followed by the invasion of South Georgia the next day. On 5 April, the British government dispatched a naval task force to engage the Argentine Navy and Air Force before making an amphibious assault on the islands. The conflict lasted 74 days and ended with an Argentine surrender on 14 June, returning the islands to British control.

In total, 649 Argentine military personnel, 255 British military personnel, and three Falkland Islanders were killed during the hostilities.

Many Thinkers Had Legitimate Concerns Of That War Back Then, As Well As Today.

However, the thinking is that the British set sail with an armada of ships and personnel, all the way from England to fight Argentina for the British-occupied Falklands Islands in the southern atmosphere. When the islands were originally Argentina territory, and like today's world, 'they want it back.' Apparently, the diplomacy didn’t work that day, and, still today it's an ongoing argument that will eventually flare up.

Most people at the time thought, ‘There had to be another reason.’

And, the reasoning couldn't have anything to do with the many newspaper articles and clippings leading up to that day of Falklands Islands fighting.

One journalist (if memory serves me) commented that with all the expensive build-up of military might by the world union, there was no actual way of testing their war machinery in real-time or on the battlefield to justify the cost.

As luck or unlucky would have it, soldiers on both sides died from this ten-week undeclared war, as Wikipedia put it, The mighty English Empire did get to test some of their fighting equipment as per the writer's thought. And, you can add me to his list.

The British Harrier Fighter jet was a new and advanced piece of equipment back in the day and, they used it in real-time to see how affected it would be. Through all intent, it worked the way it was designed.

Now I’m not saying I’m right, but behind closed doors, do politicians and military government elects think along that line? They need to test this armament…somehow, somewhere.

Now going back to the parallel between the Ukraine-Russia War and maybe, ‘many other wars started the same way.’

These Researched Title's below Pertains To The War Machine;

* ‘Is the U.S. Military Capable of Learning From the War in Ukraine?’ LINK HERE

The Pentagon has learned painful lessons in the past—and may have to do so again. At its core, a country’s defense strategy is a very expensive gamble. Every year, the United States spends hundreds of billions of dollars on defense—all on the assumption that such investments will allow it to win the next war.

Absent a conflict in which the United States is directly involved, policymakers rarely get a window into whether these bets have actually paid off.

Another Head Line

‘* Learning from Russia’s war on Ukraine’ LINK HERE

Ukraine’s experience appeared to prove that large static concentrations of forces are artillery- and missile magnets in the war with Russia, which the U.S. would surely find in a similar conflict with Russia or China, meaning we’d have to do away with the recent American tradition of large stadium-style command posts. (Insurgents tended not to have missile batteries.) Learning from the War in Ukraine

* ‘Wars, as destructive as they are, are also learning opportunities’ LINK HERE

A central responsibility for the most senior leaders in any military, or national security, institution is providing incentives for innovation during peacetime, so that good ideas, appropriate organizations, and leading-edge technology can be combined to provide an advantage over adversaries in war. This, in turn, requires a cultural predisposition to learning and sharing lessons widely, accepting failure as an opportunity to learn, and a well-honed understanding of risk.

And then there's a downside as per this article.

** ‘The risks of learning the wrong lessons in Ukraine’ LINK HERE **

The Center for the Study of the Presidency & Congress's Joshua Huminski argues that while it's good that the US is learning from the war in Ukraine, it must be selective in what it applies more broadly.

Now going back to my original intent, Could The War In Ukraine Have A Secondary Purpose?

The collateral damage and the human cost for ‘the bigger picture reasoning’ is again as I pointed out. We have come a long way in technology, man to the moon, and the outer limits of space.

But we have not come far in the mentality department, we still think like a caveman mentality. Mankind still believes that fighting wars is the only way to settle an argument or dispute.” I think they're wrong.”

My summary.

I didn't do any more research on this story because; there are so many articles on the web to read that hold the same thinking and theme. So, without going into the doom and gloom of starting wars for the wrong reason, in my mind, ‘there is no real reason for wars.’

All the people who start conflicts are sitting at home in the comfort of their favorite chair drinking Cognac while people are dying and being displaced. Some are under the heading 'Collateral Damage' and, are considered ... acceptable. But that’s my point.

And as the Falklands Islands, Argentina still claims rightful ownership as of today, and why not? As per history again, they were the rightful owners.

… This is only the author's view...

**Thank You For Reading, 'hit that heart button if you like'**