What feels "different" today is not necessarily risk, but visibility.
We now see every war, cyber incident, threat, and speech in real time. I have to imagine the Cuban Missile Crisis (for example) was a much more serious existential risk, we were just largely in the dark while it was happening.
Not to minimize the current crises, I just wonder if this isn't what has always happened, we're just more informed now.
What you’re saying applied as far back as Vietnam, mainstream television allowed us to watch the war on video in mostly realtime, and we saw widespread protest
I don’t think access or visibility of the information is what’s changed, but how that information is being delivered today vs back then
People were extremely aware of the Cuban Missile Crisis. My father mentioned at school they were doing active under desk drills in the event it escalated to nuclear war.
It is easy to underrate the past. The 20th century had mass communication, high literacy and an active and well funded press corps with committed newspaper readers and news watchers.
OP is specifically talking about seeing unfiltered, on-the-ground footage of what’s happening as it’s happening, directly by the people being impacted. This is very different than prior conflicts which have been ostensibly filtered for various reasons.
> His henchmen make bloodcurdling threats about wiping the UK and other European countries off the map with Russia's vaunted new weapons, but he's usually much more restrained himself.
Is it a good personal shield, for him to have the next of succession look even more undesirable to his adversaries?
It has more to do with Mafia traditions. Attack dogs like Medvedev and Rogozin[1] threaten to burn everything down if you don't pay up, and Putin plays the more dignified philosopher who sits on a high chair in a mansion and speaks in vague terms about the importance of fire safety. It would be unbecoming for the big boss to openly and directly demand money and obedience. The top dog asks nothing from anyone; he wills things into being.
[1] The same who decades ago suggested Musk build a trampoline if he wanted to reach space.
> There is Ukraine of course, where the UN says 14,000 civilians have died.
Point of order, the UN says they have documented that number, and certainly dont count it as anything representing the actual death toll for civilians. The count doesn't cover most of the areas where civilians are dying at high rates. Sure, the UN stayed in Gaza to see what happened and delivered, but occupied Russian territory is too dangerous for the UN and they don't even try to monitor the death and atrocities happening in the occupied areas.
Do we have a better estimate? I don't think it's particularly difficult to get information from the occupied territories, the people there seem to freely use Internet.
It's my understanding that this war is really not particularly bloody for civilians as it is moving so slow that Russians are taking month to conquer pretty small towns and cities and the civilians can usually evacuate or hide. The bombing campaign has some civilian casualties, but I mostly see headlines mentioning <5 dead overall per occasional huge wave of drones and missiles.
Yes we have better estimates. In Mariupul for example estimates are above 20k civilians dead and murdered.
UN cannot personally verify any of this though so it counts them as zero. It should be at least the double of their estimate.
> It's my understanding that this war is really not particularly bloody for civilians as it is moving so slow that Russians are taking month to conquer pretty small towns and cities and the civilians can usually evacuate or hide.
Russia's advance has slowed to a crawl yes but the amount of people murdered in the places where Russia does take control are still very high (see Mariupul as an example). Especially in the early days of war they took a lot of land.
> The bombing campaign has some civilian casualties, but I mostly see headlines mentioning <5 dead overall per occasional huge wave of drones and missiles.
5 per day is too low as that would only add up to around 5.5k civilians and per UN's own calculations that's too low.
They've been targeting civilians, including schools and hospitals, daily since the war started.
It's almost like both numbers are heavily biased in the UN. Almost. Surely such bias and possible corruption couldn't happen in the esteemed institution, known for its impartial and objective rulemaking. Right?
> It's almost like both numbers are heavily biased in the UN.
Yes, but in the opposite direction. It would be baffling if the UN's claim of 16,000 Ukrainian victims wasn't at least 100,000 in reality.
And, let's be honest, in Gaza, it does not seem realistic that there are even 50,000 victims of the 70,000 civilian victims claimed total. Don't get me wrong, significant amount of victims, but much less than reported. And on top of that it doesn't seem realistic that none of those are militants. I'd guess, say, at least half of those are militants, not civilians.
And on top of that, UN has no problem to state that of those 16,000, about 70 Ukrainian dead are not victims of Russia but of Ukrainian frienly fire. Again, of the 70,000 claimed dead in Gaza ... let's assume at the very least 300 are victims of hamas friendly fire (probably more, since hamas is no stranger to boobytrapping civilian buildings), rather than enemy action.
If you count the way the UN counts in Gaza in Ukraine, Russia has killed some 400,000 people minimum. Maybe half a million, and of course climbing fast. No distinction between civilian and military, no distinction between accidents vs friendly fire ...
And I guess in the Gaza case I sort of understand. But why downplay Ukrainian victims? Why by a factor of 2, not counting military deaths, which would make it a factor 5 lower than real, minimum? I guess if you discounted everything the same way in Gaza the numbers would also drop by a factor of 5 there, but still.
This article makes me think of The Great Filter. If the threats are indeed real, and humans are unable to use their bigger brains to bypass tribal instincts, then maybe we are doomed.
It still seems wild to me that almost 5 years into this war, Europe is still relying on America to help them with Ukraine. Should be pretty obvious by now that Americans have no real interest in this war one way or the other.
The US stopped all aid this year, except for intelligence sharing.
It's wild that people in the US think this war is not their war. They promised to defend Ukraine's territory decades ago, and barely followed through for three years, then as soon as Trump took office they completely broke their promise.
By breaking their promise, the US is encouraging nuclear proliferation throughout the world. It's extremely shortsighted and stupid to not be providing the miniscule amount of current military budget that could stop this war permanently. The US and Europe have been too timid and stupid from the start, causing massive bloodshed. But Europe is getting smarter and stronger as the US gets stupider and weaker.
Inspired by the other (somewhat aggressive) replies, I looked into what the US promised exactly and unfortunately, it looks like there was never a promise to defend Ukraine.
The relevant document is the Budapest Memorandum [0]. Ukraine, Russia, the UK and the USA are signatories and essentially each agree to respect Ukraine's borders and sovereignty and not to engage in certain hostile acts.
However the only obligation in the event of a breach is that if nuclear weapons are used against Ukraine, or Ukraine is threatened by them, the signatories must seek immediate action from the UN Security Council.
I hate to say it but it looks like the US and UK are adhering to the agreement as-written. The problem as I see it is that Ukraine accepted the agreement without stronger security guarantees.
>“We forced Ukraine to give up nuclear weapons, cruise missiles, and strategic bombers. We promised to protect Ukraine from Russia. We made Ukraine vulnerable.
So yes, this is our war.”
Ah yes, let's not have consistent policy in the USA, and let's not keep our promises/guarantees. That will make America great.
If the President says 'this is what I negotiated' we should fulfill that agreement, not look for ways to get out of the agreement or legal loopholes (sure the Ukrainians agreement said one thing, but in the English version we put something less binding). I get that doing so wouldn't be billionaire behavior that we worship (how can I get the better end of the deal AND get out of whatever commitments I made).
We can dig into the differences of "security guarantees" versus "security assurances" and the precise requirements in the text, but ultimately the disarmament of Ukraine made a promise to the rest od the world about the possibility of nuclear disarmament. And the question is whether it's possible to have security from Russia unless a country has nuclear weapons.
A defended Ukraine promised the rest of the world that they could be a country and not need to build nuclear weapons. An abandoned Ukraine means that every country needs to have nuclear weapons or the world will stand aside as nuclear powers invade every other country.
It's quite clear which world Trump wants to live in. As soon as North Korea got the bomb, he started acting sycophantically and weak towards North Korea.
We are entering a far more dangerous world, and as far as defense spending goes a far more expensive world by not giving Ukraine the conventional weapons it needs to defend itself.
>It's wild that people in the US think this war is not their war. They promised to defend Ukraine's territory decades ago, and barely followed through for three years, then as soon as Trump took office they completely broke their promise.
We did defend Ukraine to the best of our ability, given that we will not risk an apocalypse or bankruptcy over it. There is a limit to everything. Don't be naive.
>By breaking their promise, the US is encouraging nuclear proliferation throughout the world.
Would you rather have a nuclear war now, instead of mere proliferation?
>But Europe is getting smarter and stronger as the US gets stupider and weaker.
If Europe was smart, they would back a peace plan asap. They are not prepared to win a war with Russia, especially if China sides with Russia.
This might have more credibility as a post if the current "president" of the USA wasn't very obviously (a) compromised by Russia, (b) mentally incompetent, or (c) a fascist whose only interest was personal gain.
Lol... The dude waging war on Russia is owned by Russia? Are you mentally incompetent? You can drop the quotes too. He won the presidential race at least twice. As for being fascist, he hasn't rounded up people like you talking shit about him online, or taken a step toward censoring online discourse like Biden did. Fucking psyops man... You are proof that they work.
The US under Biden defended them in a very wishy washy way. He could have said do not invade or we'll send jets to stop the invading troops. But he actually said something like if it's only a small invasion the US is unlikely to get involved, and refused to allow other people's F16s to be used until a couple of years in.
If he'd just said we are not fighting but we'll send the NATO surplus stuff over 20 years old to Ukraine freely at the start that likely would have been enough. But no. "Escalation management" - Ukraine not allowed to win incase it upsets the invaders.
What a weird and unsupported accusation. Claims without evidence do not require evidence to rebut.
The US is threatening Ukrainian territory, claiming "it's already been lost." The US is not respecting the sovereignty of the borders of Ukraine.
And that's not even getting into the US breaking its promise to respond strongly to Russia should Russia ever violate the memorandum during the Obama administration.
I do not know what you consider the lie, but I do know that the US has completely tarnished its reputation over the course of many presidential administrations and has put its own interest in the world at risk due to its weakness.
Russia has spent four years in this, fighting a country a fraction of its size, getting set back by homemade drones, and will now seemingly only win by a slow, expensive attrition and get only a concession. Why is anybody supposed to be scared of them?
Firstly why wouldn't one be scared of an opponent that can just steadily press against me, winning a war by attrition?
Secondly, this is a naive mischaracterization of Ukraine, Russia, and the war itself.
Ukraine is a serious modern military power. One that very few countries could successfully invade. One with major support from other countries. Stormshadows, HIMARS, Javelins, NLAWs, Patriot systems are not home made drones.
That said, if Russia had managed to establish air superiority over Ukraine it would have probably won the war as fast as they intended to. But they didn't, and couldn't, because Ukraine isn't a guerilla outfit with home-made drones. They spent more than a decade preparing for this conflict.
It is also Ukraine, with defenders advantage, defending against a % of the Russian offense with their entire defensive capacity. Nearly 30% of Ukraine's GDP goes to defense currently. Russia's is somewhere closer to 7%.
Russia would probably like to do what they did to Chechnya when they got rolled out of there. Just sit back and shell the place. But because Ukraine's drones and long range artillery are a match or better than the Russians, they have to find other means.
> Firstly why wouldn't one be scared of an opponent that can just steadily press against me, winning a war by attrition?
Because if they can barely succeed that way against an enemy 1/3 of their size, they wouldn't be able to succeed that way against an enemy larger than them. And that's not even accounting for the fact that, after fighting a war of attrition, those people, those resources are dead and gone. Even if Russia wins, they don't have the manpower to do this again.
If they conquer Ukraine, they then have Ukraine's resources, technical capabilities, and a fresh group of young people to conscript into service.
We shouldn't be scared of Russia, per se, they would be easy to defeat if we bothered to try rather than if we tried to drag out this war as long as possible to try to weaken Russia. But if we let Russia win, they will rebuild far stronger and take over the next country, and grow stronger. And again, and again.
The only two armies skilled at modern drone warfare are Russia and Ukraine. An army without drone experience could get ripped to shreds facing either one.
Contrary to typical narratives my understanding is that the Russians are somewhat ahead on drones. They pioneered fibre optic drones and have more ability to mass produce them with Chinese support.
Ukraine has fought incredibly well and my hope is at some point Russia can't sustain its offensives due to domestic issues. Russia is very definitely straining.
But they shouldn't be underrated. In Ukraine they face a battled tested, fortified frontline and a society mobilized for war. Russia in turn has set itself for ongoing war. Europe is still in peacetime mode.
>An army without drone experience could get ripped to shreds facing either one.
there would be no trench warfare in a NATO-Russia war. we already saw what happens when Soviet/Russian tech meets F35 and B2 - Israel and US bombed the shit out of Iran with impunity, suffering no losses whatsoever.
Their attrition might be slow, but it's not that expensive. What is expensive are the aircraft/ships/missiles that Europe has too few of that they hope to stop a Russian invasion with if it came to it.
I don't think the size of the working stockpile matters. It's that they have enough. Even the successful detonation of one working nuke would be catastrophic.
Don't underestimate them just because they couldn't defeat Ukraine.
They have no regard for the lives of their own soldiers and will send wave after wave of meat towards the front, which is very hard to defend against. This is backed up by an incredible knowledge of drone warfare and most countries in the world would be unable to defend against them.
Remember that Russia is never as strong or as weak as they appear, and if they ally closely with China while Europe and the US is divided, it may mot be a good time for us in the West.
>...World War Three ... more likely to be a collection of diplomatic and military manoeuvres, which will see autocracy flourish
I think we may be getting wise to that though. I'm sure Trump would be like to be ruler for life but the US voters seem to be getting fed up. Also probably Putin would like the Russian world to extend to Berlin but the costs of the war, sanctions and recently Ukraine hitting his shadow fleet are causing Russia to run out of money.
Russia seems to have a bit of a habit of overdoing the wars and collapsing. After WW1 and defeat by Japan the Tzars got overthrown, After Afghanistan the USSR collapsed. Maybe this time the Putin government will collapse and we'll get something more democratic? They only got saved in WW2 because after starting as allies of Hitler, he turned on them so they ended up on the winning side against by accident.
US voters also have the memory of a goldfish. The next cult of personality to come along will tell enough of what they want to hear, and people will gobble it up.
This all just feels like typical sabre rattling to me. Except this time, the US is also rattling it at basically everyone, and Russia may take that as a good sign.
Make no mistake, Russia does not have the ability to fight a world war with Europe, so would requires allies. Basically, China. And that would be enough to set the US off.
Trump talks a lot, too much, trying to use bullying and threats to effect changes he wants to see. But at any hint of war with Europe, we'd be right there with them.
I don't worry about any of this now personally, because Putin is more calculating than that. And even if he's gone completely bonkers, Jinping is way too careful to be openly associated with them at this point.
I think what makes this feel different isn’t the sabre rattling, which i agree has always happened. But just how many large economic powers are at it concurrently.
America is using rhetoric that threatens a civil war right now.
Israel is attacking all of their neighbours.
Europe is shifting to the most nationalist versions of parliaments we’ve seen since the Second World War.
And we are see massive global economic decline, civil unrest, and a general atmosphere that things need to change. Unfortunately that often becomes a precursor for war because war is, initially at least, good for business.
As someone who’s middle aged and always watched the news closely until very recently, I’ve found I’ve had to stop eating precisely because the current climate feels the closest to another world war that we’ve seen since the previous one.
The Golf War was scary because of its risk of escalation, as was the cold war. But what we are seeing presently is actual escalation and by more countries. And seemingly with a population that’s not entirely against the domestic policies that lead to such escalation.
I don’t really care who started what. That’s just silly playground politics best left for historians who specialise in Middle Eastern foreign politics. My point is they’re at the “let’s show them our military force” phase of their foreign policies.
Iran is a thousand miles away from Israel. There are like 30 other countries within that radius.
I get that you’re trying to make a different point, but your exaggerated language presents a distorted slant, and such one-sided rhetoric, especially when repeated many times, actually contributes to the political shifts and the spirals of violence that you worry about.
Albania, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bulgaria, Chad, Cyprus, Egypt, Eritrea, Georgia, Greece, Iran, Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Libya, Moldova, North Macedonia, Romania, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Serbia, Sudan, Syria, Turkey, Ukraine, Yemen.
Additional non-UN / partially-recognized entities also within 1,000 miles
Kosovo, Palestine, Northern Cyprus.
Although my source occasionally hallucinates, I think this is approximately accurate, especially if you consider the distance Israeli jets actually travelled.
> your exaggerated language presents a distorted slant, and such one-sided rhetoric, especially when repeated many times, actually contributes to the political shifts and the spirals of violence that you worry about.
Definitely constitutes as you being exaggerative.
You knew what I meant. This wasn’t about a fallacy of understanding, it was a technical pedantry.
Hence why I said I agree with your general point but you’re also missing my point and exaggerating things: yes you’re right that Israel and Iran are not literal neighbours but my point was meant to be the general theme of their foreign policy rather than a literal geography lesson.
This discussion is getting rather silly now though. Especially when I don’t think either one of us disagrees with the actual point the other was making.
Your comment is one data point in a deluge of similarly slanted views across all platforms that, in conjunction, have real consequences and fuel the violence.
I don’t think that’s your intention, or that your comment on its own can have a significant impact, you are just one person I can reach out to. I think you agree that it’s wrong to make a negative exaggeration against a group of people, and I was just pointing out that that what you said was an exaggeration.
Bullshit. You’ve taken my comment out of context and warped it into some anti-Semitic remark that clearly wasn’t even remotely related to the point I was making.
I talked about multiple different countries all having their own national and international crises and you single out literally the smallest paragraph in the entire post as if that was the core premise and then accuse me of exaggerating…completely missing the irony of your own attack.
So the issue here is you, not my comment. I’m not making silly rhetoric, you’re twisting my comment because of your own personal prejudices.
I’m sorry that you’ve had to deal with idiots online but don’t project that onto everyone.
But at any hint of war with Europe, we'd be right there with them.
There is no reason in the world to think that's true.
People forget how close the Trump family's historical ties to Russia run. "We get all the funding we need out of Russia" should have disqualified any presidential candidate, but...
Trump has some kind of magic aura that allows him to say the most ridiculous stuff that would be career ending for any other politician, and somehow have it received by the public
as endearing.
The correct time to stop Putin's war of aggression was the day he sent troops over the border. He should have been met with ferocious force from the entire western world. But he observed the weakness in the West for decades and knew he could get away with it. Obama's failed "red line" was the end of any nation on earth taking the western world seriously. The end of western liberalism is nigh.
> Hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians would be alive now if not for this dispute
I mean, we (the west) could have saved ourselves a lot of money by putting it to Russia that if they crossed the border then we'd defend the airspace. Essentially, being half assed about it is going to cost more money and lives. The Ukrainians were going to defend themselves whatever we did.
I don't think Europe has a choice but to be involved.
> We have lots of problems of our own
I don't really understand that. You don't get to turn away from new problems and global problems because you have some economic issues of your own. Indeed, it's all the more likely to be why you get dragged in.
> The West has sent hundreds of billions of dollars worth of aid to Ukraine
We can afford it. The US is probably well ahead due to the sale of new weapons as well.
Clever reframing putting all the blame on Ukraine and the western world. You conveniently "forgot" to mention that Russia is the sole aggressor in this story. And no, Ukraine would have fallen a while ago already if not for western aid, so it wasn't at all for nothing. And then it would have been Poland's turn.
My data is based on the internationally recognized fact that Hamas is terrorist organization by USA, Commonwealth, EU, Japan and others. Which means they (Hamas) are liars.
Journalist's data is based on the empty words of the said terrorist org.
I don't know about you, but I feel very confident in my opinion based of this data.
PS: also you don't know what ad hominem means and confuse it with regular criticism. I've never attacked journalist's personal life or inividual traits or even his unrelated articles.
Whatever tickles your fancy. You can take side of almost 40 civilized countries, topping the charts of human freedom, education, quality of life, intellectual pursuits, research etc. or the side of Axis of Losers, like Ruzzia, Iran, Best Korea, Venezuela etc. Your choice.
Around a hundred of the countries didn't designate Hamas as terrorists, but neither they support them, they are simply neutral and ignoring the issue.
And btw, your count is wrong. There are only 205 countries at all, plus or minus a handful maybe. Almost 40 of them designated Hamas as terrorists, so that leaves less than 200, not more.
The UN is not an unbiased institution. It’s a representation of the viewpoints of countries, and it’s quite obvious that many member countries are biased to one side on the matter.
Countries get an equal vote regardless if they are corrupt dictatorships with abysmal human rights at home.
News reporters sometimes consume their own sensationalist content, which was strictly meant for customers only. This actually causes wars at larger scale, which would have been small local conflicts, if starved of visibility they never deserved.
A lot of people won't bother arguing or fighting if there are no observers.
For rural populations in those countries l, it hardly matters who is the ruler at the capital. The response of the West is largely influenced by media, disguised as public opinion, of the Wesst, but not opinion of the populations of the subject countries.
Global tensions can cause financial burden on rural Britain, because rural Britain is connected to global supply chains. Disconnect those, your tensions are gone. Produce local, consume local, watch local news, celebrate local culture. What's global tension?
You’d have to produce your own electricity and water, have no reliance on gas, not require a car nor public transport, not use a mobile phone nor internet, own your own land and have no reliance on banking, and have no reliance on selling any of your produce to anyone who might have those extraordinarily common dependencies.
These kinds of unicorns are going to be so ridiculously rare that you can safely ignore them as a statistical outlier. What’s more, at some point you can guarantee they’re going to come into a situation when thy do eventually depend upon the wider network, eg if they fall ill, break a leg, a family member requires support, their home requires repairs, or they need to buy tools that can’t be built themselves.
All these needs can be met by your local economy, county level or state level. The real issue is your dependency on global exports and imports. People lived for centuries without global stuff.
But your local economy is dependent on the county economy that’s dependent on the country’s economy.
Yeah local wealth will vary from region to region, but it’s ridiculous to say that local economies operate entirely independently from the national economy.
Especially when you consider that poorer districts depend on government grants while wealthier districts depend on local tax and other spending from residents, who are usually working high payed jobs of which are dependent on the prosperity oh global economy.
it’s all connected.
> People lived for centuries without global stuff.
People also lived for centuries without antibiotics but that doesn’t mean that present civilisation doesn’t depend on it.
We aren’t still living in Saxon Britain. Unless you’re Amish, people have become accustomed to a standard of living that cannot be facilitated when one is entirely separated from global economics and politics.
We now see every war, cyber incident, threat, and speech in real time. I have to imagine the Cuban Missile Crisis (for example) was a much more serious existential risk, we were just largely in the dark while it was happening.
Not to minimize the current crises, I just wonder if this isn't what has always happened, we're just more informed now.
reply