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.
> 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?
> 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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
“The medium is the message”
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.
> 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?
Also he will looke reasonable by just invading Ukraine instead of the whole of Europe
> 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.
Yeah, 14,000 is very low. In Mariupol alone more civilians are estimated to have died but it's impossible to get an exact count.
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.
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.
"If you want peace, prepare for war" (Latin: Si vis pacem, para bellum).
Whether current preparations lead to peace or lead to war, is left as an exercise to the reader.
This article is a piece of garbage. BBC is at all time low.
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?
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.
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.
>Ukraine's resources
one of the most absurd things about this war is that Russia doesn't need any Ukrainian resources.
>technical capabilities
the only technical capability that Ukraine has and Russia hasn't is America's multi-trillion dollar intelligence apparatus' support.
>a fresh group of young people to conscript
an overwhelming majority of them would flee, and Europe would eagerly welcome 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.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_oil_extra... may be one reason
Because they're willing to do it for that outcome?
They did pick a non NATO country though, that's still a difference. Most of the other countries in eastern Europe are part of NATO.
Westerners measure success in terms of land, Russians measure success in terms of destruction of the enemy, the land will be acquired in due course.
Orlando Figes books are worth reading.
Sounds a lot like Vietnam and the US didn't even win that one
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.
This is western wishcasting. It doesn't reflect the truth on the ground.
Poor guy must have been in a coma during the Cuban Missile Crisis.
He wasn’t in a coma, he was only 18 years old. He states up front that he has only been reporting for 40 years, so he started long after the CMC.
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.
[flagged]
And I’m guessing you’ve covered 40 wars and have been reporting on those locations since at least the 1980s?
Sit down.
Welcome to the end of Pax Americana.
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.
Ukraine is Europe. And what does US do? Threatens Ukraine into giving away land.
"Russia wants to see Ukraine succeed"
Geographically, so is Russia.
Perhaps I should have said the EU, of which Ukraine is not a member.
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.
It truly is a bizarre time in politics.
[flagged]
He "forgets"
1. The war on privacy 2. The war on rights 3. The class war 4. The silencing of opposition
Not a good article.
I think you've confused issues in society with kinetic war.
One mainly, although not always, harms individual wellbeing, whilst the other causes mass death and lines on the map to change.
Hopefully you can work out which is which.
These are wars in the colloquial sense, not wars between countries, come on
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.
>They promised to defend Ukraine's territory decades ago
The US (and UK) have 100% lived up to their commitments in the Budapest Memorandum on Ukraine's behalf.
You know this, and you know that others know this, yet you repeat this lie anyway.
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.
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.
I’m pretty sure it matters to rural villages in Ukraine which has been devastated by Russian bombs.
And to rural communities in China that have been decimated because they don’t follow the official Chinese religion.
Or in Gaza where in May 2025 it was reported that 95% of agricultural land was now unusable.
And living in rural Britain, I’m also noticing the financial burden that global tensions are costing us.