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.
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”
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.
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.
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.
Is it a good personal shield, for him to have the next of succession look even more undesirable to his adversaries?
[1] The same who decades ago suggested Musk build a trampoline if he wanted to reach space.
Whether current preparations lead to peace or lead to war, is left as an exercise to the reader.
The opening sentence:
>I've reported on more than 40 wars around the world during my career, which goes back to the 1960s.
In the meantime the rest of the free world are going to have to step up.
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.
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.
"Russia wants to see Ukraine succeed"
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...
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.
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.
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.
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.
Countries get an equal vote regardless if they are corrupt dictatorships with abysmal human rights at home.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Orlando Figes books are worth reading.
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.
1. A common enemy
2. Reason for further integration (EU-level federation is woefully incomplete)
3. Reason for heavy deficit spending, to heat up their sluggish economies
So practically, I do hope Europe does it themselves
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.
[0]: https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Ukraine_Memorandum_on_Securit...
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.
It truly is a bizarre time in politics.
Perhaps I should have said the EU, of which Ukraine is not a member.
And Europe isn't even a real continent, it's more like West Asia, a peninsula. Only politically it's a "continent."
You said the numbers were wrong because of the people who said it. Your argument was directed "at the man"--"ad hominem".
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 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.
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.
UN has not verified any of the 70k death toll in Gaza either. Those numbers come from hamas. Why is it a problem in Ukraine?
Because in the Russian occupied territories, Russia has no interest in reporting the number of civilian deaths.
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.
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.
That’s a bit of an exaggeration. Israel has not attacked Egypt or Jordan.
It has attacked Lebanon after the north of Israel had been evacuated for many months due to relentless rocket attacks from Lebanon.
The only preemptive attack on a neighbour was Syria, after the fall of the Assad regime.
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.
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.
>“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.”
He was the one who did the deal.
Was he stating a fact, or was this perhaps some political rhetoric?
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).
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.
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.
The 27 UN member countries (within 1,000 miles):
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.
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.
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.
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.