WWIII Might Have Started

[Sincerity]

I found this analysis (and other videos and this channel as a whole) of high quality. Sharing as a good resource.

We might be a little cooked.

Edited June 25 by Sincerity

[PurpleTree]

3’s a charm

[Wilhelm44]

Jesus, i just thought things were calming down a bit.

[BlueOak]

Some say it started on 9/11.

I think for each country, it will start when they personally go into war, but later we will look back and see what changed the world significantly enough to start this chain of events. For anyone not alive in the 80's and 90's, the world radically changed on that day, gradually altering everything from media to politics and culture. The way the world feels became very different within a few years.

1, Israel don't want America out of the Middle East, they need the support.
2, Donald Trump is the establishment, the empire he speaks about. He's the president; he leads it, it pays him money and donations to run. 
3, Iran does not want troops in Iran, you'd need a hell of a lot more sources to say this than simply 'trust me bro'.
 

[BlueOak]

Generally these guys are more accurate than most, because they analyse so much data and news:
 

Would I say war is coming? Generally I see an increase in hostilities and pressure but also more internal unrest as a result.

Recently, NATO committed to 5% spending on its military. Which is a doubling of their military size. Now when I said Russia would cause this increase, years ago now, I said that naturally, if 5% of your spending is on the military, you use it. It doesn't just sit dormant on the shelf. So I do foresee Europe getting more involved in foreign conflicts.

Despite everyone telling me NATO has been warlike, attacking them for years, or decades, they haven't; that was hyperbole. But they might now, because all these resources, all this focus, and shaping of society to be focused on the military naturally create the conditions for it to be used.

Like Israel. BRICS, Russia and China are creating the conditions they say the world already is in. The hyberbole they are acting on is slowly becoming more real. 'The west' is attacking us they say. Well done geniuses. Not only did you unify this once nebulous 'the west', but now you've got them doubling their military and looking outward to enforce it. 

I really never could understand why people can't see this, perhaps on this particular pattern, I have a high degree of insight, I don't know.

Edited June 26 by BlueOak

[Leo Gura]

Silly.

Just YouTubers looking for clicks.

[Sincerity]

2 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

Just YouTubers looking for clicks.

That’s a bad judgement of the owner of the channel I shared. The guy is sincere, if you care to look into him.

Edited June 26 by Sincerity

[Ulax]

4 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

Silly.

Just YouTubers looking for clicks.

Come on Leo.

At least respond to the guys arguments. Your comment is unreasonable.

[yetineti]

You guys are confusing sincerity with clarity.

These videos talk about global politics like it’s a football rivalry.

Why would Leo waste his time debunking that?

[yetineti]

You can tell the low quality of media when they specify who people like Trump or Zelensky are— because the bulk of their audience doesn’t know.

The videos are not examples of high level analysis.

High-level analysis requires immense work and most people can’t do that; it’s rare.

These were far from rare. Much less enlightening.

They monger fear, mainly.

Edited June 26 by yetineti

[Jodistrict]

I stopped listening to that professor when he said that America is going to invade Iran.  Click bate.  

[LordFall]

I think unless something major happens(like ASI/AGI coming out and overtaking humanity in the next 2 years) I think it's pretty guaranteed that we are indeed there.

China is pretty committed to invading Taiwan and the US can't really let that happen otherwise China will overtake them in global dominance and slowly but surely make them irrelvant.

Phenomenal podcast on it. 

[Sincerity]

We'll see how things unfold.

I'm pretty much set that there will be a World War by 2028, especially since 1) the US is at its lowest point with Trump (intelligence-wise, and with the US population being torn apart) and 2) there is too much unresolved tension in the world (between China and Taiwan, North and South Korea, India and Pakistan, Russia and Ukraine, Israel and Gaza/Iran). The best time for everyone to try accomplish their strategic goals is now/soon, and it'll most likely be done all in one time. Hence a world war.

Simply too much tension. The dominos will fall. Does anyone actually doubt it?

I'm not saying this to fearmonger. It's quite exciting, and I'm curious to see the world afterwards. There would be a lot of change. But the time of war will of course be difficult as fuck.

Edited June 26 by Sincerity

[PurpleTree]

3 minutes ago, Sincerity said:

We'll see how things unfold.

I'm pretty much set that there will be a World War by 2028, especially since the US is at its lowest point with Trump. There is too much unresolved tension in the world (between China and Taiwan, North and South Korea, India and Pakistan, Russia and Ukraine, Israel and Gaza/Iran) and the best time for everyone to try accomplish their strategic goals is now. And it'll most likely be done all in one time. Hence a world war.

Simply too much tension. The dominos will fall. Does anyone actually doubt it?

I'm not saying this to fearmonger. It's quite exciting, and I'm curious to see the world afterwards. There would be a lot of change. But the time of war will of course be difficult as fuck.

Not necessarily. There’s just too much to lose in a World War for most parties involved post nukes. There will probably be endless proxy wars, destabilising, propaganda, terror attacks, hacker attacks, power struggles, alliances etc.

Edited June 26 by PurpleTree

[Sincerity]

@PurpleTree Maybe. Or maybe not. 🤷‍♂️

Perhaps there could be a world war with limited use of nukes. Nuking is very taboo, after all. If a country used it, everyone would turn away from them. It would be their "social annihilation" and probably also literal annihilation.

Why not just nuke Kyiv to force Ukraine to surrender, from Russia's perspective? Even if the world didn't respond with nuking Russia (and they probably wouldn't), Russia would be completely cooked on the world stage.

It all depends whether we cross that boundary of nuking each other. Once it stops being taboo and everyone does it, God help us.

Edited June 26 by Sincerity

[Sincerity]

58 minutes ago, Jodistrict said:

I stopped listening to that professor when he said that America is going to invade Iran. 

It isn't impossible. Open your mind.

Iran definitely could force the US into invading it. All it takes is putting enough pressure.

[Sincerity]

@yetineti The guy has exceptional understanding of history. You can watch his longer lectures.

There was no fearmongering in the video.

You guys are really judging badly.

[zazen]

Def doesn’t seem to be going after views, guy doesn’t even have a profile pic lol but many doomer videos are with click bait titles and thumbnails.

Peoples intuition of WW3 isn’t misplaced but I think there are structural constraints that will hold back any type of hot war between major powers. He understands the state of things well, but is overconfident in things getting kinetic towards annihilation. 

He’s opened my eyes to the fact that empire has its own logic compared to capital - which I put more weight on driving things. I overlooked empire and would view things from the POV that the financial elite are the main drivers.

A helpful way to break it down is:

There are twin brothers in the game, each represent a different faction of elites that can be lumped under:

- empire  (national security elite, military industrial complex, CIA/NSA, deep state)

- capital (financial tech elite, consumer industrial complex, hedge funds and Blackrock)

Empire elites seek a position of primacy on the world stage - to maintain unipolarity. The capital elites play within this system that is rigged in their favour. Capital funds and profits from empire while empire protects and expands itself. Empire is financialized, capital is militarized : they are distinct but mostly aligned and interdependent.

Empire is the muscle that enforces a game board in its favour, capital plays to dominate others on that game board. Capital can only influence players but can’t enforce players into positions the way the military muscle of empire can. During peace time for empire, where there is no clear challenger, capital expands and looks to be the only player dictating things - but empire and statecraft makes itself more overt when the system that capital depends on is threatened.

If there is a new game in town (BRICS+) that’s attracting other players to it and threatening the old game, tension arises between the brothers. The split is between how they respond to this threat: primacy vs profit.

Empire says we need to flip the new game board over (contain or destroy it), whilst capital says why not play on that game board too - “It won’t be rigged in their favour, but it’s better to have partial access to some new riches than have no new riches at all” because you destroyed it through war, or got denied access for being a belligerent.

So primacy is now being threatened (dollar system + trade): empire wants to maintain it whilst capital wants to make a deal with the new game. Capital is more exposed to global markets and so is more risk averse, seeking compromise whilst empire seeks confrontation.

Capital brother is less loyal than the empire brother who seeks legacy and heritage. Capital bro can marry out the family and threaten it because capital is free flowing, liquid - can move to new games boards to play on and profit from. Capital wandering off to play new games (BRICS) weakens the board game that empire built for it. Empire seeks monopoly, capital seeks margin. 

During unipolarity, the Empire doesn’t need to act like an empire overtly. With the emergence of rivals, grand strategy and statecraft of empire re-emerges to enforce the board game.

——-

There are three levels to look at it from. The:

- nation state (national interest, people)

- empire state (geostrategic interest, primacy/power)

- capital-cloud estate (profit interest, finance/tech)

The nation is heavily neglected for empire and capital. But once the nation has been hollowed out to such a degree it can threaten empire itself via populism. Financialization and empire marginalise and then radicalise the nation towards populism. Empire needs legitimacy of the people to fight for it.

Think of empire as muscle (enforces), capital as blood (flows), nation as heart (soul of the people). 
 

With the above in mind, the main factors why a hot kinetic war won’t take place are due to:

- mutually assured destruction between nuclear powers

- no public buy in for empire wars, narrative collapse of legacy media now challenged by social media

- muscles are looking rusty and showing up weak against asymmetric warfare (Houthis as a example) = less confident to go up against main rivals

This is where I agree with the professor that Iran was a target. It’s the last player in a geo-strategically critical region, that was defiant of Western empire/capital and within the new games orbit - BRICS. It’s co-building the new game board (de-dollarization, bypassing swift) that threatens the old game. Empire thinks it can threaten Iran into submission, to play on their board,  and on their terms. The muscle of empire is like a wrench cracking open resistant nations (Iran) for capital to extract from. But Iran is no walkover compared to their neighbours.

The gulf are culturally and spiritually more aligned to the Global South but were already plugged into the old game by pegging their resources (oil) to empires currency (dollar). The gulf simply don’t have the muscle to deter any consequences of defecting to the new game being built, which is actually more geographically proximate to themselves and just makes sense to be a part of. This makes the gulf transitional players hedging their bets - playing both sides.

People conflate being rich in capital with being a powerful empire. The gulf states are a clear example of being a capital estate (not empire) that are under the US empire who they’ve outsourced their security to (muscle). Without security there is no true sovereignty or empire. They can only influence with capital which they have plenty of, but can never enforce anything imperially nor protect themselves (their resources) from imperialism itself. This is why they will never be among the great powers which require both money and money.

China seems to have struck a good (but not perfect) balance between the three layers: nation state, empire state (not necessarily imperial, but influential) and capital-cloud estate. They are attempting to serve the interest of all three harmoniously. This is why they will eclipse the US - because they have strong muscle (military), blood (capital) and heart (people). The body is holistically healthier and robust. Russia is lopsided in this regard - not serving the nation state (people) but the empire state and capital estate of oligarchs.

Edited June 27 by zazen

[Sincerity]

@zazen Cool! Thanks so much for your perspective and insights.

4 minutes ago, zazen said:

With the above in mind, the main factors why a hot kinetic ear won’t take place are due to:

- mutually assured destruction between nuclear powers

- no public buy in for empire wars, narrative collapse of legacy media now challenged by social media

- muscles are rusty and showing up weak against asymmetric warfare (Houthis as a example) = less confident to go up against main rivals

1. Honestly I'm not necessarily thinking of WWIII as a nuclear showdown between top countries. Like I mentioned, I think even in a world war nuking would probably still be very limited. US would probably not nuke mainland China or Russia and vice versa. But more strategic targets elsewhere - perhaps.

2. I think enough pressure can create buy-in for a significant war, using ground troops. It's not completely unlikely. An attack/strike on US would be more than enough, for example. Think Pearl Harbour.

3. Perhaps going against asymmetric warfare and going against main rivals are 2 different things, decrease in confidence in one doesn't need to decrease confidence for another. I dunno tho.

[Lyubov]

1 hour ago, PurpleTree said:

Not necessarily. There’s just too much to lose in a World War for most parties involved post nukes. There will probably be endless proxy wars, destabilising, propaganda, terror attacks, hacker attacks, power struggles, alliances etc.

This is how I see it. 

I don’t see a world war. 

Clashes between nuclear powers? Unlikely, maybe India and Pakistan? 

Nato / Russia? I mean maybe? But how? Russia doing a full scale invasion of Europe? Seriously doubt it. Who knows?