Sincerity

WWIII Might Have Started

58 posts in this topic

12 minutes ago, Lyubov said:

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? 

I also doubt Russia would invade Europe. Perhaps just the baltic states. 

Like I mentioned, I also think direct nuclear clashes between top countries is rather unlikely.

Perhaps the issue here is a definition of a "world war". I suppose most people here think of it as major powers nuking each other. I don't, necessarily.


Words can't describe You.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We got WWIII before GTA VI.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Sincerity said:

I also doubt Russia would invade Europe. Perhaps just the baltic states. 

Like I mentioned, I also think direct nuclear clashes between top countries is rather unlikely.

Perhaps the issue here is a definition of a "world war". I suppose most people here think of it as major powers nuking each other. I don't, necessarily.

If i was Russia i would just keep the propaganda and supporting right wing cooks in Europe going. Like what they‘re doing with Orban, Le Pen, Brexit etc. which then weakens EU, democracy, NATO and so on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Anyone making videos with WW3 in the title shouldn't be taken seriously.

That's some serious algorithm prostitution.

Edited by Leo Gura

You are God. You are Truth. You are Love. You are Infinity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

If the first time you hear about WW3 having started and it is from YT, it's clickbait. 

Edited by Basman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

Anyone making videos with WW3 in the title shouldn't be taken seriously.

That's some serious algorithm prostitution.

Unreasonable position.

Moreover: I think WWIII should be talked about more and it should be brought more to the surface, because people for sure ARE having thoughts about it. Better to talk about this than not.

I’m not paranoid about this. But to me it’s quite obvious that WW3 will happen rather soon. Hell, it’s oblivious to think that we won’t have a world war in our lifetime. How can you be surprised that a world is brought to war when people elect morons like Donald Trump? I genuinely don’t know what’s surprising about it.


Words can't describe You.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Really though, why do people think a world war is SO far-fetched? I don’t get that. There is so much tension for so many countries, the world is literally itching for war. And Trump is the perfect idiot to set everything in motion - with bombing Iran, for example. But it will go much further than that.

You guys are underestimating humanity if you think we can’t have another world war. :D New abysmally low points for humanity are waiting to be met. That’s my take (and has been for a long time now).

Edited by Sincerity

Words can't describe You.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, Sincerity said:

to me it’s quite obvious that WW3 will happen rather soon

coughing-cat-dcbc3e50b235f7aa3793bfa07959fb7a-meme.jpeg


You are God. You are Truth. You are Love. You are Infinity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

@Sincerity It’s kind of like conspiracy theories. Intellectual people usually have a knee-jerk negative judgement to things like this. This was the first thing I thought of when I felt an impulse to share the video myself.

Notice how Leo and his sycophants won’t even engage with the analysis due to their pre-judgement. I bet you they watched the video but can’t offer a single argument for how his position is flawed. They’re either using a flawed heuristic, are jealous, or just aren’t very open minded.

Not open minded enough to realize it’s possible for an intelligent person to talk openly about such taboo on social media and the main drive not be chasing clicks. 

It’s possible this dude is just chasing clicks, but it’s ridiculous to use use such a simple heuristic to claim that is the case, especially when his reasoning is as solid as it is, and he has a successful track record of predictions using game theory. 

Edited by Joshe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Joshe or, from another perspective, we are already in the forth world war, and it's all happening in your mind. Behold the chaos of insanity first-hand. Terroism & very bad things are imminent indeed. But they are not occuring elsewhere, "out in the world."

Your Mind is the biggest and only host of terror worldwide.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Sincerity said:

It isn't impossible. Open your mind.

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

Iran doesn't want war.  They have been bending over backwards to avoid it.   


Vincit omnia Veritas.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Sincerity said:

I also doubt Russia would invade Europe. Perhaps just the baltic states. 

Like I mentioned, I also think direct nuclear clashes between top countries is rather unlikely.

Perhaps the issue here is a definition of a "world war". I suppose most people here think of it as major powers nuking each other. I don't, necessarily.

World War 1 and 2 were fought by alliances formed by many countries where there were multiple theaters of war spread across large land masses with hundreds of thousands of troops. We are unlikely to ever see that again. Technology, supply chains and just the way the world works now is very unlikely to produce what we saw in WW1 and 2 where you had these combined arms battles in the land, sea and air with hundreds of thousands of troops. Conflicts today will be these stalemates where some airplanes, drones and rockets will be doing most of the work and key geographic interests and end goals for the wars will be much more nuanced and specific rather than just toppling a country / state. They say that will happen in Taiwan but I just don’t think it will. Look up the geography of Taiwan and how it’s basically a fortress. It would plunge China into a similar situation Russia is in. China has more checks as well on stuff like that compared to Russia. It could happen but I don’t see it unfolding in a predictable way. I think we ar living through an aged of renewed military conflict and Cold War but I don’t see some giant world war breaking out thank god. But what we have now is still very difficult and will lead to huge drop in standard of living and life if it continues. A country getting careless with its missles and nukes could happen though. That is probably the most scary thing that could happen, something like a nuke being used. Exactly what people feared during the Cold War, like I said, we are definitely in a brand new Cold War without a doubt, but I think the first one was much more dangerous and on a razors edge if you read into the history about it. 

Edited by Lyubov

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, yetineti said:

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.

Yet the pair I showed you get most of their analysis right. You may not like it. I certainly could do without their bias, but yet they are right most of the time.

I notice though how nobody disputed the main thrust of my point, which was the doubling of military spending will reshape the countries doing it, making them more likely to engage that military.

*Have you considered that people fearmonger as you put it, because they are genuinely fearing an outcome?

Edited by BlueOak

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Joshe said:

won’t even engage with the analysis due to their pre-judgement. I bet you they watched the video but can’t offer a single argument for how his position is flawed. They’re either using a flawed heuristic, are jealous, or just aren’t very open minded.

That's also speaking from fear in my opinion. Its a way of avoiding what is damned obvious patterns occurring because its so horrific to acknowledge, so I understand it. I don't demean people for it, any more than I do the OP for writing this from fear.

Increasing hostilities have been the pattern since about 2000, and nothing I have seen has led me to believe it will slow down now. Nor anything here, anyone has said on any thread in the forum, or from any political leader. Because that's the pattern they have been in. It's how all these countries are evolving further right and further militaristic.

The video, however, is extremely flawed. Iran wanting war on their own soil is the most absurd claim. I could cite you decades of them not wanting war and all the actions they have taken. But it'll be easier for you to try to do the opposite, and I pull them down, because you'll find few examples of them wanting a wider war.

Trump is the establishment; he's funded and backed by the establishment so which American empire would he be fighting?

Israel, without a larger power supporting them, would be completely lost, so they don't want an independent empire; that's why they spend all this money guaranteeing the opposite. Trump would not abandon the oil either.

Edited by BlueOak

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Joshe Wake me up when the nukes start flying.


You are God. You are Truth. You are Love. You are Infinity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

@Joshe Wake me up when the nukes start flying.

Why do you believe a world war requires nukes?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The honest answer is - who the hell knows? It is not impossible. But at the end of the day, people want to get along with their lives. If you sit out there worrying about war breaking out every single day, how are you going to get anything done at all? What's even the point of anything if war will just come along and crush it all to pieces?

10 hours ago, Sincerity said:

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.

"Exciting" is a rather curious term to use. If there even will be a you to see it. Or a world which to see. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There aren't significant enough international conflicts going on at present to start a world war. We may have to wait for 20-30 years.


Authenticity, consciousness, Understanding, Learning, Art, Mastery

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Sandhu said:

There aren't significant enough international conflicts going on at present to start a world war. We may have to wait for 20-30 years.

There are now more conflicts than ever recorded though.

GPT

As of mid‑2025, armed conflicts around the world are at historic highs, both in state-based wars and non-international armed conflicts (NIACs):

 

 

 

 

📈 State-Based Conflicts & Wars

 

 

The Uppsala Conflict Data Program (UCDP) reports 61 active state-involved conflicts in 2024 — the highest since records began in 1946. Of these, 11 qualify as full-scale wars with at least 1,000 battle-related deaths in a single year  .

 

 

 

 

 

🌍 Total Armed Conflicts (including NIACs)

 

 

The Geneva Academy’s RULAC database monitors 110 ongoing armed conflicts in 2025, including over 45 in the Middle East & North Africa and more than 35 NIACs in Africa  .

 

 

 

 

 

🔥 Key Takeaways

 

Category

Number

Notes

State-based conflicts (involving governments)

61

Includes 11 wars (≥1,000 combat deaths/year) 

All armed conflicts (state & non-state)

110

Includes over 50 not involving formal states ()

 

Armed violence is spreading widely, especially in Africa and the Middle East.

The number of wars is increasing, even if total battle deaths slightly dipped (≈160,000 in 2024)  .

 

 

 

 

 

🧭 Summary

 

 

In simple terms:

 

61 state-based conflicts, including 11 full-scale wars

110 total armed conflicts worldwide when counting smaller insurgencies and non-state disputes

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

🔥 1. 

Russia–Ukraine War

 

 

≈ 76,000 battle-related deaths in 2024 — the world’s single deadliest conflict  .

 

 

 

2. 

Israel vs Gaza & Hezbollah

 

 

≈ 26,000 deaths in Gaza and southern Lebanon during 2024 — overwhelmingly civilians (~94%)  .

Gaza’s toll passed 56,000 total, with 44 killed in a single day recently  .

 

 

 

3. 

Sudanese Civil War (SAF vs RSF)

 

 

At least 150,000 deaths since April 2023, with DHS mass killings like Wad An Nora (150–200+ casualties)  .

U.N. reports over 24,000 killed, with 300+ civilians dead in 2 days in Darfur alone  .

 

 

 

4. 

Ethiopia – Amhara War

 

 

≈ 15,000 total casualties, including over 2,000 civilians in 2024  .

 

 

 

5. 

Democratic Republic of Congo (IS & jihadist insurgencies)

 

 

≈ 3,800 civilians killed by IS in 2024  .

 

 

 

6. 

Myanmar – Rakhine Offensive

 

 

≈ 735 civilians killed in 2024 amid junta operations in Rakhine State  .

 

 

 

7. 

Burkina Faso (Nondin & Soro massacres)

 

 

At least 223 civilians massacred by military forces in Feb 2024 ().

Broader jihadist conflict has killed around 20,000

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now