Russia issued a statement just before 2022 invasion that demanded NATO back off from Baltic States, Poland, etc. If Ukraine fell quickly they could think they can force this by small scale provocations. If NATO really backed off - Russia would invade these countries soon after that.
A LOT of people are now safe because of Ukrainians (and NATO, and EU). Millions of them.
Returning to your question - WW3 is unlikely, because NATO wins 10 times out of 10. The best China and Russia can count on is stalemate with nuclear exchange. But what's the point of that from their POV?
If China is drawing conclusions they must be based on the West's reaction to the invasion, not on Russia's performance. China has been working on these scenarios well before Russia invaded Ukraine because, well, it is obvious that the West controls most of the world's economic and financial infrastructure.
For instance, payments within China are now almost 100% Alipay and Wechatpay, which means they have completely decoupled and e.g. US networks like Visa and Mastercard are irrelevant.
China has all the corruption problems Russia has, even less oversight and transparency, and fought no competetive wars in which it could be tested.
I expect much worse performance from them if they ever go to a real war.
As for decoupling economy - Russia is energy exporter. China is importing resources and energy and selling products to the west. They are much more coupled with the west than Russia, no matter who services the transactions.
China is coupled to the West in a way that makes the West at least a dependent on China as China is on the West.
There is no comparison with Russia and, if anything Ukraine shows China the mistakes no to make.
They already do. But they won't have anywhere to sell their products. Most of their economy gone just like that.
> China is coupled to the West in a way that makes the West at least a dependent on China as China is on the West.
Nope. For west decoupling means higher inflation but lower unemployment and faster growth. You win more than you lose. For China it means economic decline, unemployment, budget deficits. Catastrophe from all POV.
BTW it's already happening to some degree, just slowly - old factories are still operating in China, but new ones are built near USA/EU - in Mexico, Eastern Europe, Turkey, etc.
The internal Chinese economy* is at 80% as against 20% for exports.** Of those exports, the US plus Europe are about 30%. In other words, if the entire West is decoupled from China's economy, the Chinese economy still has 80%+ (70% of 20% = 14%) or a total of 94% left. The West is not actually as important as it thinks.
* The Chinese internal market size is four times the size of the US market for consumer goods. And that's apart from the the Chinese rolling in cash reserves that lets them afford to build lots of infrastructure, just like the US was able to build back in the 1950s and 1960s.
** Back around 1980, the US internal economy was around 95% and the external trade was about 5%. In other words, back then, the 'Rest of the World' could have disappeared and the US economy probably wouldn't have noticed anything. Those times have long gone.
I was under the impression that large amounts of the infrastructure projects were debt-financed. Is this not the case?
Most of the infrastructure debt that you're likely to be thinking of is taken out by other countries who have China constructing the railways, etc, used in making the BRI. China is shelling out plenty of cash for those railways, etc in the near term, while the other countries will pay it off over the longer term.
It's very likely that the internal economy is even larger now, because there was a new emphasis on enlarging it to reduce the economy's vulnerability to external factors when the US started to work on reducing imports from China some years back.
* EDIT: Latest figure from 2022 is 20.68%. https://www.theglobaleconomy.com/china/exports/#:~:text=Expo....
Exports to US (2021) are 3% of China's GDP. https://www.aei.org/foreign-and-defense-policy/us-and-china-....
Many Americans think that China would go under if the US stopped importing from China. In fact, exports to the US are less than 15% of China's exports world-wide. (3/20.68 x 100 = 14.51)
The China of 2023 is the US of 1942. When the US gets belligerent with China, I just shake my head. It's a bit like a 5-year-old kid threatening a quarter-back.
I think the analogy of US-China to 5-year-old to quarterback is a bit of stretch. But given that the US is a young nation/culture and China an old one, it could be more apt that I realize right now. I don't know. Yet China's foreign ministry diplomatic tantrums, mirrored in the (admittedly much rebuked by Chinese netizens) occasional tantrums of its travelers on foreign soil, look more akin to 5-year-old behavior, to me. Do you have more insight your analogy?
To me it seems more like, if China is the QB, then US is like the wizened old coach, battle-scarred, full of wisdom and experience, Hall-of-famer, but now beyond its prime. Living vicariously through youth, easily enraged by yet ready to rise to the challenge of the upstart, but also needing to let go of the idea that it's the only power on the field. Sometimes it gets embarrassing when it goes on its lengthy rants and speeches about the glory days, but still, nobody wants to follow the QB, everyone still needs Coach. Yet Coach needs to evolve and adapt.
I think picking aged leaders could be a weird subconscious expression of this "decrepitude". In another sense, Steve Rogers, "Captain America", the "man out of time" is a fictional embodiment of this idea, and his character's trajectory an allegory of America's trajectory overall, right back to the desire to travel back in time to "Fix things" and harken back to a fading Americana. :.(
To some extent I think China would be willing to pay, and accept, a higher economic price than the West as long as Taiwan was seized. That's perhaps the same calculation Russia did with Ukraine, though, so they need to give a very hard look and consideration to this 'as long as', at this point it's not a given. The reason is that no-one cares about Taiwan in the West, it is a pawn against China. But for the Chinese it is very personal (which is not really the case for Russian in Ukraine, btw).
In any case, that wouldn't unleash WWIII.
Everybody needs fuel. Rich countries need iphones.
When you are isolated you can still pump oil. You can't make iphones.
These are polar opposites when it comes to dependency on the west.
> The reason is that no-one cares about Taiwan in the West, it is a pawn against China.
I wonder what would be your prediction about the West caring about Ukraine in 2021 :) If anything - even fewer people cared about it than about Taiwan. Yet here we are.
There's 2 things so called "realists" and "geopoliticians" consistently get wrong.
The first is that the only things that matter are economies, armies, nukes, and geography. These people couldn't predict USSR falling, because they thought every culture and every system is the same and values are cosmetic. Meanwhile people like Giedroyć proposed a strategy for Poland after "inevitable USSR collapse and creation of independent Ukraine and Belarus" in 60s already. Look it up - google for "Giedroyć doctrine" and "Kultura paryska".
The second thing "realists" consistently get wrong is assuming democracies are weak and fickle and authocracies are strong and resilient. It's an easy mistake to make, because democracies are transparent about their weaknesses and authocracies hide them. But that's exactly why it's a mistake.
Democracies are actually surprisingly bloodthirsty once you persuade people something is worth fighting for. Much easier to change the mind of the leader than to change the minds of millions of people. And all wars are ultimately about changing somebody's minds.
If the situation in Taiwan was painful in the West because of the economic impacy then Western public opinions would tire long before the Chinese do because, again, this would be nothing to them while for Chinese it would be a national cause.
Here in the UK many people are already unhappy that we're paying so much, including on our energy bills, for Ukraine. The situation in Europe is not painless and that puts a strain on public opinion.
This has nothing to do with democracies vs autocracies.
One thing that many get wrong about China is that reunification is not what the CCP wants to achieve it is what the Chinese people want to achieve. And the US do not want that no matter whose in charge in Beijing because their aim is to weaken China.
And again, none of that would trigger WWIII.
The main russian propagandist - Solovyov - publicly argued that Russia cannot invade Crimea and should let Ukraine do whatever it likes like 15 years ago. Now he argues Russia should nuke the west because Ukraine must be russian.
Not 20 years passed. Watch the videos - they are hilarious when you compare to what they are saying now [1]
Russia is authocracy, they will say whatever putin wants them to say. If putin decides to stop the war and go home - the same people will say with 100% confidence that it's the best thing to do and Russia has no interest in internal Ukrainian affairs.
As for strategic reasons - Russia moved its soldiers from Finland border after Finland joined NATO. Russia knows perfectly well NATO does not want to invade it. They not only know it - they rely on it.
[1] https://www.newsweek.com/russia-ukraine-solovyov-1751095
https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/1502177250300600320
(I would post the original cable, but Wikileaks is offline now).
Finland had zero plans for joining NATO before russia brutally attacked Ukraine.
Finland also joined to better protect them from russian aggression.
So NATO coming closer to russia is fully a consequence of their own actions.
People don’t like their country invaded.
As for buffer states, by attacking Ukraine they pushed Finland into NATO which the führer does not seem to mind. So we can easily call bullshit on this trope.
As for access to Black Sea, just look at the map. russia has plenty of access to it.
And what about basic necessities like food? China can only meet 65% of it’s food needs.
China is completely vulnerable and dependent on the west, in a way that Russia is not.
Well, since no-one wants to start WWIII, the US Navy isn't going to attack Chinese ships, especially if escorted by the Chinese Navy. QED.
We're used to see the US behave like they can do anything they want but that's only because they are usually orders of magnitude stronger than the opposition. But if the opposition was of similar strength they would be much more restrained and cautious because, again, no-one is suicidal.
I'm sure the question has been studied many times in war games and scenarios and I expect the plan would be to put pressure at the source (i.e. 'suggest' that you should not sell to China), which would not work with all countries.
They may have done these but if I’m not mistaken they yuan is still pegged to the US dollar.
But if long running influence operations seem to be the area where Russia in particular owns the board.
An instrumental narrative used by the media... Do you really believe that? The rest of your comment is also surreal: you are overestimating Russia and underestimating China.
The problem of the West is that all of our leaders are weak. Weak leaders precipitate wars.
2 years ago Russia was called 2nd army of the world. China wasn't the first.
> The problem of the West is that all of our leaders are weak. Weak leaders precipitate wars.
These general statements are generally false.
> These general statements are generally false.
What about Trump or even Merkel? Biden and Von Der Leyen are a clear downgrade that may bring us a stupid war.
We were called biased for 30 years. We were right. Still biased tho :) If you are called biased when you're proven right by the people who were wrong - it's not you who is biased.
> Trump and Merkel.
Both are former leaders.
Nothing particularly special about the current situation. And in fact since the USSR collapse there is no string enough backer to the 'opposition' to enable serious escalation.
Geostrategically the Russia-Ukraine conflict is interesting, not because of a WW risk, but because it is being used as a tool for deeper goals like splitting Europe and Russia and making Europe more dependent on the US for its energy, expanding NATO, and hitting China's Belt and Road.
In any case, no-one is going to start WWIII because no-one is suicidal. 'No-one' means USA, Russia, and China as realistically they are the only one with the power to start it.
China can't afford it. They are mid economic ruin and can't afford a sustained conflict.
Russia is almost out of ammo. Desperately trying to generate more. Suffering from a lot of brain drain.
Middle easy is in fighting. There's no way they'd jump into such a war.
Nobody wants to directly attack a nato country.
who else would be involved?
I'm not sure a failing China is less likely to go to war, than one who "can afford it". Look at Japan pre-WWII. They basically went to war to refresh the coffers of Empire.
China also has a shrinking population, much like Russia, and throwing your young and middle aged men into war isn't going to help population numbers.
That being said, sure they face challenges. But I don't think they could "not survive" if isolated. They are probably one of the few places that could survive isolation: abundant agricultural land, immense manufacturing capability, incredible ability to mobilize millions of people toward survival activities, world's largest coal reserves.
If put in that position, they would be more likely to wage war to secure the things they needed, cannibalize other steel for war purposes, etc. I don't think the "China is too weak to fight a war" makes sense.
I think there's multiple levels in which it fails: if you accept it is weak, you must also accept that weak, cornered people are the most dangerous; if you accept it is strong, you must accept it can fight. Truly, it has a mix of both qualities, but I don't think the idea of it being "too weak to fight" has a solid basis.
In a more morbid sense, you could consider the lockdowns as training for the population for wartime curfew and associated hardships.
But how much of that is simply regression towards the mean after an extended bad outlier? All the most miraculous recoveries first require being very sick.
It seems like every country gets similar boosts when it industrializes, and we shouldn't be surprised when it is more-pronounced in a large country of high population in natural resources.
It's true that some of the scale of its achievement could simply be a reflection of a similar achievement magnified by its population. It's also likely true that part of its achievement is to accomplish a unification of such a large population in the first place.
It may have been highly developed for much of world history, but its mean condition was not highly stable. Last century's convulsion was but one of many the Chinese people have put themselves through. You could conclude they are among the most warlike of any people, at least where domestic conflict is concerned. One can argue that is simply a reflection of a strong desire to unify a collective identity. However, their capability to both create and survive war and suffering is itself remarkable.
I think that weighs in favor of them having a high resilience. As Rocky Balboa says, "It's not about how hard you hit. It's about how hard you can get hit and keep moving forward." China has certainly taken plenty of hits, and kept moving forward. Many other places have "never recovered" from the hits they've taken.
I would not say that this means China's ascent is assured by any means. But they do seem to have remarkable resilience and capability.
But I don't know. Maybe they do not have that. I won't say here what's in their future, all I'm saying here what one could conclude seems likely, given a sober look at their present and past.
I honestly feel that all the discussion of China is off track for this question. I must bear some responsibility for that, tho, as I think I've talked a lot about it here. I'd prefer not to, one reason is because I think this question is about far more than just China.
Most developed countries have a shrinking population, excluding immigration from, well, less developed countries. Due to the one-child policy and preferences for a male child, there are now too many men, particularly in the military-eligible age groups. Sending them off to be war heroes will balance out the gender ratio and prevent an incel uprising in the future.
When wars break out though it generally turns out that people are equally capable of killing each other and logistics is what makes or breaks any prolonged conflict. Technology helps as a force multiplier but it won’t save you if the logistics break down and you run low on ammo or manpower.
I wonder if this the press angle we were talking about is historically consistent? As in, pre WWI and WWII, did what would become allied powers have press that downplayed the ability of axis powers to fight? And vice versa?
I know once things got started it was like there was racist propaganda, but I'm not sure about prior. Based on our discussion I'd say: probably. But I don't know.
It's weird, it's sort of like perhaps the "silver lining" of negative racism from a recipient's point of view: you are chronically underestimated. This in turn gives you the advantage that any opponents you may have are chronically unprepared.
I like your point about: generally turns out that people are equally capable of killing each other and logistics is what makes or breaks any prolonged conflict seems very salient and succinct and accurate.
One thing I wonder about tho (and we are likely getting way off topic here, so I apologize for that!), is how does this factor into occupation / unconventional warfare?
I can't seem to reconcile right now the ideas that the US has the most advanced and powerful military on Earth, with the fact that is has failed (at least it seems to have failed, but I'm not an expert) in its last few unconventional conflicts. One reason I find this hard to reconcile is because I would think that logistics, people and ammo were abundant in Vietnam, and the Middle East, yet...victory was elusive, and certainly not decisive.
I suppose the technology caveat you mention breaks down when you have "step change" technology, like nuclear weapons, or a UFO breakthrough or whatever. But I suppose the advantage of that is reduced to the extent that it's evenly distributed. The bigger the step, the easier it is, I guess, to prevent that distribution. Nukes? Relatively easy to prevent getting into the hands of everybody. Guns? Not so much.
Anyway, way off topic, so yeah. Any interesting resources you recommend to know more about this stuff?
So while it's hard to pin down causation, there's certainly more "opportunities" in such times for pretexts and justifications to arise that provide an emotional motive for war. Economic ruin provide an economic motivation as well.
It's a powerful combination. It strikes me how we see the return of Bibi (clearly a strongkin), the persistence of Putin (likewise), at this time. Likely the other conflict zones listed in comments here have some strongkin leaders, too.
Perhaps it would be interesting to combine the "food price index" suggested in another comment, with a "strong leader index" to figure out a bit of a rank.
This is technically true on its face, but second-order thinking reveals why the "coffers" were low in the first place. The United States goaded them into war by intentionally cutting off their oil supplies.
Pearl Harbor was no surprise. FDR's advisors knew exactly what they were doing.
While technically true that the US embargo further depleted imperial coffers, Japan was already at war, its finances were already in dire straits, and WWII had started before this. While it certainly contributed to PH, the US' embargo cannot be said to have caused WWII, Japan's poverty, or its imperial warmongering.
Although you raise an interesting point about the advisors knowing what they were doing. I'm sure they did. And there was advance warning of an attack, due to code breaking, but they were unsure precisely where or when, I think.
Therefore, no-one is going to start one.
In 2023, the options for hiding or obscuring delivery attribution are much greater than in the Cold War.
MAD still mostly holds, but not as much as it used to, and it's likely that attribution will get harder as time goes on.
One can also never discount the human psychologies of ego and "fuck it". No human being is immune, and no sufficiently angry political group is immune. It would be comforting if the "world leaders are actually lizard people" conspiracy theory were true, because human impulse control can never be fully trusted.
No-one is going to start WWIII and/or launch a nuclear attack against another nuclear power.
When North Korea builds nuclear weapons, for instance, it's not to attack it's not to end up like Iraq.
Those would claim otherwise are the ones who inspired Dr Strangelove.
One day, a dozen angry palestinians who have been tirelessly beaten by the Israelis, are going to do something truly terrible to Israel, and there isn't anything they can do about it aside form make peace now.
Also, stop watching the news. It's poison.
I find news tiring in all but small doses, but find that conversations like this can often be tonic. Yet in them it seem we have to talk about things that are in the news.
In another way, I'd probably rather not consume any news at all except for a strong desire to know what is happening on Earth. And what people think is happening on Earth.
I suppose I could satisfy my desires in some other ways, yet it seems so easy to get that "reward signal hit" from absorbing information. It's interesting to think if we're all like "neurons", sort of hard wired to seek gossip and "signal". As if "information" is like sugar in a way.
I feel it is unhealthy to consume news too much tho. Like scrolling through FB, or YT shorts. Somehow it seems "nutritionally empty" like "junk food". I suppose such a feeling must be commonplace in our world where we are certainly saturated with information -- at least compared to the day when the source of all gossip for the town was the general store. Haha :)
I think it's the other way around, Ukraine is decimating Russias fighting strength, theres no other real way to explain Russias reactivation of T62 tanks and its frankentechnicals that it has been making from any spare gun it can find and a MTLB.
Ukraine ceased to exist as an independent entity quite some time ago. It 's hanging on only because NATO and EU are propping it up.
As soon as the USA finds a new thing, and the EU/NATO realise they have been played, then Ukraine will be done.
Literally everything I said is true.
> Ukraine ceased to exist as an independent entity quite some time ago. It 's hanging on only because NATO and EU are propping it up.
It's being propped up because it's hard to have a functioning economy during a war thats literally inside your borders.
> As soon as the USA finds a new thing, and the EU/NATO realise they have been played, then Ukraine will be done.
How have EU/NATO been played may I asked?.
The most dangerous misinformation ever always comes from nation-states and their puppet media in the form of propaganda. This is necessary to motivate war (which is strategic) because people won't engage in mass killing for strategic reasons only -- they need some ethical justification.
Reality is never quite enough to make war palatable, so propaganda must be used to make the enemy seem inhuman or highlight their worst behaviors or cultural failings.
This will come from your most trusted news sources. In every country that participates, hundreds of millions will be utterly convinced that killing as many of the participants in the other countries is their moral duty.
Turkey-Syria (already underway)
Saudi-Yemen
Iran-Azerbaijan
Azerbaijan-Armenia
Russia-Georgia
Turkey-Cyprus
Lebanon-Israel
Serbia-Kosovo
Also possibly Pakistan
It shows the fundamental nature of economics, and how everything is connected, and how people's behavior in crises is surprisingly predictable. Thanks for sharing that! :)
In terms of Israel, maybe they will annex Gaza, but its not a ww3 thing.
No win: any counterstrike need only be airborne before that 1st strike hits (ignoring submarines).
In your example: NK might be able to strike SK by surprise - short distance, missiles could could cover it in a few minutes.
But in case of NK striking SK, countries allied with SK wouldn't leave NK unpunished. So even if NK's 1st strike were 'successful', it would still be annihilated by the response. If not by SK, then by its allies.
On top of that: not all 1st strike missiles would reach their enemy, hit their target, or manage to destroy all their enemies' missiles.
TLDR; there's no win in all-out nuclear war.
So, does it exist or not?
The powers that be are pushing towards this new world war with austerity, with higher cost of living. Ultimately I see it as the same old war rich vs poor, 1% vs 99%. When there's war, people die, and who dies? The poor. And who profits? The rich.
Most media is in the hands of the rich. Media drives opinion.
Traditionally there have always been wars. War is good for business, especially the business of weapon manufacturers, which are part of the rich.
The world is destabilizing and I blame US omnipotence fantasy. Empire USA has military bases all over the planet. They have provoked the Ukraine war. Because Serbia doesn't want to play fetch like the NATO tells them to, Kosovo is being lit again.
I have no insight into Palestine/Israel other than the US has their fingers in there as well.
Every recent war (not sure about Azerbaijan and Armenia) the US / NATO was or is involved.
The EU, which is apparent now, is a vassal of the USA, at least with the corrupt leadership of Von der Leyen.
Africa is evolving away from EU rule towards China, which tries desperately to buy into other nations everywhere. With all the hate towards China, when have they started a war recently or influenced one?
The only entity which has acted aggressively is the US military.
So how likely is a world war? Currently I don't think it's very likely, but it's in preparation and the main actor is the US military.
You also show an obvious dislike of US / NATO interference, and suggest that it is the only main actor.
However, it's likely there are other actors that are just less "out", yet nevertheless just as active. China (?? does anyone know the name of the relevant division?), for example, and Russia (Alpha Group), are both involved in covert actions around the world hundreds of times per year. Five Eyes intelligence agencies are constantly involved in collaborative operations with each other in a huge range of countries, as well. Added to that, we have said nothing about cyber activities, which are increasingly important. All of these activities are driven by strategic goals, are likely significant, and collectively it is conceivable they do much to move the needle of world affairs, even if they are never covered in the news.
The US may simply have the (unfortunate?) role of being the vanguard or front man for many events or instabilities, when the truth is, there are many other actors involved behind the scenes. In this way US dominance can function in the media as a convenient cover to explain, or blame, but effectively conceal the true power brokers behind the scenes. Such concealment would likely be prudent operational security that the network of hidden actors would seek to actively cultivate.
The US as main actor, while undoubtedly based in truth, may be more of a convenient fiction than is portrayed in the media. This misperception could lead to a degree hatred of the US by some individuals and groups that is not warranted by reality of its activities or influence.
China may not yet be "out" in an overt sense, but I doubt they are any less aggressive, inherently. Their modus operandi right now seems to be pick fights with a thin veneer of plausible deniability: the fentanyl trade and cartel manipulation seems to be a glaring example. An incredibly aggressive action, yet carried out with a kind of shyness that suggests both a will to dominance but a hesitation at the threshold, as if they feel they are not quite ready to be seen to be starting the street fight. So, they'd rather just bump into you on the street, and pretend they weren't looking: "Oh, sorry. Didn't see you there."
But, if challenged would readily use the very pretext they were seeking to create to play the fake victim and start the fight. But not bold enough yet to be seen to start the fight. Even so, in the silence, both parties knew the Chinese had tensed up their shoulder to deliver the blow, showing indeed they had seen you there, and indeed that they had deliberately walked into you with the very intention of starting a fight! Yet had done it by trying to provoke you to start the fight they wanted to have!
Importantly, this kind of behavior shows that they expect the world to part for them, and that they expect the world to yield for them, as they pass through in their self-anointed "rightful position". Likely they feel unhappy with how they feel the world has so far failed to yield for them, in the way that they want it to, feel it "should", and feel "they deserve."
This aggression with deception suggests that they want the dominance and respect, but do not yet feel bold enough to take it, nor scream it in your face that you owe it them.
Instead, they require that you must give them permission first by creating the first initial overt aggression. So, that is what they seek to provoke with their "concealed aggression" strategy: the initial overt aggression.
So while China is clearly an example of an actor that is active, at the same time, this concealed stance clearly displays weakness, and in effect they are making themselves slaved to the permission of another, to achieve what they want. A kind of weird co-dependency, and the wrong path, I think.
This kind of attitude seems to characterise the Chinese culture psyche at this time. They must feel it is nearly time for their dominance, they are chafing at the bit, but they have not yet given themselves permission to take themselves off the leash. They do not yet want to own their actions. So, something is still holding them back. I wonder what it is? A pretext? A red-line provocation? A chance to play 'ultimate victim'? A sense of having truly "earned" their place? I'm not sure.
People often say China will not rush to war, and that any conflict between China and another country, either over Taiwan, or any other issue, is a god-damned long way off. With all that being said, I have a feeling you may seem that act sooner than you think. I initially balked at some seeming hawks estimates of 2025, but now? I think anything could happen. Critical temperature for phase transition is a useful concept here, I think.
Of course, I hope none of this transpires, and everyone just gets along, everyday with mutual respect, consideration and goodness. Please, let that be so. I truly hope they can achieve their healing of past trauma through their own success, and not through seeking or expecting the domination, servitude or tribute of some other.
Despite this, it is clear the Chinese would like to rid themselves of the memories of "sick man of Asia" and "century of humiliation", but may not yet feel ready for outright confrontation, so attempt acting aggressively in a concealed way. These kind of thin concealments may not provide disguise for much longer, and in a very real sense, the tension is clearly and obviously building. In this light, it seems the idea that the US is responsible for provocation entirely is more fantasy than reality.
I just now found this: https://www.news.com.au/technology/innovation/military/two-e...
Besides, neocons and evangelists are actively pushing for it.
It’s closer than we think it is, yet people won’t believe this because the media hasn’t mentioned anything yet.
Once it has a branding we will already be living the global war.
It is "Ukraine", not "the Ukraine".
https://theconversation.com/its-ukraine-not-the-ukraine-here...
it all depends on the reactions of the white house - eg. the "neocons" - to losing their war with russia which is ongoing in the ukraine.
just my 0.02€
down-voting a comment on the internet you don't like makes reality go away.
"The Beginning of a Long Fall for Ukraine"
* https://simplicius76.substack.com/p/sitrep-10423-the-beginni...
Ah yes, why wouldn't I believe a pro Russian source about whats happening in Ukraine.
That would totally be an unbiased source based in reality and not trying to push a narrative in anyway shape or form.
I also personally find the "reading between the lines" approach useful. Propaganda pieces often contain interesting stances, useful facts omitted in publications with different stances, and in general are just an interesting window into the thinking of people from a different background.
Over-specializing in any one silo of information makes you vulnerable to manipulation. Spreading your portfolio among many sources lessens your exposure and risk. There's also something to be said for reading a wide variety of sources, including propaganda, to develop your critical muscles, and improve your resilience to manipulation. The more exposure you have to it, the more you can see how it operates, and ultimately free yourself from it.
A sort of "conscious consumption" if you will, haha :).
Yeah but theres a big difference between the obvious rabid Russian propaganda and people having a narrative.
The firehose of falsehood is a known Russian propaganda method to muddy the waters and they have used it extensively in Ukraine.
I'd like to compare them myself. In general I find it useful to read a wide variety of sources, and I can't see myself excluding something from consideration by labeling it propaganda. For many reasons as I stated above, that seems prejudicial and unwise, when reading it could be useful and informative.
An additional trouble is raised by your point, in that, by prejudging articles as being likely propaganda and then excluding them from your consideration, you risk making yourself vulnerable to manipulation by whoever you trust to label content as propaganda or not. In effect, by trusting propaganda labelling you may end up supporting, or even being victim to, what you seek to prevent and protect yourself from!
Therefore I'm interested to know more about your examples, in the hope that I can learn more and discover if I really think there is a distinction to be had there! Distinguishing obvious propaganda from narrative seems like it could be challenging, so I'm eagerly awaiting any examples you could provide in order to educate myself more. Please share! :)