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.
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.
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.
