The Geopolitical Foreplay to WW3 Thread!

The Geopolitical Foreplay to WW3 Thread!

This is a good read. Not sure it belongs here but we don’t have a geopolitical thread. :thread:

A LOT of mistakes have been made. Treating Russia like a pariah was one. It’s a nuclear empire, shrinking with legit security concerns, and what Nancy Popo is blaming anti Biden protests on them now too,

An interesting take on Taiwan and China in here too. No war, too close economically. It’s in neither ones best interests to have a go militarily.


Yup, the last thing that region needs is pouring gasoline on a tinder box.

I was reading this recently, it argues WWIII has already begun and as you say the region seems to sense American bluster which won’t work.

I don’t agree WWIII has already begun but sense this is the time for people from all sides to call for restraint not escalation.

All sides or everyone or however you want me to phrase it includes Iran.

1 Like

Excellent article and in sync very much with my take on things and most have been my view for many years now. :+1:

From the AC article :arrow_down:

“Putin and [Russia’s Foreign Minister] Sergei Lavrov**’** s repeated remarks suggest that ‘security,’ not ‘territory,’ is their primary motive,” said Wilkerson. This analysis echoes that of other savvy observers, such as Professor John Mearsheimer and Retired Colonel Douglas Macgregor, a TAC contributing editor, who see Putin not as a crazed dictator but as a rational actor trying to accomplish intelligible goals in Russia’s national interest.

It’s that one word, primary, that made things hard to sort out. Does Russia want to regain control over the historic passages armies have used to invade Russia in the past? Of course, but that is not their primary goal.

“Is there a single person on earth,” Wilkerson asked rhetorically, “who believes the U.S. would not have taken aggressive action if Russia or China had moved into Mexico’s northern provinces and asked them to be members of the CSTO [Collective Security Treaty Organization]?”

“Putin took his action [in Ukraine],” Wilkerson continued, “because the West, led by Washington, broke every promise it made to Gorbachev and Yeltsin about NATO expansion. The government type is inconsequential when territorial integrity is threatened.”

Glad to see that at least some people with influence are willing and able to mention this in Biden’s Washington.

His ideas about a future condominium replacing NATO in American fp are also interesting.


That’s what I’ve been reading. Zeihan talks about it a lot.

I liked somethings, such as recognizing Ukraine/Russia as in a stalemate and the reassurance on Taiwan.

Others I question, such as the coming ends of Israel and NATO. Israel’s enemies couldn’t stop it from being established and growing, and now it is widely recognized as a nuclear power (not mentioned in the article). There are plenty of pariah states.

As for NATO, it may have been easier to dissolve if Russia hadn’t shown it was still relevant. Now it is getting even larger. Does anyone think the US had an interest in invading Mexico? In a sense, that invasion is happening in the other direction.

Too much to comment on in there and I have stuff to do today. We could rename this the WW3 thread or start a new one, @jdsmith

So Connie accidentally started the WW3 thread? :flushed:

She started a Yemen thread, I broadened it to the middle east, you made it global. Funny how shit gets outta hand!


That seems to be a characterization! All I want is a domestic US supply chain, tons of cheap labor infrastructure jobs and secure shipping lanes!

1 Like

I hope neither of those things come to pass, level heads will have to prevail.

Back in 2015/2016 it seemed clear to me that either the West allowed Russia and China to play on an even playing field, something that I think the more recent suggestions of a multi polar world seem to allow for and everyone carries on happily despite the fact this involes the West ceding it’s hegemony to an extent.

Or they could push ahead with their attempts to change the International rules based system to rig the system to their benefit and likey end up triggering a war with Russia and China.

I think so far unwisely IMO they have thus far chosen the latter.

I think a larger geopolitical thread would be fun.

PORT OF SPAIN, Jan 22 (Reuters) - The Gas Exporting Countries Forum (GECF) sees tight global liquefied natural gas (LNG) markets until 2026 as demand rises 1.5% this year and by up to 22% through 2050, the group’s secretary general, Mohamed Hamel, said on Monday at a conference in Trinidad and Tobago.

The GECF represents natural gas exporters including Qatar, Russia and Trinidad and Tobago. Its members hold more than two-thirds of the world’s gas supplies, according to its website.

Because this, on top of this

Shows that there’s some serious arm twisting going on. Time to pick teams.

Start that anytime. You’re better with thread titles than I am!

1 Like

China is going to play a role in WW3 for sure. My guess is they’ll try to hold out and swoop a la WW2 and rewrite their version of Breton Woods.

Id wager they wait and then fall into civil war before they take charge of anything. But I digress.

So Obama and Biden tried to strengthen Iran to see if they play nicer in the ME. Clearly that hasn’t happened. The US now hopes that China, who buys something like 90% of the oil Iran puts out, will step in and threaten to choke off some of that money. :moneybag:

Attacking cargo ships and oil tankers via Yemeni proxy idiots is no good for business. Especially for China. :cn:

So, read on:

Background: The Chinese government has increasingly sought to portray itself as a Middle East peacemaker and a superior alternative to the U.S. overall as a regional partner.

  • China helped arrange a detente between Iran and Saudi Arabia last year, a move that Sullivan said at the time was “not fundamentally averse to U.S. interests.”

After the Oct. 7 attacks and the outbreak of war between Israel and Gaza, China offered to help broker a peace between Israel and the Palestinians, but has not taken substantive steps towards doing so.

What to watch: Chinese officials have asked Iran several times in recent weeks to push the Houthis to stop attacking ships, or else face consequences in the trade relationship with Beijing, Reuters reportedon Friday.

  • If Houthi attacks continue, moves by Beijing to restrict some business ties to Iran would show that China is really putting its money where its mouth is on Middle East peace-making.
1 Like

The current geopolitical tension isn’t created by any US foreign policy. It is created by the US funneling money into China without checking it’s authoritarian, imperial, and antagonistic agendas for the past 40 years. While giving its hard power away, the US also neglected to commit to electoral reform, meaningful healthcare reform, and tax reform to create a fairer society.

It was still manageable when the US owned all the important social media, but now, even those are started to be controlled by China or those who are aligned with China. That all made it extremely easy for China and Russia to spread propaganda and influence US domestic politics.

All these give authoritarian states a feeling that the US is no longer unbeatable, and the more they are certain of this, the more likely we will see WW3.


I agree with this, nearly all of it. However, I feel it’s a rope a dope.

That would be great if the goal is to have WW3 and win. Although I’d prefer for the goal to be not having WW3 at all.

1 Like

I’d wager that would happen only the US flexed those hyper power muscles. Shutting off the power in a few satellites might do it.

It’s good this is online, lunch time time chat and not real life.


This argument, while I understand it, reeks to me of US containment and Neocon worldview in which the world exists to be split up and shaped between and by the western free powers of democracy and liberty - led of course by the freest of them all, the USA - and the eastern total states. It’s essentially the argument that Mearsheimer is most commonly recognized for advancing, and while the guy does have some significant differences in views from the archetypical Neoconservative, I’d say he shares a common worldview. By the same logic he applies to Russia and Ukraine, Taiwan should simply be sacrificed to Chinese sphere-building - it’s as Mearsheimer himself has said, China will try to create Asian hegemony in the same way the US has done in the Western Hemisphere. And if the US is being provokative in offering defense and NATO membership to a country right on the border of Russia, how is Taiwan really significantly different? I suppose the whole promises broken thing, but strategic ambiguity is basically our way of getting around this whole “we only recognize PRC as China and Taiwan isn’t a legit China” issue, and that clearly is viewed as a bit of a threat by our Chinese friends - and thereby probably hastening any potential attack on Taiwan. In much the same way as Russia’s bitchfits towards Georgia and Ukraine are accelerated by “offensive western behavior?”

I’m not so sure is all. Yes, small states gotta tread carefully when in the shadows of the giants, but imo Mearsheimer’s forumualtions of offensive realism don’t really lend themselves well to a multipolar world, and it really doesn’t lend itself well to assigning ‘guilt’ because it very much implies that there is a rationality - even if it often leads to war - in the expansion of great powers.

By the post-USSR period, the bipolar order was pretty thoroughly on the way out. Thus, it becomes less of a natural assumption that Ukraine must be absorbed into the Eastern bloc; the logic that sacrificing Ukraine to maintain a comfortable balance of power in Europe no longer carries nescessity as Europe has began to emerge as a power bloc independent of the United States. It is worth considering that the Ukranians generally did desire NATO membership, and clearly with pretty good reason - most of the other formerly Soviet Bloc states have too joined. Were the Baltic states not NATO members, should we just sacrifice them to preserve peace with the has-been great power of Russia? Nuclear power truly no longer does equate to great power.

All that said, while many of these states might maintain NATO membership, it’s nowhere near the Cold War era level of bipolar hegemony. I would love to see a common European dedication to military matters, thereby guaranteeing better ability to act as a truly independent actor; historically, this was seen with France and it’s independent nuclear program. And annoying as the French may indeed be, it would be thoroughly worthwhile for democratic Europe to reassert itself against the authoritarianism without - and increasingly growing within, this time mostly on the right with leaders such as Orban being the clearest manifestation of democratic backsliding - it’s own borders.

1 Like