Home
Creators
Search Recent Missing Random
Posts
Search DMs Popular Hash Lookup Tags Random
Importer
Import FAQ
Register Favorites Keys Review DMs Logout
Community
Telegram ThePornDude
Home Creators Posts Import Register Favorites Logout

The Prospect Of World War III (Members Video) (Patreon)

Published:
2023-04-20 17:29:12
Imported:
2026-06
haven't archived this post yet. have a subscription? use the importer!

Downloads

  • 199092511.mp4

Missing 1 video, as this post has not yet been imported.

Content

Hey everyone, the prospect of World War III has been on my mind lately, and as it seems like has been for a lot of people. I don't want to be alarmist, but I do think it's something worth paying attention to and talking about. It seemed appropriate to make another video on here to do that. Hope you guys enjoy it.

I'm going from this pretty much straight into recording my piece on Thomas Jefferson & slavery, then after that I plan on doing a piece on the origins of World War II. Thanks as always for your support!

- Ryan

Link to the FA article: Xi Jinping Says He Is Preparing China for War | Foreign Affairs

Comments

Mella

Thanks, Ryan! The concept of international order and whether or not the people of the world (the nations/governments of the world) are willing to put our short-term peace on the line for that long-term overarching goal is certainly very interesting!!

Jerame

First, I can't wait for your video on Jefferson and Slavery. It remains perhaps the one thing that is the hardest for me to wrap my head around regarding the founding fathers. I really hope that your research skills will help shed some light on this apparent hypocrisy.

Jerame

Secondly, I think an interesting point on WWIII is that most people assume WWIII will be nuclear. This is actually less likely than most think. John Nash's work on game theory makes it highly unlike that any currently nuclear nation will use them. That is also why it's important to keep nukes out of the hands of individual actors and rouge nations who might cause disruption in the math. Think The Mule in the Foundation Series.

Paul Favour

It has been on my mind too. For a couple years actually and more so recently with Ukraine moving the changes along more rapidly. We are seeing a BIG culture clash that is going to result in some version of fascism (so says I), be it WWII flavor or Maoist Culture War style (except without communism as a storyline). Additionally, the amplification nature of the new media makes the rate of development hard to guess at. I'm very much looking forward to hearing your thoughts and predictions (if you dare). As a video topic this topic has lots of depth.

Michael Bracey

I feel kinda like most things that come out of Joe’s mouth the white house has to explain what he actually “meant” lol. Not sure it i would take what Joe says that seriously…wait for something more official from a congressional meeting or something.

Fred Heiser

We still have anarchy. Globalization is dead. The UN has little or no control over anything. There is regional peace inside regional alliances. Countries not in those alliances are loose canons, relative to world order. "World order" is a pejorative in the US where isolationist tendencies regularly burst through - as they are trying to do today towards Ukraine. The obvious statement that a "new world order" had arrived after the USSR fell is a part of why Bush senior didn't get another term. He should have just said that things will be different. War depends entirely on whether Emperor Xi and Czar Putin think they can get away with it. Xi seems to be doing quite well with salami slicing while Putin lost his patience and went for the brass ring in Ukraine. In undemocratic countries war is purely a cost/benefit analysis whereas in democracies the government has a much greater need to gin up popular support. It acts as a sometimes inadequate brake. Without 9-11, "Iraqi Freedom" could not have happened. The biggest risk I see is the demographic cliff China may be about to fall off. Combined with the loss of globalization they may see this as their last chance to triumph. Have two western-style liberal democracies ever made war on each other?

Judith Chantler

Wow. I thought you would know much more about Ukrainian history and why Russia is where they are, than you do. This is very recent history and despite censorship and distortion it is fairly accessible. Maybe try The Duran or Alexander Mercouris. As for China, they don’t want a war. The US or the DS that runs the US does. China is on the ascendant. The US in decline, so they are batting for their power and last chance and don’t care if they take us all down in the process.

Daniel B

Great video Ryan I think a useful way of conceptualizing things like the world order and anarchy could be from an international relations perspective. you can use different theories to explain state behaviour. The international community exists in an Anarchical state Realism - states anarchy as an ordering principle forces states into a condition of self help (security dilemma, maintaining autonomy, co-operation is only possible for short periods of time. Liberalism- Similar self help environment but states are capable of deeper co-operation and institutions are there to help with that (rousseau's stag hunt) and Constructivism - Anarchy is what states make it identity and social interaction determine how we interact (alexander wendt). - those are just the 3 main theories there's heaps more (anti-colonial, feminist, critical theory, English school etc and just war theory for conflicts)

Jeffrey P Eisner

Great video Ryan. Glad to have found out about your pattern. I’d like to know your thoughts of the influences of thusidedes trap? I’ve found the US’s escalation in rhetoric to be very reminiscent of it, especially seeing as it’s the US losing the status of Hegemon.

Kaerakh
>>106827585

China is essentially a fascist entity now with how Deng pivoted their country. It's less, the US is trying to `take us all down in the process` and more that for better or worse they represent liberalism in this latest cold war analogue. It's definitely not incorrect to say that the US would benefit from either or both China and Russia miring themselves in expensive conflicts though.

Colin Aulds

Ryan, randomly found you on youtube. Seriously, some of the absolute best content ive ever seen on the platform. Nuanced, sober, and no shocked face thumbnails. Keep it up, buddy.

Paul Favour
>>106827585

China is not a liberal democracy, the US is. It seems Chinese culture does want to become a democracy and the idea that when greater personal affluence came their way, they would like democracy sure looks stupid at this point. So, they have money now, (a great deal of which we gave them for cheap labor) and they are rebalancing to a more consumer economy making them less easy to manipulate. If we do not want to end up being “re-educated” like the Uyghur’s and Tibetans we need to join with the other liberal democracies of the world (and even France if they can manage to avoid another Vichy government) and get ready for the fight of our lives. It has already started as an economic fight and China is play that fight all over the world (think Africa and the Americas) Fighting over Taiwan is the least of our problems, but it is significant indicator to our allies. Who wants to be an ally of a country that cannot protect you? Is America in decline? Yes. Can it decide not to be? Yes. Add to the Russia / China culture clash the rise of AI and AI drone warfare and it is time to wake up America.

Judith Chantler
>>106827585

China is definitely not a liberal democracy but nor is the West and any war with China is not remotely about defending our liberal democracy. The one thing the west has truly mastered is propaganda. All media all across the west speak with the same forked tongue. The west will provoke China as it is the west who wants the war. China will give it them too.

Paul Favour
>>106827585

Propaganda is not too much of a worry and that includes Alexander Mercouris and The Duran. Provoking China is not the primary concern either. Which liberal democracy is yours?

Judith Chantler
>>106827585

My liberty to not take part in the lie and hypocrisy that we in the west are the good liberal democratic guys.

Cameron Miller

A few things I think you're missing:

Cameron Miller

1) Few countries in the world possess the expeditionary capacity to launch a war in a foreign country. There's a massive logistics operation involved. Another Ryan has a great video on why only 3 countries in the world (US, UK, and France) have expeditionary armies: https://youtu.be/mY-9lLt8ano?t=152

Cameron Miller

Note that Russia only halfway has an army that can invade other countries. Their logistics operations break down after 100 miles or so. Russia's mainly dependent on rail lines to move military goods around, which is not a good setup for invasion. Similarly, China lacks the capacity to invade Taiwan because they can't move their forces that far and supply them (though they're getting better). So most of WWIII, if it happened, would involve countries moseying briefly into other countries' territories.

Cameron Miller

2) The US is the reigning global superpower, and relatively peaceful. Remember how I said most countries lack the capacity to wage war anywhere outside their immediate borders? The US has the goal of being able to wage two wars simultaneously, anywhere on the globe, and I would argue they could do so. After the end of the Cold War, the US is the only remaining superpower. I would posit that a significant contributor to world peace is that America sets the tone for international conflict. We could quibble, but America is not systematically working to conquer the globe. And in any world conflict, any country America throws its full support behind will win. This was true in the previous world wars, when America wasn't as strong as some of the other countries involved. I believe that what international peace we have is less due to the UN which lacks the military to enforce its will, and more that the biggest bully on the block (the US) isn't as mean as it could be. Since the US has the power to veto any invasion, nations have to consider whether the US will see fit to intervene before they wage war, and if they feel the risk of US intervention is too high, they'll keep the peace.

Cameron Miller

Now, with Ukraine, the US decided not to veto that invasion. But NATO passively interfering in that war did bring Russia to a standstill. So obviously international cooperation is a key factor.

Cameron Miller

Consideration: if the US devolves into civil war, that throws off the balance of power and allows for military actions that would not be possible otherwise.

JOAO ASCENCAO

1) I remain very sceptical about the prospect of WW3 over Taiwan. It's a mostly regional conflict in which Taiwan is not even in NATO meaning other Western countries besides the US will be reluctant to get involved. 2) The thing about the Taiwan defense is that it's an island which makes it different from other conflicts militarily. I can see the US using naval and air forces to protect the island, but not necessarily a mass mobilization of ground troops. This is consistent with Biden's comments where the US would likely use it's ships and planes to defende Taiwan as the latter doesn't have a significant naval or air defense structure, but the main inland fighting would still be done by the Taiwanese people 3) A more hawkish stance on the Taiwan-China conflict and China in general by the US is likely to remain or even go farther. Any future GOP presidency will have a "tough on China" approach while Biden appears committed to drive his party in a similar direction which is in contrast with say the Obama administration. Counteracting the influence of China around the world appears to be one of the few bipartisan topics in US politics

Mark A Rosasco

It seems to me there are two areas that could possibly start WWIII, Taiwan with China or Ukraine with Russia. Russia or China would have to start a military action in my opinon. Their own citizens might stop them by killing their leaders if they could. Mutually assured destruction doesn't have a lot of appeal to rational people.

Jr

If you look to make a video on this concept of World War 3 it might be helpful to look at major powers published "nuclear escalation" doctrines. They're varied but all are designed around an idea that we'd all prefer not die in a nuclear holocaust. They're also all very public since the idea is to make sure everyone knows each others definite lines. It's pretty hard to win at that juncture. I personally think that Taiwan might have happened at some point if not for the Russian invasion which I think has sort of perked up the interest of China's geopolitical rivals and given everyone a much more hardline stance with China. Add to that, America stepping up new bases and expansions of existing ones in the region along with anti ship missile sales to Taiwan and others along with a host of other actions and it seems like we're not looking to allow more Chamberlin-esque appeasement. I would be interested in knowing if there's more to the story with Chamberlin. How did he come to the conclusion it would work?

Nighty666

Hm, yeah, the shift in language is somewhat notable.. and worrying for that matter. China however never really had a genuine investment in "peace", just choses methods of power and land gain that wouldnt be too detramental for it on the world stage

Christopher Paul Bettridge

I watched both of these pieces, and I was particularly impressed by the one on Thomas Jefferson and slavery, particularly because I'm just finally getting to the part of my reading list in "A People's History of America"; the part in the book and R.C. video synchronized perfectly considering the vast historical imperatives involved. Thanks for the hard work as always Ryan

Christopher Paul Bettridge

As for WW3, I am Canadian so I more worry about the Americans invading us! Seriously. Water Wars. Joke if you want, but I live in London, Ontario.....just look at the geography history and natural resources both in the area (Great Lakes) and the huge industrial and farming infrastructure in this part of my country. We beat the Americans with the help of the weight of Albion throwin' down and the Oneida First Nations and the Mètis as vastly superior irregular troops who knew the territory. Now? We gave all our Leopard II to get massacred in attritional warfare in what Brezynski calls "perhaps the biggest geopolitical pivot in the Heartland", Ukraine. So...... Ryan's take on the larger geopolitical situation was timely for me, anyways.

Nikola Tasev

While we have some international order and rules, as opposed to the state anarchy from a few centuries ago - the order is skewed and the rules are not applied equally. I mean - the borders remain as they were drawn decades or centuries ago, without regard for local population. National sovereignty is held in more regard than the people's right of self-determination. You can see this with the Catalans, Kurds, Uyghurs and so on trapped in countries they don't want to be in. And secondly, some nations are occupying and effectively colonizing neighbors. Most are openly interfering in the affairs of smaller states, pushing for a more cooperative government to be elected.