9 ms·
John Simpson: 'I've reported on 40 wars but I've never seen a year like 2025'
- DustinEchoes 9mo agoWelcome to the end of Pax Americana.
- justkys 9mo ago[flagged]
- silisili 9mo agoThis all just feels like typical sabre rattling to me. Except this time, the US is also rattling it at basically everyone, and Russia may take that as a good sign. 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.
- yyx 9mo agoUkraine is Europe. And what does US do? Threatens Ukraine into giving away land. "Russia wants to see Ukraine succeed"
- silisili 9mo agoGeographically, so is Russia. Perhaps I should have said the EU, of which Ukraine is not a member.
- SanjayMehta 9mo agoThere's more of Russia in Asia, geographically. And Europe isn't even a real continent, it's more like West Asia, a peninsula. Only politically it's a "continent."
- CamperBob2 9mo agoBut at any hint of war with Europe, we'd be right there with them. 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...
- hnlmorg 9mo agoTrump has some kind of magic aura that allows him to say the most ridiculous stuff that would be career ending for any other politician, and somehow have it received by the public as endearing. It truly is a bizarre time in politics.
- hnlmorg 9mo agoI think what makes this feel different isn’t the sabre rattling, which i agree has always happened. But just how many large economic powers are at it concurrently. 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.
- soldthat 9mo ago> Israel is attacking all of their neighbours. That’s a bit of an exaggeration. Israel has not attacked Egypt or Jordan. It has attacked Lebanon after the north of Israel had been evacuated for many months due to relentless rocket attacks from Lebanon. The only preemptive attack on a neighbour was Syria, after the fall of the Assad regime.
- hnlmorg 9mo agoThey’re also attacking Iran too. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cdj9vj8glg2o https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cdj9vj8glg2o I don’t really care who started what. That’s just silly playground politics best left for historians who specialise in Middle Eastern foreign politics. My point is they’re at the “let’s show them our military force” phase of their foreign policies.
- soldthat 9mo agoIran is a thousand miles away from Israel. There are like 30 other countries within that radius. I get that you’re trying to make a different point, but your exaggerated language presents a distorted slant, and such one-sided rhetoric, especially when repeated many times, actually contributes to the political shifts and the spirals of violence that you worry about.
- tim333 9mo agoMaybe more of a blip than the end? I think the main aggressor probably having kompromat on leader of the free world will pass. In the meantime the rest of the free world are going to have to step up.
- mvkel 9mo agoWhat feels "different" today is not necessarily risk, but visibility. 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.
- repeekad 9mo agoWhat you’re saying applied as far back as Vietnam, mainstream television allowed us to watch the war on video in mostly realtime, and we saw widespread protest 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”
- deleted 9mo ago[deleted]
- graeme 9mo agoPeople were extremely aware of the Cuban Missile Crisis. My father mentioned at school they were doing active under desk drills in the event it escalated to nuclear war. 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.
- hoytschermerhrn 9mo agoOP is specifically talking about seeing unfiltered, on-the-ground footage of what’s happening as it’s happening, directly by the people being impacted. This is very different than prior conflicts which have been ostensibly filtered for various reasons.
- mvkel 9mo agoThere's no technical way people could be as informed as they are today. Newspapers are yesterday's news, tomorrow.
- zkmon 9mo agoNews reporters sometimes consume their own sensationalist content, which was strictly meant for customers only. This actually causes wars at larger scale, which would have been small local conflicts, if starved of visibility they never deserved. 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.
- hnlmorg 9mo agoI’m pretty sure it matters to rural villages in Ukraine which has been devastated by Russian bombs. 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.
- zkmon 9mo agoGlobal tensions can cause financial burden on rural Britain, because rural Britain is connected to global supply chains. Disconnect those, your tensions are gone. Produce local, consume local, watch local news, celebrate local culture. What's global tension?
- hnlmorg 9mo agoIt’s impossible to be entirely disconnected. You’d have to produce your own electricity and water, have no reliance on gas, not require a car nor public transport, not use a mobile phone nor internet, own your own land and have no reliance on banking, and have no reliance on selling any of your produce to anyone who might have those extraordinarily common dependencies. These kinds of unicorns are going to be so ridiculously rare that you can safely ignore them as a statistical outlier. What’s more, at some point you can guarantee they’re going to come into a situation when thy do eventually depend upon the wider network, eg if they fall ill, break a leg, a family member requires support, their home requires repairs, or they need to buy tools that can’t be built themselves.
- tehjoker 9mo ago[flagged]
- seventytwo 9mo agoAnd I’m guessing you’ve covered 40 wars and have been reporting on those locations since at least the 1980s? Sit down.
- tehjoker 9mo agothe article should have been much meatier with that experience on offer
- beepbooptheory 9mo agoRussia has spent four years in this, fighting a country a fraction of its size, getting set back by homemade drones, and will now seemingly only win by a slow, expensive attrition and get only a concession. Why is anybody supposed to be scared of them?
- seventytwo 9mo agoRemember that Russia is never as strong or as weak as they appear, and if they ally closely with China while Europe and the US is divided, it may mot be a good time for us in the West.
- ycombinete 9mo agoFirstly why wouldn't one be scared of an opponent that can just steadily press against me, winning a war by attrition? 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.
- mcphage 9mo ago> Firstly why wouldn't one be scared of an opponent that can just steadily press against me, winning a war by attrition? 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.
- neilv 9mo ago> His henchmen make bloodcurdling threats about wiping the UK and other European countries off the map with Russia's vaunted new weapons, but he's usually much more restrained himself. Is it a good personal shield, for him to have the next of succession look even more undesirable to his adversaries?
- number6 9mo agoAlso he will looke reasonable by just invading Ukraine instead of the whole of Europe
- mopsi 9mo agoIt has more to do with Mafia traditions. Attack dogs like Medvedev and Rogozin[1] threaten to burn everything down if you don't pay up, and Putin plays the more dignified philosopher who sits on a high chair in a mansion and speaks in vague terms about the importance of fire safety. It would be unbecoming for the big boss to openly and directly demand money and obedience. The top dog asks nothing from anyone; he wills things into being. [1] The same who decades ago suggested Musk build a trampoline if he wanted to reach space.
- epistasis 9mo ago> There is Ukraine of course, where the UN says 14,000 civilians have died. 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.
- lawn 9mo agoYeah, 14,000 is very low. In Mariupol alone more civilians are estimated to have died but it's impossible to get an exact count.
- matusp 9mo agoDo we have a better estimate? I don't think it's particularly difficult to get information from the occupied territories, the people there seem to freely use Internet. 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.
- lawn 9mo agoYes we have better estimates. In Mariupul for example estimates are above 20k civilians dead and murdered. UN cannot personally verify any of this though so it counts them as zero. It should be at least the double of their estimate. > 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. Russia's advance has slowed to a crawl yes but the amount of people murdered in the places where Russia does take control are still very high (see Mariupul as an example). Especially in the early days of war they took a lot of land. > The bombing campaign has some civilian casualties, but I mostly see headlines mentioning <5 dead overall per occasional huge wave of drones and missiles. 5 per day is too low as that would only add up to around 5.5k civilians and per UN's own calculations that's too low. They've been targeting civilians, including schools and hospitals, daily since the war started.
- mvdtnz 9mo agoThe correct time to stop Putin's war of aggression was the day he sent troops over the border. He should have been met with ferocious force from the entire western world. But he observed the weakness in the West for decades and knew he could get away with it. Obama's failed "red line" was the end of any nation on earth taking the western world seriously. The end of western liberalism is nigh.
- wakawaka28 9mo ago[flagged]
- thrance 9mo agoClever reframing putting all the blame on Ukraine and the western world. You conveniently "forgot" to mention that Russia is the sole aggressor in this story. And no, Ukraine would have fallen a while ago already if not for western aid, so it wasn't at all for nothing. And then it would have been Poland's turn.
- wakawaka28 9mo ago[flagged]
- jemmyw 9mo ago> Hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians would be alive now if not for this dispute I mean, we (the west) could have saved ourselves a lot of money by putting it to Russia that if they crossed the border then we'd defend the airspace. Essentially, being half assed about it is going to cost more money and lives. The Ukrainians were going to defend themselves whatever we did. I don't think Europe has a choice but to be involved. > We have lots of problems of our own I don't really understand that. You don't get to turn away from new problems and global problems because you have some economic issues of your own. Indeed, it's all the more likely to be why you get dragged in. > The West has sent hundreds of billions of dollars worth of aid to Ukraine We can afford it. The US is probably well ahead due to the sale of new weapons as well.
- moralestapia 9mo agoPoor guy must have been in a coma during the Cuban Missile Crisis.
- AndrewStephens 9mo agoHe wasn’t in a coma, he was only 18 years old. He states up front that he has only been reporting for 40 years, so he started long after the CMC.
- moralestapia 9mo agoRead the article. The opening sentence: >I've reported on more than 40 wars around the world during my career, which goes back to the 1960s.
- myvoiceismypass 9mo agoDo you judge the adolescent-aged version of yourself as harshly as you do this person?
- iampotatoman92 9mo agoThis article makes me think of The Great Filter. If the threats are indeed real, and humans are unable to use their bigger brains to bypass tribal instincts, then maybe we are doomed.
- fithisux 9mo ago[flagged]
- chomp 9mo agoThese are wars in the colloquial sense, not wars between countries, come on
- Daviey 9mo agoI think you've confused issues in society with kinetic war. One mainly, although not always, harms individual wellbeing, whilst the other causes mass death and lines on the map to change. Hopefully you can work out which is which.
- OGEnthusiast 9mo agoIt still seems wild to me that almost 5 years into this war, Europe is still relying on America to help them with Ukraine. Should be pretty obvious by now that Americans have no real interest in this war one way or the other.
- epistasis 9mo agoThe US stopped all aid this year, except for intelligence sharing. 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.
- TMWNN 9mo ago[flagged]
- epistasis 9mo agoWhat a weird and unsupported accusation. Claims without evidence do not require evidence to rebut. The US is threatening Ukrainian territory, claiming "it's already been lost." The US is not respecting the sovereignty of the borders of Ukraine. And that's not even getting into the US breaking its promise to respond strongly to Russia should Russia ever violate the memorandum during the Obama administration. I do not know what you consider the lie, but I do know that the US has completely tarnished its reputation over the course of many presidential administrations and has put its own interest in the world at risk due to its weakness.
- wakawaka28 9mo ago>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. 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.
- medv 9mo ago[flagged]
- mkaoa5 9mo ago"If you want peace, prepare for war" (Latin: Si vis pacem, para bellum). Whether current preparations lead to peace or lead to war, is left as an exercise to the reader.
- lawn 9mo agoFlagged by Russian sympathizers. Hardly a surprise.
- tim333 9mo agoProbably people who just don't want politics here.
- lawn 9mo agoLikely the same people who only flag the "wrong" politics.
- _DeadFred_ 9mo agoIt's weird Gaza gets an exception whereas Russia's war again Ukraine typically hasn't here.
- myvoiceismypass 9mo agoYes, they don't like to hear that they are the baddies.
- elbci 9mo agoUh, oh this must be the end of times lamented every crumbling empire ever, the western one now included
- Yizahi 9mo ago[flagged]
- tim333 9mo agoThe UN is generally ok?
- Yizahi 9mo agoImo their track record regarding Israel is very biased and spotty across multiple decades, not only last two years.
- soldthat 9mo agoThe UN is not an unbiased institution. It’s a representation of the viewpoints of countries, and it’s quite obvious that many member countries are biased to one side on the matter. Countries get an equal vote regardless if they are corrupt dictatorships with abysmal human rights at home.
- beej71 9mo agoWe can draw no logical conclusions from your ad hominem comment. Do you have some data?
- Yizahi 9mo agoMy data is based on the internationally recognized fact that Hamas is terrorist organization by USA, Commonwealth, EU, Japan and others. Which means they (Hamas) are liars. 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.
- y0eswddl 9mo agowhat about the other 200+ countries that don't designate Hamas or Gazans as territosts for resistance invasion and colonisation?
- tim333 9mo ago>...World War Three ... more likely to be a collection of diplomatic and military manoeuvres, which will see autocracy flourish 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.
- myvoiceismypass 9mo ago> US voters seem to be getting fed up 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.