Fiona Hill says we are already in WW III

[cilla4progress]

Link to tweet

?t=XF6RgdOS_3caaUcRlem9YQ&s=19

[Quixote1818]

1. Not sure if WWIII is the correct term since there really is just one crazy country

that is pretty isolated against pretty much everyone else. Could it get super crazy? Possible.

[ananda]

2. I think it depends on what China does.

That’s the key.

[Mr.Bill]

4. The most important thing for China

is to keep selling cheap garbage to Walmart. That's what they want.

[orleans]

3. k&r nt

[PortTack]

5. Don't agree... yes, I know she's an expert in her field.

It really doesn’t fit the definition

[Hortensis]

6. :) It fits her definition.

"We keep thinking of World War I, World War II as these huge great big set pieces, but World War II was a consequence of World War I. And we had an interwar period between them. And in a way, we had that again after the Cold War.

Many of the things that we’re talking about here have their roots in the carving up of the Austro-Hungarian Empire and the Russian Empire at the end of World War I. At the end of World War II, we had another reconfiguration and some of the issues that we have been dealing with recently go back to that immediate post-war period. We’ve had war in Syria, which is in part the consequence of the collapse of the Ottoman Empire, same with Iraq and Kuwait."

It makes sense that world war wouldn't only start when "my people" realized we might soon be invaded or killed, not at the various places people have already had to face that. Thinking about it, neither WWI or II was ever declared. Nations started fighting in Europe, and over time they developed elsewhere, especially including regions that had been involved in long-term conflicts.

[PortTack]

7. Excellent points

[hlthe2b]

14. History is a continuum where one event affects others. There is no such thing as an "isolated"

event-- and history repeats itself when we don't act accordingly nor acknowledge those impacts. No truer statement than my sigline from George Santayana exists imho.

[USALiberal]

15. She knows more than we do! Nt

[uponit7771]

8. Unnn, not yet. The ACTIVE war part is only in Europe even though there are 2 ideologies set world

... wide with the axis of Russia and China as the main actors.

I don't think China wants to become another Russia when it comes to sanctions etc

[USALiberal]

17. Let her know!! Nt

[Boomerproud]

9. I hope with all my heart that she's wrong.

At this point I have no way of knowing.

[Mike Nelson]

10. Not a shock...

... if WW III does happen, then history could say, "World War III started with the Russian invasion of Ukraine." She's probably a little ahead of herself, but the view should not be shocking.

[hlthe2b]

11. Must read..

Even in the week before the Ukraine invasion began, there were a handful here who were beyond "bothsiderism" and denying that Putin had any megalomania aims--that he had no intention of either invading or if he did, going further than Ukraine. I've heard nothing from those individuals who were so vehemently aggressive about this, now that they have so conclusively been proven wrong. I just hope they and those on the "right' who were taken in by Russian propaganda or cynical politics have awakened to what is really going on--maybe read some damned history.

[Dorian Gray]

12. They're

probably too busy burying their heads in the sand right now....

[Chainfire]

13. She may be right. Who knows what the immediate future holds.

Putin's actions could cause a domino effect that gets out of control. He is on a short timetable to restore the Soviet Union. That can't happen without going directly for NATO. When Hitler retook the Rhineland, no one knew what it would lead to.

[Pachamama]

16. WW3 has already begun...

…it just hasn’t been realized by many or meet the definitions of what some think that means.

She is absolutely correct and sadly many who keep saying we need to avoid WW3 will eventually realize that their desire to prevent WW3 was incorrect. We are already there.

[peggysue2]

18. This is an important, sobering interview

It's on the longish side but the moment we're in requires time to think about what's going on and reading the best minds on the subjects of Putin and war and what it all means for the present, the future. Fiona Hill is one of those minds to tap because she's been immersed in these topics through most of her professional career.

I was particularly drawn to Hill's speculation that Putin has spent 2 years in Covid isolation, perhaps pouring over old maps in the Moscow archives, maps illustrating the fluctuating borders of Europe and Russia's dwindling empire, building an argument that 'borders don't matter.' That and bluntly stating that Putin will use whatever he must to get his way in Ukraine including his nuclear arsenal. As crazy as that sounds, I'm starting to believe her. Be it by dirty bomb or churning up Chernobyl's radioactive materials or whatever. Putin is on a messianic mission.

Her comments also threw me back to the remarks the Former Guy made about nuclear bombs:

If we have them, why don't we use them?

Sounded idiotic at the time. Now I wonder what or who spurred those comments.

The one good note is that the international community, short of direct intervention in Ukraine, is responding with a severe pushback--economic and cultural isolation. Is it enough? Is it in time? Will the Fates intervene, the Russian populace rise up?

Unknowable. Which makes it all the more terrifying. For Ukraine and the world.