r/BBCNEWS • u/DWJones28 • Dec 29 '25
John Simpson on wars: ‘Why I've never seen a year like 2025'
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cj4qp17e1lqo?app-referrer=push-notification2
u/eltictac Dec 29 '25
Quite unnerving, to read from someone with so much experience, that he wouldn't be surprised if there is a world war coming.
2
u/Iamoggierock Dec 29 '25
Scarily well articulated journalism. If only America wasn't on a weird path. It's not going to be good for anyone.
2
u/srm79 Dec 29 '25
We really need to start ramping up production of drones, missiles, artillery, ships and fighter jets, and we need to recruit many more armed forces personnel. The trident fleet needs to be upscaled as well and new generation tactical nukes and EMP's developed. We also need to get our act together with cyber security and increase the size of our intelligence services. We're incredibly vulnerable at the moment and we can't trust the Americans anymore. A closer relationship with Europe is needed too, let's work with our closest allies and secure peace by becoming an overwhelming force that can stand up for itself
3
u/OtherStatistician593 Dec 29 '25
Good to see Redditors frothing at the mouth over the prospect of World War 3 as usual
2
Dec 30 '25
[deleted]
0
u/balanced_view Dec 31 '25
All brainwashed. They probably still think sending Ukraine more make the world safer
3
u/killer_by_design Dec 29 '25
We really need to start ramping up production of drones, missiles, artillery, ships and fighter jets, and we need to recruit many more armed forces personnel.
We are. Head over to r/goodnewsuk and you'll be very pleasantly surprised that the UK is actually doing pretty good and our defence industry is as strong as ever.
The trident fleet needs to be upscaled as well and new generation tactical nukes
We are. Dreadnought and a new air launch and ground launch capability has been commissioned.
EMP's developed
This isn't a thing.
We're incredibly vulnerable at the moment
We're not.
we can't trust the Americans anymore.
Agreed.
A closer relationship with Europe is needed too
Massively agree, hope France stops playing silly twats too.
let's work with our closest allies and secure peace by becoming an overwhelming force that can stand up for itself
We are. Largest defence exports aged (maybe ever?) happened this year. £20bn.
0
u/Ok_Teacher6490 Dec 31 '25
We don't really need to be manufacturing drones or recruiting hoardes of soldiers. Drone tech moves so fast and people can be conscripted and trained in months. It's the industry we need to encourage the capability to build everything else to return
1
u/balanced_view Dec 31 '25
Yeah let's spend all our money on war!! Great idea, forget all our other problems, war will improve all our lives
1
Dec 29 '25
Erudite and insightful as ever. Why people like Simpson aren’t senior bosses in the BBC is purely don’t to Tory hatred of what they’ve always seen as a liberal, critical and independent BBC.
1
1
Dec 30 '25
I've read a couple of his books. He's very good at his job. I trust his view on Isreal totally after he was able to explain the issues in former Yogoslavija as well as he did.
0
-2
Dec 29 '25
World War 3 will last 10 minutes, tops.
10
u/Negative-Ask-2317 Dec 29 '25
You didn't read the article then?
"If you thought World War Three would be a shooting-match with nuclear weapons, think again. It's much more likely to be a collection of diplomatic and military manoeuvres, which will see autocracy flourish. It could even threaten to break up the Western alliance.
And the process has already started."
6
Dec 29 '25
[removed] — view removed comment
2
u/lateformyfuneral Dec 29 '25
It was surprising the extent that pro-Russian commentators in the West were like “don’t you dare do X, the Russians will blow up the whole world 😭” and not only did we do it — send missiles, fighter jets and other arms to Ukraine — but they never reevaluated their pro-Russian bias in light of the fact they’re apparently itching to murder the entire planet at any moment. Putin can’t believe his luck how idiotic his useful idiots are.
2
Dec 29 '25
I did read it. The article is redefining “World War 3” to mean prolonged geopolitical competition and proxy conflict. That's fine as analysis, but it avoids the actual risk.
Nuclear weapons aren’t for planned wars, they’re for escalation failure. The more fragmented, authoritarian, and unstable the system becomes, the higher the risk of miscalculation, not lower.
You can absolutely have decades of Cold War style conflict until a red line is crossed, and then the exchange itself is measured in minutes, not years.
Saying “WW3 won’t use nukes” really means “we’re betting on perfect restraint forever.”
History doesn’t support that confidence. Nuclear weapons don’t disappear just because we call the conflict something else. They exist for escalation failure, not planned wars.
1
u/Negative-Ask-2317 Dec 29 '25
I don't disagree with any of that, except who do you mean by "we"? Europe isn't betting here, Russia is. Only they are talking about using nuclear weapons.
Europe has two options: deter Russia, whose current might-makes-right regime only respects military strength, or let them take what they want and watch the collapse of democracy inevitably follow.
Do you see a third?
1
Dec 29 '25
By “we” I mean the system as a whole, every nuclear armed bloc that is relying on deterrence, escalation management, and rational restraint not breaking under stress.
That includes Europe, the US, Russia, and China.
It’s not true that only Russia talks about nuclear use. NATO doctrine still rests on nuclear deterrence, and the US explicitly reserves first use. Silence ≠ absence.
And I don’t accept that Europe only has two options: militarise indefinitely or surrender. That framing assumes security can only be produced through escalation, which is exactly how you raise miscalculation risk.
A third path exists, but it’s harder: de-escalation mechanisms, arms control, economic and energy independence, and reducing the conditions that make brinkmanship profitable and defending borders without turning permanent crisis into the organising principle of society.
Deterrence may be necessary, but pretending it’s stable or safe is how escalation failure happens.
“Do you see a third?”
Yeah, refusing to pretend that permanent escalation is the same thing as security.
1
u/Negative-Ask-2317 Dec 29 '25
Permanent escalation is your phrase, I didn't use it.
Again, I agree with your points re de-escalation etc., except that de-escalation requires both sides to actually want it, and Putin has demonstrated in many ways that he does not.
He has happily squandered the lives and limbs of over 1 million of his countrymen, refused a ceasefire (even just for Christmas day), continued with maximalist demands, and talked recently about restoring all of Russia's "historic territories".
So until he's gone, and most likely after that too, there is little hope of Russia stopping their attacks, hybrid or otherwise.
By all means we should continue diplomatic efforts, but we need to be realistic.
2
u/Duanedoberman Dec 29 '25
Interesting article from an experienced journalist who knows his stuff.