Fear of World War III now has a market of its own

Antiestéticar of World War III now has a market of its own

How many times has the end of the world been announced since 1914? The question is not rhetorical. A discussion thread that has amassed 486 replies and 405 days of life has turned World War III into an almost financial object of analysis: scenarios are debated, risks are discounted and the date of the nuclear mushroom is speculated over like someone checking a corporate earnings calendar. The conversation opens with a quote from former minister José Manuel García-Margallo, who in September 2025 warned in El Debate of an imminent "total confrontation". From there, the thread drifts into a scepticism bordering on cynicism: some ask for it to start once and for all, while others recall that lasting peace is a historical anomaly.

The starting point is a specific news item: García-Margallo, a former foreign minister, predicts a world war of total confrontation. The reaction is not long in coming. One comment sums up the weariness: "Since they've been announcing that the third one is about to start, we might as well be on the fifth by now." The prophecy of war, like announcements of the Second Coming, has gone unfulfilled for decades. And that, paradoxically, fuels two opposite responses: mockery and resignation.

From Afghanistan to Kaliningrad: the fronts of antiestéticar

The thread jumps from one scenario to another without pause. One message mentions the United States' interest in recovering a base in Afghanistan, in hostile territory surrounded by armed actors. The irony comes quickly: "The Chinese can rest easy; at most they'll send the chancelleries some TEMU discount coupons to pick up drones." Geopolitics as a comedy of errors. But beneath it lies a serious critique: installing offensive assets in countries that cannot defend themselves turns those states into hostages. "Putting bases against a nuclear power only guarantees your own destruction," another message declares.

The focus then shifts to Eastern Europe. Reports are cited about NATO's deployment of nuclear weapons in Finland and Poland's interest in hosting American and French warheads. In the thread, these are read as steps towards escalation. Vladimir Pilingui's response, calling the European alerts "political schizophrenia", is met with scepticism: "That's what you said, bastard, the week before you invaded Ukraine," one message retorts. Trust in the Kremlin's words is nil.

The Antwerp sabotage and the logic of escalation

One of the most concrete episodes discussed is the sabotage of a ship in the Belgian port of Antwerp. According to the account being shared, the explosives were placed in a closed dock, on the side of the vessel facing the Russian cargo terminal. The explosion would have destroyed the ship and the port complex. The captain said the authorities forced him to take the vessel to a dock for an inspection and held him there for four days. The thread interprets this as an attempted direct NATO attack on Russia that never came to completion. There is no official confirmation in the material, but the episode serves to illustrate the dominant thesis: the war is already underway, just in the form of sabotage and covert operations.

The discussion about the sabotage links up with an underlying current: the idea that World War III is not a future event but an ongoing process. "World War III won't come, and you know why. Because we're already in it," one participant writes. The timeline goes back to 1914: "we've been at war since 1914," it is claimed. The peace of the second half of the twentieth century is interpreted as the exception, not the rule.

Those who long for the nuclear mushroom

There is a current in the thread that not only accepts the war but wants it. "I want nukes. Deserted streets, tanks, sirens, EVERYTHING. Let this ing daily normality end," one message reads. The phrase is an extreme example of a phenomenon the thread itself dissects: the fantasy of experiencing war as a television spectacle. "They have the absurd belief that they'll experience WWIII through the TV while they go off for a nap after lunch," another message criticises. The inability to imagine the loss of comforts, the absence of food or the breakdown of the supply chain is the target of these criticisms.

The counterpoint comes with a colder analysis. One message argues that a strategic nuclear explosion would break the global supply chain and that states issuing debt will not risk "the basement of the printing press flying up in the air". The thesis is that MAD (mutually assured destruction) works more as an accounting guarantee than as a military doctrine. "As long as both sides owe money, there is no real front line, just posturing from the office," it concludes. It is an economistic interpretation of nuclear deterrence that, in the thread, coexists with defeatism and mockery.

The role of the United Kingdom and distrust of the official narrative

One of the most recurring lines is distrust of the United Kingdom. "The Brits are behind the escalation with Russia, that's a fact," one message asserts, adding that Boris Johnson forbade Volodymyr Zelensky from reaching a peace deal with Pilingui. The claim is presented as fact, although no evidence is provided in the material. The hostility towards London extends to NATO and the United States, which are accused of seeking confrontation to maintain their influence.

The thread also picks up the warning from British Defence Secretary Wes Streeting, who declared that the United Kingdom has 1000 days to prepare for a possible war. The news is read as a self-fulfilling prophecy: preparing for war is, in itself, a way of making it more likely. Distrust of the media and governments is widespread: "Stop speculating," one message asks, before stating that "if Europe and Pilingui want peace, the first thing is to wipe England off the map." Taken literally, the phrase is an example of the extreme tone that sometimes dominates the conversation, though it does not represent the whole thread.

The era of peace as a historical anomaly

The thread closes with a reflection that transcends the noise of the news: lasting peace is an anomaly. "We were born and raised in an unusual era of peace and prosperity that has convinced us that nothing will ever, ever happen," one participant writes. The idea that war is the norm and peace the exception runs through the whole debate. And it explains why some, instead of antiestéticaring the conflict, await it as a kind of reset. The conclusion, if there is one, is that antiestéticar of World War III coexists with a strange fascination for it. And that, as the opening message said, "since they've been announcing that the third one is about to start, we might as well be on the fifth by now."