Podcasts about battlefronts

News

This week's episode features the incomparable Alexander Mercouris, the editor of TheDuran.com and host of The Duran show on YouTube. You can find me and the show on social media by searching the handle @DrWilmerLeon on X (Twitter), Instagram, and YouTube. Our Facebook page is www.facebook.com/Drwilmerleonctd All our episodes can be found at CTDpodcast.com. Transcript Wilmer Leon (00:15): Welcome to the Connecting the Dots podcast with Dr. Wilmer Leon and I am Wilmer Leon. Here's the point. We have a tendency to view current events as though they occur in a vacuum, failing to understand the broader historical context in which most of these events take place. During each episode, my guests and I will have probing, provocative, and in-depth discussions that connect the dots between current events and the broader historical context in which they occur. This will enable you to better understand and analyze the events that impact the global village in which we live. On today's episode, we explore the relationships between some of the major conflicts impacting the geopolitical landscape. We'll connect some of the dots between what's happening in Ukraine and Europe, what's happening in Gaza and the Middle East, and what's happening with the relationship between the United States and China. To help me connect these dots is the editor in chief@theduran.com and host of the Duran on YouTube, Alexander MEUs. Alexander, welcome to the show. Alexander Mercouris (01:29): Delighted to be with you again, will Mur, and it's a great pleasure to be on the show. Wilmer Leon (01:33): Thank you so much. And Alexander, let's connect some dots. First, does it make sense to connect the dots between, again, what's happening in Ukraine and Europe, Gaza in the Middle East and the US and China? Because many people see these issues as unrelated, and of course we can add conflicts from other regions as well. But for the sake of time, let's just start with these. Does it make sense? Are these events related? Alexander Urs, Alexander Mercouris (02:02): They are absolutely related. If you see that there is a single connecting thread, that thread is there. It is US policy. The United States is intimately involved in every one of these conflicts. It is the major arm supplier and financial provider to Ukraine and its major diplomatic backer. It is the arm supplier and funder of Israel and its major diplomatic backer. And the same applies to Taiwan, which is of course in the early stages of what is looking like an increasingly dangerous conflict with China. And yesterday there was an article in the Financial Times by a man called Gideon Rackman, who is a very, very well connected journalist, not just in London, but in Washington. And he said that he had discussions with various US officials including members of the Democratic Party and also people within the administration. And they also agreed that these conflicts are all connected with each other. (03:14) The administration believes that they are connected with each other. They are apparently, or so they told Gideon Ratman very gloomy about the way in which these various conflicts are all going. There is in fact, one sense is a sense of controlled panic about this. And as very typically happens when somebody has pulled the strings and made things, pulled the strings in various places and they all start to go wrong. Apparently there are now some people in the administration who believe that they are themselves. Now the target of a plot that the Chinese, the Russians, the Muslim states, the North Koreans, the Iranians, that they're all working together. Wilmer Leon (04:01): When you discussed Ukraine, you mentioned finance and arm supplying. When you mentioned Israel, you mentioned finance and arm supplying. And when it comes to Taiwan, we know for example that Taiwan is now pointing high Mars missiles at China. We know the United States has sent a lot and continues to send a lot of weapons into Taiwan. So many times people hear the military industrial complex and they put that in some kind of grand conspiratorial context. But it sounds like weapons is, and the sale of weapons is the primary motivation here behind these conflicts. Alexander Mercouris (04:52): Absolutely. That is what is driving them in every single case. What has been pushing these conflicts is that the United States, the administration, the political backers of the administration, the various lobbyists in Washington, and you can trace all the lobbyists, all the funding ultimately comes back to a certain limited sources. And the military industrial complex is overwhelmingly the biggest. So the military industrial complex that funds the NGOs, the lobbying groups, all of those people, the think tanks that proliferate in Washington, they are all intimately involved in all three of these crises. And they have all made sure in every case that they're pushed in the same direction. So Ukraine was being pushed towards NATO into an alliance with the United States against Russia in the Middle East. Israel was being encouraged to advance relentlessly within the Palestinian Territories and to forge separate peace agreements with Arab countries, which disregarded the interests of the Palestinians in the former British mandate territory of Palestine and in Taiwan. Now, there is apparently arms packages being prepared for Taiwan, which apparently are intended to completely reequip the Taiwanese army. Its ground forces to the tune of $10 billion. And I got that by the way, from the B, b, C. So we are seeing major funding and military buildups in all of these places. And of course, when lots of weapons are supplied into conflict zones where an area in crisis is flooded with weapons in this kind of way, war follows. Wilmer Leon (06:54): Let me read quickly, let's start with the Ukraine. And there's a piece in the Washington Post entitled Miscalculations Divisions marked Offensive Planning by US and Ukraine. They describe, the Washington Post describes the conflict as a stalemate, but when Secretary of Defense, Austin asked the Ukrainian defense Minister Resnikoff what was going on, this is what Resnikoff said. Ukraine's armored vehicles were being destroyed by Russian helicopters, drones, and artillery. With every attempt to advance without air support. The only option was to use artillery to shell Russian lines, dismount from the targeted vehicles and then proceed on foot. We can't maneuver because of the landmine density and tank ambushes. This is according to Resnikoff. And the Washington Post then says, as winter approaches and the frontline freezes into place, Ukraine's, most senior military officials acknowledge that the war has reached a stalemate. Alexander, that doesn't sound like a stalemate to me. That sounds like an ass whipping. Alexander Mercouris (08:15): Well, absolutely. It's not a stalemate. It is a disaster. In fact, that article in the Washington Post, which is enormous, it is in two parts. If you actually read it carefully. It's an attempt to defend US policy. It's attempt to throw all the blame on the Ukrainians or most of the blame on the Ukrainians for what went wrong in this summer offensive, which has taken place this year and for the coming debacle, which is now shaping in Ukraine. Now let's me just deal quickly first with the stalemate situation. It seems that the US Defense Minister Secretary Lloyd Austin has just recently had a meeting with Ukraine's overall military commander, general Valeri illusion in Kiev. Lloyd Austin was recently in Kiev and Lloyd Austin was told by illusionary that for Ukraine to win this war, it needs 17 million shells and 400 billion worth of equipment. This is all over the Ukrainian media. (09:32) Now UK apparently Austin was shocked. He said, there aren't 17 million shells in the world. We don't have that number of shells in the world to supply you. And in terms of the $400 billion, I understand that is twice the annual Pentagon budget. We're talking about the Pentagon budget for weapons procurement in any one year. These are impossible, impossible demands. Now, they are not the kind of demands that you would get from the general of an army who finds himself in a stalemate situation. What illusion is telling Austin is we are losing the war. We are losing the war at every point. We are outgunned, we've been been out fought, we are on the defensive. The Russians are advancing. There's lots of information coming from the battlefronts which are not being reported in the media in the West, but we can see that in all kinds of places. (10:42) In a marinca in the north, in the south, in the center of the Battlefronts, the Russians are now incrementally and remorselessly advancing and the Ukrainians are being smashed. There is no stalemate. And the story of a stalemate that is being conjured up is one which I don't believe anybody with any true knowledge of the situation in Washington beliefs, it has just been created in order to buy the administration some time so that they can come up with a political strategy and a financial strategy in Congress to try to escape responsibility for the disaster that they have authored. And if you read the Washington Post article, you'll see how their fingerprints are all over this disaster. Wilmer Leon (11:39): When I talked to Brian Tic, when I talked to Mark Sloboda, when I talked to Scott Ritter, they all say Russia hasn't even started the fight yet yet. And that if Russia decided to go all in full bore, it would be a massacre. And so getting back to the Washington Post piece and what Ulu is telling Lloyd Austin that he needs, again, they haven't even started fighting yet. Your thoughts? Alexander Mercouris (12:19): No, this is absolutely correct. What all of those gentlemen have told you is absolutely true. And you can see this when you actually look at the military units that are conducting most of the fighting at the moment on the Russian side. And it's a very remarkable fact, which again, no part of the western media or western governments ever acknowledge, but most of the fighting in Ukraine is not for the moment being conducted by the regular Russian line army. They haven't yet deployed their heavy divisions. They're tank divisions, they're armor divisions, they're heavy infantry. The people with the infantry fighting vehicles, they're Wilmer Leon (13:07): Air force, Alexander Mercouris (13:08): They're air force to any great extent, they're holding back their missiles. Most of the fighting, most of the forces that are currently advancing are a very interesting collection of forces. They're the Don Bass militia who have been retrained and re-equipped. And you are carrying out the biggest offensive, it's ongoing at the moment, which is successful by the way, in a fortified place called elsewhere. It tends to be paratroopers, light infantry, in other words, from the regular Russian military. But these are elite infantry, but there's not relative, many of them. It's chechen fighters, it's various volunteer groups. There are lots of volunteer groups now fighting alongside the Russians in Ukraine. The Russians so far are holding their main army back and it's growing in size. It's growing in size at the rate of 1600 men a day, and apparently around 450,000 have joined up in the Russian military just this year. And the Russian arms production is worrying and increasing all the time. So it's absolutely correct. They haven't actually properly speaking started yet. Wilmer Leon (14:31): And here's something that I don't hear anybody in the West really, and this is very, very fundamental. The United States with Ukraine as its proxy has engaged Russia in the very type of conflict that Russia has been preparing to fight for the last 20 years. And they're fighting it in Russia's backyard. And Scott Ritter, Scott Ritter was on this 0.2 years ago that NATO just doesn't have it. The United States just doesn't have it. I don't remember the number of artillery shells that Russia is sending out all day, all night, but a war of attrition and an artillery type of battle is exactly what Russia has been preparing to fight. So basically the United States stepped into the trap without enough equipment, without enough soldiers, without enough logistics. It was a fiasco from the outset. Alexander Mercouris (15:47): Absolutely. Now, this is where I'm going to come back to that Washington Post article because it's actually extremely interesting because what you can see if you read that Washington Post article carefully, is that the people who really wanted this offensive that we've just been through in the summer were the Americans, the Ukrainian general, the same Ukrainian general that I mentioned before. Valeri, illusionary told the Americans last year, look, this is what I need in order to carry out an offensive. And he pitched the number. He thought so high that the Americans would find it impossible to fair it, and apparently the Americans gasp, this is what this article said. But then they went ahead and provided it and they started training all these men and they went through all the various war games and simulations and all of these kinds of things. And you could see immediately that they were feeding into all of this, their own presumptions about the Russians. (16:49) They thought the Russians were chaotic, disorganized, corrupt, inefficient, incompetent. They didn't know what they were doing. They weren't properly led. Their army was a Potemkin army, as I've seen it called that their equipment was lousy. They weren't remotely up to the standard and quality of the United States. And you could see that some Ukrainian commanders would bear you exactly what the reality was, but they were being brushed aside and they didn't want to launch this offensive. And the Americans were pushing them to launch this offensive, and they did launch this offensive and they crashed into the reality of a Russian army, which exactly as you said was incredibly well prepared. And this is exactly what's happened, that it's been the case right through this entire conflict. The United States has completely underestimated Russia. That is the truth of it. They underestimated its technological and industrial capacities which were multiples greater than they imagined. They underestimated its political will. They underestimated the morale and resilience of its population and Russia's understanding of the existential nature of this conflict. And they grope tely underestimated the Russian military, which they don't really understand and which has been preparing for this war exactly as you said, for at least the last 20 years. Wilmer Leon (18:30): You mentioned morale, and we heard early on in the conflict people saying that the Russian people were turning on Putin and all of these kinds of things. And what seems to have been missed is the Russian people are behind his government a hundred percent. And their ire was not directed at the fact that he intervened in Ukraine. Their ire was directed at him for not doing this sooner and not going in more forcefully. There are many who I understand to be saying, why are you nickel and dimming this? Why don't you just go in, kick butt, take names and move on. But he has a different strategy and his generals have a different strategy in terms of their response. Is that accurate? Alexander Mercouris (19:29): That's absolutely correct. And this has been a longstanding thing, and I've been saying this for years, and all of the people that you've been mentioning at that, Brian Tic, mark Vota, Scott Ritter, would tell you exactly the same thing. But then of course we spend time talking to Russians, not just the kind of Russians, Westerners, talk to other Russians, the kind of Russians that you will find in the streets, the people who drive you, the taxes, who you meet in hotels, those sorts of people. And the important thing to understand about Russia is this is an extremely educated society. This is a very educated society indeed. And it's a politically very educated society. Also, it has to be because Russia's history has been such over the last hundred plus years where you cannot not be educated or well-informed about political and geostrategic matters, and you've had constantly people telling you why is Putin pulley his punches? (20:33) Why does he continue to give to the West so much? Why does he call them partners all the time? Why is he constantly looking to make compromises with them? These people are profoundly hostile to us. They want to break up our country. When we opened up to them in the 1980s, they came here and they basically seized everything that they could and they triggered the biggest economic recession we've ever suffered in our history since the Russian Revolution in 1917. And why is Putin playing it so careful and so slow? And the answer was that he understood as his military people did, that his economic people did, that you can't just rush into a confrontation with the West. You have to prepare for it. You have to prepare for it financially, economically, industrially, technologically, militarily and above and diplomatically as well. And he moved to its step by step and well, here we are, Wilmer Leon (21:43): In fact, I'm glad you mentioned diplomatically because what gets missed, again through lack of context in reporting from the Western media is Putin is playing to the world. What we see now is he, whereas Joe Biden told us he was going to turn the rubble into rubble and he was going to bring about regime change in Russia and he was going to make Russia a pariah and all of that kind of stuff. When you look at President Xi, when you look at President Putin, when you look at President Raisi, when you look at Maduro in Venezuela, these guys are now on the international stage as statesmen, and it's Joe Biden who is looking and as well as Netanyahu as the odd men out. Alexander Mercouris (22:35): This is absolutely correct. Now, this is by the way, something which the Russians themselves are not used to at all. For most of the 20th century, they've been accustomed to a reality where the United States and the West essentially represented the world, and Russia itself felt itself a fortress, an encircled fortress. And this is very much if you spent time in Russia, this is still very much the instinct that a lot of Russians have, which explains why, by the way, they weren't say, we've got to wait and see, try and argue things with the Chinese, explain things to the Indians, make deals with the Venezuelans and all the others. They didn't really see it in those terms. Of course, Putin did, and this is where he's completely different from any other Russian leader that has come before because Putin understood that there are fundamental changes in the world that provided Russia behaved with self-control and discipline far from being isolated globally. It would be supported globally because most of the world could see what was really going on, and it would be the United States that would be isolated globally instead. And that is exactly what has happened, and that is something new. And the Russians themselves, I'm talking about the Russian people are astonished by it. And from everything I'm hearing rather exhilarated intoxicated by it, they did not expect things to turn out this way. Wilmer Leon (24:25): And of course, you cannot in this conversation really have this conversation with also talking about the power of Sergei Lavrov, the foreign minister Wang y in China. Those foreign ministers, again, unlike Secretary of State Blanken, they're true statesmen. They are men that have a much broader understanding of context. They have a much broader understanding of diplomacy. They have a much broader understanding of history, and they bring a whole, well, basically Blinken is playing checkers while these guys are playing three dimensional chess. Let me quickly, let's move because we could spend hours on this part of the conversation. The broader, let's connect the dots between what's happening with this Ukraine, Russian conflict and the broader context of Europe. Because there are reports now for example, that the Bavarian mayor, Marcus Soder, the prime minister in Bavaria, is saying that the increased energy costs, and there are a number of factors now that this whole conflict is having on Europe. The United States blowing up the Nord Stream pipeline, cutting off cheap natural gas to Germany is having an incredible industrial impact. I think Goodyear and Michelin are closing tire plants in Germany because manufacturing costs are too high. This has become an incredibly treacherous, has had a treacherous economic impact on European countries. You're in London, you know this better than I do. Alexander Mercouris (26:25): Oh, absolutely. Now the great success, the great achievement of the United States in the post Cold War period has been the Americanization of Europe's political elite. And it has been an astonishing thing to see, explain Wilmer Leon (26:39): What that means. Alexander Mercouris (26:40): Well, what has happened, and this is not easy to explain exactly how it's happened, and I suspect that there's a lot of this story that we don't quite know, but over the last 30 plus years, Europe, which had its own, each country in Europe had its own political leaders, its own politics, its own history of diplomacy. Remember modern diplomacy as we understand it today, the kind of diplomacy that Avro and Wangee and John Shankar of India and other countries conduct. The rules of that game were created in Europe, and they were being practiced in Europe until very recently, until well within our lifetimes, if I can say. So, all of that somehow seems to have ended. And what happened was that at some point, the Europeans, the European leadership class, its political class, came to identify itself very much with what's called the Euro-Atlantic Project. (27:49) The rules-based international order. You can use all kinds of terms with it, but they came to see themselves as part of a single team with the leadership of that team in Washington. So that instead of practicing traditional diplomacy as it used to be, and instead of focusing on their own national interests, they began to see themselves as part of a team with the United States and focused on the successful failure of that team, that collective team. I believe it was the Chinese who were the first to come up with the expression, the collective west. But that is essentially what you've got, what you've got now, you've got this collective west, which works to an extent, which you didn't even do during the Cold War as a block. And that means that Europeans have been willing, European leaders have been willing to an extent that would once upon a time have been considered inconceivable to sacrifice European vital economic interests. So Germany of all countries, for example, should have known that because of the historic connections between Ukraine and Russia and because of Russian concerns about the security of their western borders and because of the affinities between Ukraine and Russia, Ukraine was a place where the west tread carefully, but they didn't. They went full on board for the entire project, bring Ukraine into nato, pushed the Russians out. (29:40) When that became clear that it was going to result in a war, they went full out for the sanctions. No disagreement, no discussion allowed. To this day, it's very difficult to conduct a coherent discussion about this in Germany, same in France, same in Italy, same all across Europe, same to an even greater extent in Britain. And the result has been the economic catastrophe that you're talking about. Germany cut off from its natural economic hinterland, which by the way is Russia. The energy relationship which had been developing during the Cold War now destroyed the economic linkages, the industrial linkages destroyed as well. And the Germans are finding that their country now is deemed industrializing. And I can say this actually with confidence, because we were the first people on the Duran to say this. We said this on the very day when Schultz announced that he was going to suspend the operation of Nord Stream two. We said then that it was going to happen, but you could see how it has been working out ever since then. And it was completely predictable and completely understandable. And any political leadership which had German interests first and foremost at heart would've seen it. Wilmer Leon (31:13): And I think it's also important to understand that the de-industrialization of Europe, particularly the de-industrialization of Germany, was one of the objectives of this ridiculous mission in Ukraine, that this was a broader water intention to de-industrialized Germany and to sell Germany American liquified natural gas. Alexander Mercouris (31:44): Absolutely. But here again, you see how things have changed in a way because what the United States is now effectively doing is it's cannibalizing its own alliance. It is instead of supporting its allies, it is now predating upon them. Wilmer Leon (32:02): In fact, wait a minute, wait a minute. Because to that point, it's important for people to understand that when the US blew up the Nord Stream pipelines, the United States was attacking another NATO ally Germany. So under Article five, other NATO allies very well could have decided to come to the defense of Germany in the manner that they deemed fit. But of course, the United States is the head of nato. So that didn't happen. But it's just an important point I think for people to understand that the United States engaged in an act of war against a NATO ally. Alexander Mercouris (32:45): Absolutely. Of course, that is unequivocal. I mean, if you attack the vital energy infrastructure of a country and use explosives against it by any historic law of war, that is an act of war, no question. But this is what the United States increasingly has been doing, and you're quite right to say how they've pushed a very, very hard bargain on liquified natural gas. They're tempting European businesses to relocate to the United States. They're trying to exploit the de-industrialization of Germany, in other words, to their own advantage. But of course, this is the diametric opposite of what the United States once did in the 1950s and 1960s. The United States sought to build up European economies because he wanted a strong Europe strong allies so that he could withstand the Soviet Union and its allies. Now, when the United States itself feels diminished, its trying to supplement its own power by predating, by feeding on its allies. And yes, that will work for a time. It will make the United States stronger relatively than it might've been, but at the cost of weakening its overall alliance weakening the collective west, in other words. And in the long term, this is a bad policy as any policy that involves cannibalization ultimately is. Wilmer Leon (34:25): So let's switch gears now from talking about the conflict in Ukraine and its impacts on Europe to what's going on in the occupied territories in occupied Palestine. There was a piece again in the Washington Post who will run Gaza after the war. And the piece says, US searches for the best of bad options. And they're trying to figure out, of course, they want to totally get rid of Hamas. They're talking about could the Palestine authority be the solution? But the interesting thing is nobody seems to be talking to the Palestinians about who they want to run the area. And all of this conversation, in my opinion, is sheer evidence of what the grand plan has been from the very beginning, which is the Zionist government in Israel is a settler colonial state, and as a settler colonial state, you remove the indigenous people so that you can expand the space for your own. This is basically a humongous land grab on the Mediterranean Sea. Alexander Mercouris (35:50): Oh, absolutely. I mean, there are people in Israel who are making talking straightforwardly about this now to an extent that we've never seen before. Some of the language coming out of officials in Prime Minister Netanyahu's government is absolutely at that kind. And this is where I'm going to say what my own personal view about US policy throughout this crisis has been, or how it started, which is when the crisis began in October, there was unequivocally an Israeli plan to force the entire population of Gaza out of Gaza, relocate them in Sinai in each Egypt. Qatar was supposed to provide a tent city to house them there. And of course, once Gaza had had its population expelled, Israel would've quickly finished off Hamas occupied Gaza, Israeli settle settlers would've moved in, and then sooner or later they'd have finished off what is left of the West Bank where there's been increasing amounts of violence and aggression as well. (36:59) And there are even some people in the actual Israeli government, the cabinet who have been talking about rebuilding the temple in Jerusalem, resuming the rituals in the temple and that kind of thing. So that was the agenda. And the United States initially went along with it. Now, this is the thing that people don't understand, but that is exactly what happened. Blinken went along to the Middle East, he met with the Jordanians, the Egyptians, and he was trying to persuade them to agree to allow those people from Gaza to go into Sinai eye in the way that the Israelis wanted. And what then happened, and this is where we come back to the American propensity to underestimate opposition now and a failure to realize or recognize the extent to which the world has changed. What they found was that they came, they came up against a wall of opposition from the Arab states. (38:09) Egypt said, no, the Egyptian president, president, lsi, ridiculed, blink into his face and had it all televised and said, we got the video of it. Mohammed bin Salman, the Crown prince and prime minister of Saudi Arabia kept blinking waiting a whole night before he actually agreed to meet with him. The King of Georgia said, this is completely unacceptable and refused to meet President Biden. When President Biden also came to the Middle East, the Arab states close ranks. And they said, absolutely no. Under no circumstances will we agree to this thing. And they've been pushing back relentlessly. And you've had a whole series of telephone conversations between the president and Arab leaders. And increasingly now the president, president Biden is having to reassure the Arab leaders that there will be no displacement of the people from by Gaza, no relocations, no redrawing of the map of Gaza. (39:20) And instead, they're now coming to this new plan, which is a terrible plan, that we're going to set up some kind of neo-colonial administration in Kaza run by the Palestinians that we choose. This is plan B, because to be very clear plan A has been a complete failure. Now, I think that that is going to be intensely resisted. The Palestinian people, as you absolutely correctly say, are not being consulted about who is going to govern them. Trying to set up a political structure of this kind in Gaza is going to be a sort of further instability and tension. I don't personally think it's even going to happen. Actually, I think that the United States, Israel are finding the going in guards are much tougher than they imagined it would be. And I also think that the Arab states, as I said, the closing ranks, and of course behind the Arab states are the brick states. China and Russia, Saudi Arabia and Egypt, of course are joining the bricks in January. Iran made up with Saudi Arabia and is also joining the bricks. The Iranians have just agreed a major arms deal with the Russians. The Iranian president is in Moscow, even as we speak and this broadcast, and we've just had confirmation from the Saudi government that in a few short time, we don't quite know when President Putin, Wilmer Leon (41:06): Putin is on his way to the Saudis. Alexander Mercouris (41:09): The Saudis. Wilmer Leon (41:11): Do Alexander Mercouris (41:12): You see how the pieces are all coming together Wilmer Leon (41:15): And connect the dots there because you mentioned the Saudis and the Iranians have found reproach mon and have come back together. That was due to the diplomacy of President Xi and the Chinese. We know the relationship between China and Russia, and now Putin is on his way to Saudi Arabia. There are a whole lot of dots that are being connected here, and it's not to the advantage of the United States. Alexander Mercouris (41:46): No, not at all. Now, I think the first thing to understand, and we have to say this base point, we're going to come to China in more detail in a moment, but the biggest single change that has happened in the world over the last 30 years is the emergence of China as an economic, political, and military superpower that is at least the equal in all of these things, economics, politics, military affairs, as the United States itself is. And that has completely changed the global geometry. It means that even during the Cold War when the Soviet Union was a significant alternative poll and rival to the United States, it could not match the United States at every spectrum of power China can. And that has changed the situation globally. And we see how it's playing out in the Middle East because as is so often the case in the Middle East, what the Chinese do, and they do this very intelligently, is that they set out their positions. (43:03) They've talked about the need, for example, for an international peace conference to be convened, to settle the situation in the Middle East. This longstanding conflict between the Palestinians and the Israelis, they want, in other words, to take away control of Middle East diplomacy from the Americans, which is what the Chinese want to do. The Chinese, however, as they always do like to work in the background, they bring the Saudis and the Iranians together. They're working very closely with the Russians. They're letting the Russians supply the arms to Iran. They're letting the Russians do the oil deals with the Saudis, but ultimately it's China that is the key player behind the scenes. And it's such a contrast with the Americans who always wants to be seen doing something. So you have Blinken running around the Middle East as he has been, again, by the way, quite recently, they're incredibly active, going from one capital to another, having doors slammed in his face and giving fresh conferences and doing something. (44:20) But in fact, if actually look at who's really making the big moves, it's and the Chinese, but he's able to do it from Beijing because eventually he will go. Obviously Xi Jinping has been to Saudi Arabia. He was there recently. But it's an extraordinary study in contrast. And again, it comes back to the point that you were making before about the way that the Chinese do diplomacy, the Russians, all of these countries do diplomacy and the Americans don't. The Americans go, they come up with their plans, they come up with their ideas, they give their lectures, they tell people, this is how it must be done. Chinese, much more patient, much more careful, much more willing to let things play out and to take advantage of them as they play out as well. Wilmer Leon (45:16): Two things on Gaza before we move to China. One is the Hamas strategy. I believe that the Hama strategy is a much longer term strategy than the Americans give them credit for. I don't think that their strategy is to win militarily. I think that their longer term strategy is to win psychologically, to make the settlers, the Zionist settlers in Israel so uncomfortable with their reality because they've been sold this bill of goods by Netanyahu and others. We will protect you, we will defend you against those evil Arabs. And now all of a sudden that sense of security has been broken, and I don't know that they'll ever be able to regain it, especially with Hezbollah in the north waiting. You've got Syria in the waiting to take over the Golan Heights. This thing could become an incredible conflagration in the region, the likes of which neither Israel nor the United States can manage your thoughts on that point? Alexander Mercouris (46:41): Absolutely. Now, first of all, let's just say something about Hamas. I mean, a lot of people have been talking about Hamas and some of the things they say are true, but one of the things they consistently do is that they underestimate Hamas itself. It is a highly intelligent organization. It it's politically extremely sophisticated. This is something people consistently underestimate. And what you are describing, actually, the psychological nature of the struggle is that the classic struggle of a insurgency, a revolutionary, a national liberation movement, you can't win on the battlefield against an army. You win politically hearts and minds. Well, Dr. Kissinger, who's now hopefully in another more fiery place actually for it rather, well actually when he was talking about Vietnam, the insurgency, the revolutionary, the National Liberation Movement, all it has to do in order to win is survive. If it survives, it wins. (48:03) And this is absolutely true of Hamas. The Americans have gradually come to understand this. I think the Israelis still are chasing this mirage that they can destroy Hamas completely. What they're actually doing is that they're making it stronger because Hamas is able now to say to the Palestinians, look, we are the resistance. We are the people who are fighting. So for every Hamas official, you kill 10 will come and take their place, which is what, as I said, movements like this do. Didn't we see this very same thing in Afghanistan? Afghanistan in Vietnam, inconceivable place? Absolutely. Hamas is perhaps the best organized resistance movement of this nature in the world at the moment. And everything that they've done, every step that they have taken has been consistent with that strategy. And by the way, I've been in contact with people in Israel and they all tell me the same thing. (49:12) And it goes exactly to what you said. People are afraid. Israelis are afraid. There has been, people are leaving Israel now because they are afraid. And if Hamas comes out of this intact, however bruised and bantered, it will be those people are going to remain afraid and they're get to become more afraid. And that, of course, is what this whole thing is for. Hamas has acted with calculation and intelligence. Israel and the Israeli government walked into a trap, which is fair for everyone to see. They walked into that trap, and the United States opened the gate for them to enable them to walk into it. And has now followed itself because of course, across the Middle East, there was this extraordinary comment that Lloyd Austin made just a few days ago, which he said that Israel is now facing strategic defeat. He's right. But of course, it's a strategic defeat, not just for Israel, but for the United States as well, because right across the Middle East, right across the world, the United States and Israel are seen as joined to the hip if the one loses, so does the other. Wilmer Leon (50:46): And in the interests that I mentioned such as Hezbollah in Lebanon and Syria as it relates to the Golan, I didn't mention Iran, I didn't mention Yemen. There are a whole bunch of factions that will join this resistance. And I hadn't thought to ask you this, but this just comes to mind when we look at the conflict as it's existing right now. And those other factions that I've mentioned are still standing on the sideline that tells me they're standing on the sideline because contrary to Western reporting, Hamas is doing a much, much better job than the West wants to admit. And those other factions are standing on the sideline saying, this is not the time for us to get involved because this business is being handled by Hamas. Is that a fair assessment? Alexander Mercouris (51:49): Absolutely. I come back to this. I mean, Hamas doesn't need to defeat the Israeli army in Gaza. It knows that if you're trying to do that, it would destroy itself. And that's not what it's doing. What's doing is it's resisting. And so long as it is able to keep resisting, it is winning. Now, this is something again, people don't understand. Israel talks about conducting this operation for a year that already tells you how much resistance there is, and that resistance will grow because more Wilmer Leon (52:19): People enjoy. And that goes to Nala's statement a couple of weeks ago when he asked the question very clearly, how long do y'all want to do this? Because we're in it till the end. And he said, said, I don't think you all have the stomach for what you're about to get into. Alexander Mercouris (52:42): Well, that is absolutely correct. And of course, Israel, it's a small country. Its economy is now coming under increasing strain. Casualties are growing. There is going to be increasing problems within Israel itself the longer this goes on. And that isn't even to consider the bigger political diplomatic backlash that there is going to be if there is a year of war. So you could see that this is playing out in exactly the way that Hermas wanted, and it was predictable. It was entirely predictable. They're going to just talk about the general picture, the Hezbollah and all the rest, because I actually, now, this is my own view, and I've consistently taken the view view that these huge American military deployments to the Middle East, two aircraft carriers, one in the Persian Gulf and a higher class submarine equipped with 150 tornado, not tornado missiles, aircraft, all of these things. (53:42) I am absolutely certain that what was the original plan back in October was to use the conflict in Gaza as an excuse to launch that long desired strike at Iran. Again, some people in America believe Iran is a much weaker, more fragile state than it actually is, and strike it, Toran and perhaps a strike it. Hezbollah. Look where the two carriers are. One is in the Eastern Mediterranean position to strike it. Hezbollah, the other is in the Persian Gulf, perfectly located to launch the strike at Iran. Again, what became obvious over the course of October, November was that the Arab and Muslim states were united in their complete opposition to this. So once again, that opposition has prevented that strike happening. And if we talk about Hezbollah and about Nasrallah, people continuously ask, why aren't they attacking Israel in a more sustained way than they are at the moment? (55:03) Why aren't the Houthis? Why isn't Iran unleashing all its forces? The thing to understand is that that is exactly what those people who back in October in Washington decided to deploy all those huge forces to the Middle East, wanted the Israelis, sorry, the Iranians and Hezbollah and all of these places, people to do so. What has happened is that all these forces have now been moved to the Middle East. Hezbollah is still there. It's still very strong. The Houthis are still there. They're still very strong. They're able to carry out all these pinprick attacks on American basis and on American shipping. These vast fleets are located there, but because of the strength of regional opposition, they can't actually move. They're beginning to look rather eff effectual. And going back to that article by Gideon Rackman that I was talking about the start of this program, he said that there are American officials who are now stressing about the fact that two carrier task forces and large numbers of destroyers and other warships are floating around the Middle East doing nothing of any practical value and are pinned down there even as the situation in the Asia Pacific region where these warships are needed. (56:34) If you want the conflict with China, even as the situation of the Asia Pacific region is continuing to shift in China's favor, and it's there, it's actually written out in black and white in Gideon Rahman's article, and he said all of this after speaking to US officials, so you could see yet again how a diplomatic and political strategy of playing a long game, which is what Putin did in Ukraine as we discussed earlier, how that works to your advantage, rushing in attacking Israel in this case, launching strikes against American positions, starting a regional war right away would've played into the hands of the hardliners in Washington and in Israel. Taking time on the contrary slowly shifts the balance in your favor, Wilmer Leon (57:34): And you mentioned time in what's important I think for Americans to understand is whether you're talking about Russia, whether you're talking about Arab states, whether you're talking about China, they have a different concept of time because their cultures are much older than the United States has been in existence. We're talking thousands of years of history that they understand, hence the adage, you have the watches, but we have the time. And President Putin, when Biden announced that the Gerald Ford aircraft carrier group was on its way to the Mediterranean, Putin said, why are you doing that? He said, you're not scaring anybody. These people don't scare. So let's move because we have just a few minutes left. Let's move to the discussion of China because I'm trying to figure out who in Taiwan hasn't been paying attention to what's happened in Ukraine and why would the Taiwanese government want to become Ukraine part two? Alexander Mercouris (58:47): Right. Well, I think the first thing to understand is that there are elections in Taiwan, and there've been elections in Ukraine and both in Ukraine. There were lots and lots of people who were very worried about the situation and didn't really want to see a certain political leadership aligned with the West take power. And I'm sure the same is true in Taiwan. We must be much more skeptical. I mean, I'm sorry to say this, but it's a fact about the outcome of elections. Elections in these kind of countries don't necessarily reflect the feelings and ideas and thoughts and motives and intentions of the people in these countries. They are much more attuned to what people in Washington want to see the outcome that people in Washington want to see. If we're talking about Taiwan, I'm not saying that the elections there are be straightforwardly rigged, but you're going to have the media in Taiwan promoting a certain view. You're going to see splits within the opposition parties, and that apparently has happened. You're going to see all kinds of problems like that start to build up. And of course, that opens the way for a party like the one that we're seeing in Taiwan win the Wilmer Leon (01:00:03): Election. We're now seeing opposition parties in Taiwan being investigated, lawsuits being filed against them as they are trying to coalesce in order to go against Drawn a blank on her name, the current prime minister, president of Taiwan, but Joe Biden met with President Xi in San Francisco, and during the press conference, president Biden talks about, oh, we had a great conversation and blah, blah, and then he turns around and calls GA dictator. This makes absolute, why do you want to try to pick a fight with China in China's front yard? I was saying that Ukraine is Russia's backyard, Taiwan and the South China Sea, that's China's front yard and just like Russia, China, hypersonic missiles, those aircraft carriers groups that the United States wants to send to the region, those are nothing but targets. Alexander Mercouris (01:01:12): Absolutely. This is entirely correct. I mean, it is at fundamental levels irrational. I think this is something we need to say. I mean, American policy in Ukraine is misconceived. American policy in the Middle East is misconceived also, but American policy towards China, towards Taiwan Wilmer Leon (01:01:31): Is Alexander Mercouris (01:01:32): Insane's insane. It's completely rational. Unfortunately, there also seems to be an enormous bipartisan support for it. Now, I'm just going to just, if I may just speak briefly about the San Francisco Sam, because the Chinese were very reluctant to go, Xi Jinping didn't want to go. Xi Jinping had basically lost all trust and confidence in Biden at the start of this year over the balloon incident. The relationship between the two was rocky. We have a Chinese readout from one of their earlier meetings in which Xi Jinping all but called Biden a liar to his face. That readout really ought to be better known than it is, but eventually the Americans persuaded si shing to come. So why did he do it? I think it's extremely straightforward. The Chinese use the San Francisco Summit as a device to demonstrate their power. They got the Americans to agree to all of the conditions they set for the summit meeting. (01:02:44) They wanted the streets of San Francisco cleaned up. They wanted people to come up with the red flags, not protestors. And of course, straight after the meeting with Biden, which achieved nothing, by the way, that's an important thing to say. And nothing of substance was agreed over the course of it straight after. What does Xi Jinping do? He goes to a hotel in San Francisco and all the leaders of the American business community there, Tim Cook of Apple, Elon Musk, all of them, they're all there, bill Gates, and they give Si Jinping a standing ovation Wilmer Leon (01:03:22): Because they're doing business in China. Your iPhone, the batteries for your Tesla, they're doing business with China. Alexander Mercouris (01:03:33): China, exactly. And that was what the Chinese, in their subtle way were wanting to demonstrate. They were trying to show to the Americans, to the American political leadership, to the people in Washington. Look, we are far more strong, far more powerful than you seem to understand even in your own country. When our leader comes, he's able to change the landscape around him, and that was what the Chinese were trying to do. I have to say this. I think that there is this very sane demonstration of power that the Chinese made in San Francisco is going to inflame some people in Washington even more for them. The very concept of a country that is equal and equivalent to the United States in power and which is exceeding the United States in some form of power is against nature. It is so abhorrent that they have to find some way of reversing it. (01:04:55) They've tried to reverse it by imposing economic blockades and technology blockades on China. The Chinese are finding work rounds in terms of the economic pressures. They've demonstrated their economic prowess by developing a super chip in just a few weeks, which the Americans thought it would take them 10 or 20 years to do. Unfortunately, what that means is that in this condition of anger and fear that the United States is losing, its supposedly ordained place that is going to make more people reach for the military auction, which is all that they realistically have. In other words, if you feel you're going down, you become more desperate, Wilmer Leon (01:05:46): Which they realistically don't have because Washington is about, what, 7,000 miles from Beijing? What makes the United States, just from a sheer logistical perspective, I understand the United States has bases all over the world. Japan, I got all that, but you're still basically fighting a 7,000 mile war in China's backyard. And it's not, if this breaks out, it's not just China. It's China and Russia, it's China and North Korea, it's Russia and North Korea. You can bring South Korea into the fight if you want to. I think North Korea will handle that. You can bring Japan into the conflict if you want to. I think North Korea, as I say on the street, we'll let North Korea handle the light work, and it makes absolutely no sense. Connect these three dots and we'll get out. Alexander Mercouris (01:06:51): Well, this is absolutely correct, but it comes back to this extraordinary degree of overconfidence that Americans have, which we've seen in Ukraine. I mean, this idea that this offensive that the Americans were planning in Ukraine last summer would succeed this utter underestimation of Russian military capabilities. Wilmer Leon (01:07:12): Wait, let me just quickly jump in, and I think you know this better than I do. When the United States engages in war game simulations against Russia, it loses when the United States engages in war game simulation against China. It loses every single time. Their systems are telling them. The systems are telling the Pentagon you can't win the fight. Alexander Mercouris (01:07:48): Absolutely true, but they ignore those stipulations. That's the trouble, because this is exactly, Wilmer Leon (01:07:55): Don't confuse me with the facts. Please confuse me with the facts. Alexander Mercouris (01:08:00): This is exactly what happened with the Ukrainian offensive, the Washington Post article goes all kinds of detail because of course, they then change the war games. They factor in all kinds of assumptions that they make about the other side, and that enables them eventually to come out with the answer that they will win, and they do this send of the Chinese, I've been reading article after article in the American media, now the American military media, which is a strange place by the way, but about how actually the Chinese militaries of paper tiger, the Chinese weapons systems don't really work. The Chinese soldiers are inexperienced. They've never really known war until now that Chinese generals are incompetent and corrupt. So all we have to do is just go in and fight them, and we will show to the Chinese what's what, and we will win. And that's exactly what they did in Ukraine this year, and that's what they think they're going to do with China. (01:09:07) Now, anybody with any knowledge of Chinese history, including Chinese military history, we'll know what an absurd view that is. And of course, the last time, in fact, the only time the United States has actually fought China, which is in Korea, the outcome was very different. The United States managed to escape disaster by the skin of its teeth, but don't let facts get in the way of all kinds of confident assumptions. And as for history, well Americans just don't do that to my, at least political leaders don't do that. No. If you go around in Washington today and say to them, well, what lessons do you think the United States should take from the Korean War and from frightening the Chinese? And by the way, the North Koreans there, well, most of them don't even know about it. So I mean, that's the fundamental problem. Wilmer Leon (01:10:08): Americans need to read Sun Zu, the Art of War if they want to play the Chinese cheap, because a lot of those strategies are still applicable and making an incredible amount of sense. Alexander Mercurius from the Duran, thank you so much for joining me today. I greatly, greatly appreciate it. Alexander Mercouris (01:10:30): My great pleasure. Let's do this again, Wilmer Leon (01:10:32): Folks. Thank you so much for listening to the Connecting the Dots podcast with me, Wilmer Leon. Stay tuned for new episodes every week. Also, please follow and subscribe. Leave a review, share my show, follow me on social media. You'll find all the links below in the show description. And remember, this is where analysis of politics, culture, and history converge because talk without analysis is just chatter, and we don't chatter on connecting the dots. See you again next time. Until then, I'm Dr. Wilmer Leon. Have a great one. Peace and blessings. I'm out

Michelle Pearse is the new leader of the Australian Christian Lobby, and she sits down with Dave to describe her vision for the important organisation in coming years, as well as the battles we're waging against injustice already. • MORE: https://ACL.org.au • Have dinner with Sarah Game MLC, Stephen Chavura, Topher Field, James Macpherson, Dave Pellowe & more in Adelaide: Tickets https://ChurchAndState.com.au/adelaide • SUBSCRIBE to weekly updates and read more from Dave Pellowe - https://DavePellowe.com • READ "The Spirit Behind the Voice - The religious dimension of the 'Voice' proposal", Ch 9 by Dave Pellowe - https://LockePress.com

Why is work so hard?

"Here as in Heaven." For more information visit : garden.church

"in Long Beach as it is in Heaven." For more information visit: garden.church

This episode features a conversation on efforts underway in Erie County to address the opioid epidemic, and the status of the statewide opioid settlement fund advisory board. Joining NYSAC's Multimedia Specialist Kate Pierce-Nimz is Cheryll Moore, Medical Care Administrator, and director of the Erie County Department of Health Opioid Program. Our thanks at NYSAC go to our sponsor, Aetna.

Pro-Life Battlefronts There is no debating the fact that abortion is a hot topic in our culture. And there is also no debate that there is a worldview clash when it comes to conversations about abortion. For anyone who wants to advocate and care for unborn babies, it is wise to know the central [Read More] The post Pro-Life Battlefronts appeared first on Life Bible Fellowship Church.

Battlefronts! Matt and John discuss their favorite battles from the Star Wars saga, whether they're space based, land based, or simply iconic. They also discuss the battles that left a little to be desired, but mainly it's about what made those wars in a galaxy far, far away so memorable. Host John Mills and Matthew Rushing Send us your feedback! Twitter: @TheJediMasters Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/TheNerdParty/ Email: http://www.thenerdparty.com/contact Subscribe in Apple Podcasts

Battlefronts!Matt and John discuss their favorite battles from the Star Wars saga, whether they're space based, land based, or simply iconic. They also discuss the battles that left a little to be desired, but mainly it's about what made those wars in a galaxy far, far away so memorable.HostJohn Mills and Matthew RushingSend us your feedback!Twitter: @TheJediMasters Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/TheNerdParty/ Email: http://www.thenerdparty.com/contactSubscribe in Apple Podcasts

When Electronic Arts signed a 10-year exclusive development and publishing deal with Disney for the Star Wars license, it had the potential to be something huge for the lucrative (but oft-under siege) companies. Eight years later, though, it's clear both sides (and EA in particular) have largely squandered the deal, with a couple of Battlefronts, a Rogue Squadron revival, and an admittedly very promising single-player game to show for it. Yet, in the bleakness comes unexpected news, for the monopoly, as it turns out, is broken. Ubisoft's Massive Entertainment -- the group behind The Division -- is hard-at-work on a Star Wars game of its own, begging a rather obvious question: What could it be? We discuss. Plus: A new Killzone seems more unlikely than ever, the team behind Wolfenstein is making a new Indiana Jones game, newly-filed trademarks from Square Enix indicate a widening of the Final Fantasy VII universe, CD Projekt offers a mea culpa over Cyberpunk 2077, and more. Then: Listener inquiries! Will Colin really play Final Fantasy XIV? Is Sony spying on our PSN messages? Where's MLB: The Show 21? Should potato chips be eaten ice cold? Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Meine Damen und Herren, vor mehr als vier Jahren haben wir in Folge #2 dieses einzigen besten Podcasts der Welt (tm) die Frage gestellt, ob AAA-Spiele irgendwie … naja … scheiße sind. Damals kamen wir uns mit dieser Frage total provokant und anti-mainstream vor, vier Jahre und mehrere Anthems, Fallout 76s oder Battlefronts später ist die Kritik am Mainstream quasi schon der neue Mainstream. Höchste Zeit also, die These von damals noch einmal und unter Beteiligung von Sebastian auf den Prüfstand zu stellen: Sind AAA-Spiele immer noch … naja … scheiße? Oder nie gewesen? Oder jetzt erst Recht? Und wenn ja: warum eigentlich? Eröffnen Sie sich also ein Bier mit uns, es lohnt sich! Timecodes: 00:00 - Einführung 08:57 - AAA ist scheiße- denkt das heute auch der Mainstream? Und wohin geht der Trend? 32:53 - Was kann man von AAA heute erwarten? 01:06:50 - Ob wir die besten Jahre schon hinter uns haben und die Frage nach Innovation und Autorenschaft

It may be a fairly grim MMOARPG, but Path of Exile features a surprisingly, well, grim soundtrack. Guess that wasn't that much of a surprise! This episode, the Battle Bards wade into the fracas of this rather expansive soundtrack to see what audio treasure has been dropped by the zerg of mobs. Episode 131 show notes Intro (feat. "Main Theme," "The Overseer's Tower," and "The Ascent") "Fall of Oriath Theme" "Four Guardians" "Solaris Temple" "Hunter or Prey" "The Grand Arena" "Templar Courts" "Elder" Which one did we like best? Listener mail from CJ and Loopy Jukebox picks: "A Distant Journey, Soaring on the Battlefronts" from Granblue Fantasy, "Main Theme" from Spider-Man 2018, and "First Steps" from Celeste Outro ("The Aquaduct") Talk to the Battle Bards on Twitter! Follow Battle Bards on iTunes, Stitcher, Player.FM, Google Play, iHeartRadio, and Pocket Casts! Special nod to Video Game Music for his excellent repository of MMO soundtracks!

In this episode the BEL crew go through their noob news and talk about all the latest and greatest releases for wargaming. Greg is picked on for being Australian. We talk about the games we've played over the last few weeks and we talk about Battlefronts version 4 a year on.

On the 37th issue of Nerdflow we discuss Thanksgiving, we talk Battlefronts microtransaction problem, and our opinions on Justice League and in the Ultimate Battle this week its The Avengers vs. Justice League.

On the 37th issue of Nerdflow we discuss Thanksgiving, we talk Battlefronts microtransaction problem, and our opinions on Justice League and in the Ultimate Battle this week its The Avengers vs. Justice League. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

Vi har spelat brädspel! Räven hyllar Cuphead. Sorken testar Battlefronts 2. Sälen vill ha kvar en fysisk länk. www.spelaspelpodden.se See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

Professor Blight begins his lecture with a description of the sea change in Civil War scholarship heralded by the Social History revolution of the 1960s and 1970s. Along with a focus on the experience of the common solider, women, and African Americans, a central component of this shift in scholarly emphasis was an increased interest in the effects of the war on the Union and Confederate home fronts. After suggesting some of the ways in which individual Americans experienced the war, Professor Blight moves to a discussion of the war's effect on industry and economics, North and South. The lecture concludes with a description of the increased activism of the federal government during the war, an activism that found expression in finance, agriculture, taxation, building railroads, and, most importantly, in emancipation. TranscriptLecture Page

Den här veckan utser vi en vinnare i vår Instagram-tävling! Vi diskuterar även väldigt random spel, allt ifrån The Division och Destiny till Gears of War 4, Overwatch och Battlefronts kommande DLC. Enjoy denna galenskap vi kallar podcast. Om ni gillar det ni hör, ge oss gärna en bra rating i er podcast, det betyder mycket för oss! Maila oss om allt ifrån feedback och spelnyheter till frågor och highlights från när ni spelar till podcast@wespawn.se. Hitta allt WeSpawn via http://wespawn.se och hjälp oss växa via http://patreon.com/wespawn! Tack för att ni lyssnar!

In early May, gamers across the world will get the opportunity to dig into Overwatch a few weeks ahead of its official release. The multiplayer’s open beta will ostensibly be for the purpose of stress-testing the game’s online systems, but considering how close the release date for the full game, there isn’t much time after the beta for Blizzard to implement any changes before the game goes public. Plenty of beta tests have been performed throughout theOverwatch’s development in order to ensure that things run smoothly for the game’s full release. Watch: Equity Arcade discuss this article   Instead, Overwatch’s open beta serves primarily as a marketing opportunity: a small piece of free content to hook players into the game, drum up discussion in online communities, and cement a fanbase for the product in anticipation of later sales. This tactic is being used increasingly often by developers looking to build up interest around their projects and is commonly accepted as fairly standard practice for modern development of AAA games. Earlier this year a record 6.4 million people took place in an open beta for The Division, many of whom went on to purchase the full game upon its release. The practice of throwing open the doors to allow widespread access to an unreleased game isn’t always well received, though – the recent beta for the upcoming Doom reboot left a bad taste in many players’ mouths, many of whom took to the internet to voice their displeasure at the direction the game is taking. Similarly, while The Division has certainly proved a popular title, a small but vocal minority of gamers who took part in the game’s beta were less than complimentaryof the experience afterwards. While it’s difficult to tell whether these dissenters have had even a small impact on the sales of the game, it’s important to note that an open beta immediately preceding a game’s launch doesn’t always lead to a positive public reception. Part of this is to do with the perceived value of the games that players are getting their hands on. Modern cynicism means that people will always be wary of a freebie, and it’s difficult to take a free trial for a game as seriously as one might take the full release. Players who make the conscious financial decision to purchase a game are more likely to be invested in the title, to give it the time it needs to shine and to learn ways around its flaws rather than throwing their hands up at the first sign of imperfection. On the other hand, by presenting game content for free, developers are to a certain extent undervaluing their creations. When it’s easier for a player to gain access to a game, it’s also easier to nit-pick or find fault, as players feel more entitled to the content they’re being provided with and are more likely to reject it if it doesn’t instantly live up to their initial expectations. Any game that requires an investment of time and patience to learn playstyles will be instantly dismissed by gamers who expect betas to provide instant gratification. Many gamers found this to be the case when playing the open beta for Star Wars Battlefront – the game’s progression system meant that many players were throwing themselves into firefights without pausing to learn the ropes and unlock equipment, and were duly punished for treating the beta as a throwaway experience rather than a game with rules that need to be learned. Of course, the Battlefronts beta also had other issues – the beta gameplay was if anything a little too indicative of the full experience, and many players, having played the game for a couple of days, felt that there wasn’t enough content to keep them hooked for any longer than the duration of the initial beta. The problem that many betas face is in the execution: as an extension of a video game demo, betas should be deliberately designed to draw in the player’s interest, quickly teach them the mechanics of the game, and tease them with just enough content to leave them wanting more without making them feel like they’re already seen the majority of what the game has to offer. When developers simply carve off a few multiplayer levels from their game to allow players to run amok in, they’re not always delivering the kind of experience that works to increase players’ anticipation. A poorly arranged beta can fail to grab the player’s attention and empty out any of the excitement that they might have had for the game. This failing will undoubtedly lead to more lost sales than it will to an increase in users who get hooked on their initial taste. As the open beta for Overwatch draws near, it’ll be interesting to see whether Blizzard works to create a unique, tailored beta experience that functions like a playable trailer for the game, or whether the studio will simply release a rough chunk of the game and let players provide their own interpretation. The game is likely to be an enormous hit either way, but a strong beta offering could significantly increase the popularity of Blizzard’s latest masterpiece while an uneven experience might potentially influence some players’ decision to pick up the game immediately at launch.

Gamersledge Podcast

Speaker: Craig Englert

Professor Blight begins his lecture with a description of the sea change in Civil War scholarship heralded by the Social History revolution of the 1960s and 1970s. Along with a focus on the experience of the common solider, women, and African Americans, a central component of this shift in scholarly emphasis was an increased interest in the effects of the war on the Union and Confederate home fronts. After suggesting some of the ways in which individual Americans experienced the war, Professor Blight moves to a discussion of the war's effect on industry and economics, North and South. The lecture concludes with a description of the increased activism of the federal government during the war, an activism that found expression in finance, agriculture, taxation, building railroads, and, most importantly, in emancipation.