Re(1): Something Going Wrong With China Posted on January 17, 2026 at 02:05:10 AM by observer
Reality, I read one of his treatises, the latest about China and found it lacking in evidence but interesting and mind changing for me, since I expected China to attack Taiwan one day soon, but to do so it would destroy Taiwan's only critical planet industry.
Thanks for the links and raising something more refreshing than my exchanges with YouKnowWho.
So WHO is this guy and is anybody paying any attention to him? I"m also new with AI, so decided to see if asking was AI's perview. Here's what Chat-GPT had to say about him:
---
Credibility level: Low to unverified
He is best categorized as a YouTube geopolitical commentator, not a credentialed international or military analyst.
Why that matters
For analysts of Russian or Chinese military power, credibility usually rests on:
Prior military service or intelligence background
Recognized academic training in IR/strategic studies
Affiliation with a think tank (RAND, CSIS, IISS, RUSI, etc.)
Publications that are cited by others in the field
He appears to have none of those publicly documented.
Common issues in his content
Viewers familiar with defense analysis often notice:
Speculative leaps beyond available evidence
Heavy reliance on worst-case scenarios
Framing events as coordinated “global control” strategies without proof
Limited use of primary military sources or doctrinal documents
Confident tone that exceeds what the data supports
That style is engaging, but it’s not how serious military analysis is done.
Important distinction
That doesn’t mean:
He’s lying
He’s unintelligent
Every claim is false
It does mean:
His videos are opinion-based synthesis, not expert analysis
He should not be relied on for assessing real-world military capability, intent, or timelines
A simple rule of thumb
If his conclusions are more dramatic than what you hear from:
NATO briefings
RAND or CSIS reports
Retired flag officers interviewed by Reuters/BBC
…then the YouTube analyst is almost certainly overreaching.
Bottom line
Paul Warberg’s content is best treated as:
Speculative geopolitical commentary for general audiences, not authoritative military analysis. Replies: