You’ve set up the Straw man arguments, I’m not going to defend “ridiculous”, to use your terminology, claims that I’ve never made. I did not say China has published intention to invade half of Asia, like you imply I did.

They did essentially rip up the agreement in Hong Kong, and intend to completely dominate the entire South China Sea with their nine dashed line manifest destiny type claims, and they are trying to re-educate away Uighur culture.

So no, they haven’t declare they want to invade half of Asia and it’s unlikely they will do that, but that doesn’t mean they aren’t on a very risky path.

And just because I focused on China here, doesn’t mean Russia is squeaky clean.

The things you're describing aren't even close to a world War. That's the ridiculous part. They did rip up the agreement in Hong Kong but Hong Kong was already sovereign Chinese territory, it was just breaking an international instrument, which is bog standard. And sure, it seeks to dominate the seas near to it.

To note, the nine dash line is just a negotiation trick. It used to be an eleven dash line and a ten dash line also, and Chinese diplomats admitted that they don't seek territorial waters beyond 12nm of land. It's the same strategy as was used in the claims with Mongolia or in claims to the arctic - make vague grandiose claims then walk them back once you secure your strategic advantage.

What China is really after is to control the waters that allow its supply lines to be secured. They see themselves as vulnerable to a blockade and their main enemy is the dominant sea power.

It has some risk, certainly. But that risk is bounded well below the risk of a confrontation between two superpowers, and importantly is not ideological or irrational but driven by simple calculus that the present situation leaves China to be too vulnerable. That's so insanely far from WW2 that isn't not even close. Any comparison to that effect is hyperbolic. It's much closer to the establishment of the Monroe doctrine both in maximum impact and in motivation. The same applies to Russia. None of them want to start invading a dozen other countries, rather they have a national interest they want to protect and act as far as is necessary to achieve that.

Basing ones argument on points that are clearly made with rose tinted glasses doesn’t make for convincing or constructive debates.

By rose tinted I mean, to name but a few points, Completely ignoring The other nations of bordering the South China Sea and their claims and ignoring Ukraine sovereignty because of historic borders, and ignoring the fact that china literally is creating land to expand their 12nm radius around disputed shoals.

Why did you gloss over all that? It doesn’t feel like an objective assessment when those substantial and important facts are just completely ignored. And bringing up the number of dashes shown on maps while ignoring the actual issues, why!?!?!?

Both for Russia and China, yeah sure viewed with that style of rose tinted glasses then sure you’re right about everything.

I'm not ignoring Ukraine border. I think they have sovereignty. I'm generally against separatism, which is why I think Crimea should have stayed with Ukraine.

Same thing for China, they definitely have disputes in the SCS and their position is untenable.

I just don't see how you go from that to saying that WW3 is imminent. These kinds of things are more or less par for the course in geopolitics. All in all all of these things have lead to less instability and death than the first few months of the Iraq war, and that was far from WW3 too.