That the incompetent actions of one person can spark a global conflagration is a matter of the utmost absurdity. This indicates a failure of the intellect so rampantly oblivious to consequences as to be rightly-called “remedial”.
On a broader scale, just what does the historical record reveal about the catastrophic fate of autocratic systems that step over this threshold into conflict? The invocation and amplification of boundaries, differences and perceived threats is their ideological stock-in-trade but the potential for, and growing probability of, apocalyptic sociopolitical self-disassembly indicates the untenable nature of the position they choose to inhabit. It begs a question of whether or not they do actually choose this belligerent imperialistic orientation towards the world or if it arrives prefabricated and emergent as the lowest common denominator solution of a regulatory matrix that is genuinely not clever enough to understand the complexity of either itself or its context.
Yes, there may be a strategic calculus behind these provocations. It is really quite difficult not to assess motivations and incentives in this context as being inflated by a purely infantile narcissism and its associated bias for belligerence.
Context: Chinese fighter jet came within 10 feet of US bomber, Pentagon says
Daedelus Kite 