How close are we to World War Three?
Regional conflicts are reshaping military alliances, with majority of Western citizens believing world is becoming more dangerous
Last Thursday, 11 June, marked a “sombre milestone” in Europe, The Economist reported. At 1,569 days, or more than four years and three months, the war in Ukraine has now lasted longer than the First World War.
When Russia launched its full-scale invasion in February 2022, few, if any, expected fighting to go on as long as it has. However, like the world wars that preceded it, the conflict has “transformed Europe’s geopolitics by reshaping military alliances and driving a defence build-up not seen in decades”, said The Irish Times.
Russia is seen as the biggest threat to peace in Europe, according to Politico’s February poll of more than 2,000 people in the US, Canada, UK, France and Germany. The vast majority of those surveyed also said the world is becoming more dangerous, and World War Three will more likely than not break out within the next five years.
The Week
Escape your echo chamber. Get the facts behind the news, plus analysis from multiple perspectives.
Sign up for The Week's Free Newsletters
From our morning news briefing to a weekly Good News Newsletter, get the best of The Week delivered directly to your inbox.
From our morning news briefing to a weekly Good News Newsletter, get the best of The Week delivered directly to your inbox.
Russia
As Ukraine peace talks remain stalled, Western leaders have repeatedly warned of the threat posed by Putin’s territorial demands.
Addressing the Munich Security Conference in February, Keir Starmer said Europe “must be ready to fight” Russia “if necessary” as the danger continues to grow. The UK PM warned that “Russia’s rearmament would only accelerate” once a peace deal in Ukraine is agreed and that “we must answer this threat in full”. His comments echo those by Mark Rutte, the Nato secretary general, who said the West “must be prepared for the scale of war our grandparents and great-grandparents endured”.
Putin has also warned that he is ready to fight a war with Europe if necessary. Should this happen, it would probably come through the provocation of Nato’s European allies at a “number of pinch points – especially in the Baltic, the North Atlantic and through the Balkans”, said The Independent.
The Kremlin has already begun testing Nato defences and resolve with a series of airspace incursions into Estonia, Romania and Poland.
Join 350,000+ subscribers and keep yourself informed with a selection of The Week’s most interesting, enlightening and entertaining stories - plus daily puzzles.
Last month Russia held its largest military exercises in years, a rehearsal for what its defence ministry called the “preparation and use of nuclear forces in the event of a threat of aggression”. A total of 65,000 troops, more than 200 missile launchers, 140 aircraft, 73 surface vessels and 13 submarines, including eight strategic nuclear submarines, took part in three days of drills across Russia and close ally Belarus.
Moscow has highlighted “broader European rearmament and debates surrounding nuclear sharing”, as well as statements by Lithuania’s foreign minister about a potential strike on the Russian enclave of Kaliningrad, as “justifications” for its latest military exercises, said Defense News.
At the same time, the Institute for the Study of War think tank said Moscow is “intensifying its covert and overt attacks against Europe” in preparation “for a possible Nato-Russia war in the future”.
In a sign of growing fears at an imminent attack, Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, as well as Poland and Finland, have announced they are withdrawing from a landmark landmine treaty as they seek to shore up their defences on the border with Russia. There have also been renewed efforts to revive a Baltic “bog belt” along Nato’s eastern flank to protect Europe from Russia.
Middle East
The Trump administration’s deal to end the war with Iran was “already under strain” just hours after it was unveiled on Monday “as Israel suggested it would stay in Lebanon despite the reported agreement stipulating the conflict would be ended on all fronts”, said The Independent.
Israeli defence minister Israel Katz said in a statement the military would not withdraw from security zones in southern Lebanon and would “remain in the security zones in Lebanon, Syria, and Gaza, without any time limit, to protect, from there, the border and Israeli communities against jihadist elements” and would retaliate if Iran attacked.
Israel’s continued presence in Lebanon has sparked deep anger in Tehran. Last week both sides traded tit-for-tat strikes for the first time since April which threatened to scupper a US-brokered peace deal.
There has been a “growing sense in the Western military community” that, were “the US to get sucked into a ground war in the Middle East”, China and Russia would “waste no time” in exploiting the situation, said Richard Shirreff, former deputy supreme allied commander of Nato in Europe, in the Daily Mail.
Beijing could “seize the opportunity” to launch its “longed-for invasion of Taiwan”. That’s a Third World War “in anyone’s book”, with “all the major powers” going into the conflict “possessing weapons that could kill billions”.
The weakening of Hezbollah in Lebanon, the fall of the Assad regime in Syria and the decommissioning of Hamas mean Iran has lost much of its proxy influence across the region. But Tehran’s ability to retaliate against Gulf states and Western bases in the region, and effectively block the strategically vital Strait of Hormuz, has surprised many and made the risk that a regional conflict could turn into a global one more – not less – likely.
Those who see “the spectre of a third world war are both right and wrong”, said Doug Stokes, head of the School of International Relations at Modul University Vienna, in The Spectator. They’re “wrong if they mean a singular, cataclysmic escalation”, but they’re “right” if they mean that a “structural contest between the United States and a loose Sino-Russian-Iranian axis” is “well under way”, and will be “fought through proxies, economic leverage, and the systematic contestation of strategic geography”.
China
It has long been assumed that the greatest threat to geopolitical stability is rising tension between China and the US, with Taiwan expected to be at the centre of any future military confrontation.
Beijing sees the island nation as an integral part of a unified Chinese territory. It has, in recent years, adopted an increasingly aggressive stance towards the island. It has denounced Taiwan’s ruling Democratic Progressive Party, which won an unprecedented third term last year, as dangerous separatists. At the same time, the US has ramped up its support – financially, militarily and rhetorically – for Taiwan’s continued independence.
Last year, the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) conducted live-fire military exercises in the Taiwan Strait, in what was seen as a “dress rehearsal for a possible real blockade in an attempt to overthrow the government in Taipei in the future”, said the BBC.
China has also “held live-fire drills on the doorsteps of Australia, Taiwan and Vietnam”, tested new landing barges on ships that “could facilitate an amphibious assault on Taiwan”, and unveiled deep-sea cable cutters “with the ability to switch off another country’s internet access – a tool no other nation admits to having”, said The Guardian.
For the first time last week, Taipei Taiwan reported mainland Chinese law enforcement vessels near an island it controls in the South China Sea, a “development experts say could form the basis of Beijing’s effective control in the waters”, said the South China Morning Post.
The Trump administration has long pursued a hawkish stance towards China and its ambitions on Taiwan. Yet its position has softened after starting its war with Iran, and seeing potential in leveraging Beijing’s influence with Tehran.
With the Trump administration focused on the Middle East, “what everyone’s looking at is whether China sees an opportunity” and goes for Taiwan sooner than expected, said The Guardian’s diplomatic editor, Patrick Greenfield. “That would be how we got to a world war.” The Chinese “insist that’s not the case” but “it must be tempting for people in the Chinese government if they are intent on recapturing Taiwan”.
Many observers anticipate that China will look to invade Taiwan by 2027, which is seen as a “magical” year because it marks the centenary of what was to become the PLA, said Robert Fox in The Standard. The idea that this anniversary could coincide with a serious military operation by Beijing has become a “fixation” in Washington, said Defense News.
If there’s one ally almost every Republican in Washington wants to defend, it’s Taiwan against China, said Time. Beijing knows a full-scale invasion of Taiwan would “risk direct war with the US”.
Invading Taiwan would “trigger Western sanctions far worse than anything imposed on Russia”, said Geoffrey Cain in The Spectator, and “after what happened to Khamenei”, Beijing “knows that escalation does not end with sanctions”. To “survive” any sanctions, China “needs countries willing to sell it oil off the books”, help it “move money past Western banks and provide political cover”, Iran and Russia were “supposed to be those countries”, so Xi may need to think again.
North Korea
North Korea’s leader Kim Jong Un called on top military officials to bolster frontline units and turn the border with South Korea into an “impregnable fortress,” state media KCNA reported on Monday.
Since the beginning of 2024, Kim has slowly moved the hermit kingdom away from “the idea of a peaceful unification” with South Korea, said The Associated Press. South Korea has since scrapped a 2018 non-hostility pact aimed at lowering military tensions.
“Kim’s government has repeatedly dismissed calls by Seoul and Washington to restart long-stalled negotiations aimed at winding down his nuclear weapons and missiles programmes, as he continues to prioritise Russia as part of a foreign policy aimed at expanding ties with nations confronting the US,” said The Independent.
North Korea has sent thousands of troops and weapons to fight against Ukraine, a move that “has raised concerns Moscow could provide technology that strengthens Kim’s nuclear-armed military” in return.
In April, Kim hailed a “new history of friendship with Russia written in blood” as he presided over the opening of a memorial in Pyongyang built for his troops killed fighting in Europe. Moscow, in turn, pledged to sign a five-year plan for bilateral military cooperation.
The main concern, of course, remains the border with South Korea, one of the most highly militarised places on earth. Last spring, North Korea conducted the first test-firing of the weapons system of its new 5,000 tonne “Choe Hyon-class” destroyer, according to KCNA. The new warship can apparently launch nuclear-capable ballistic missiles, and that, security and defence analyst Michael Clarke told Sky News, “shows the level of their ambition”.
Around the same time, South Korea said its soldiers had fired warning shots at North Korean troops who had crossed the demarcation line between the two nations – some of whom were armed.
Rather than North Korea invading South Korea, “the more likely scenario”, Dr Sean Kenji Starrs, lecturer in international development at King’s College London, told the Daily Mail, would be China “encouraging or pressuring” it to do so “in order to expel US troops”. That would “open a new front against the US so that China could more easily take Taiwan”.