The most fashionable debate in the field of international relations in recent days is perhaps the possibility of a Third World War. Discussing a new world war might seem easy, but the most terrifying aspect is the possibility of such a war starting. From Europe to the United States, from the Asia-Pacific to Türkiye, many experts are debating this issue and discussing the possibility of a new world war. For instance, according to the analyses of Hugh Lovatt from the European Council, Deborah Haynes from Sky News and Michael Vatikiotis from The Diplomat, the “rules-based order” led by the West is weakening, and nothing is yet clear about what might replace it.
In fact, similar points are highlighted by policymakers on the international stage. Due to the situation in the Ukraine War, European leaders, particularly Russian leader Putin, emphasize the danger of both nuclear war and a new world war. Perhaps the most striking statement on war came from the Balkans, a region highly sensitive and experienced in matters of conflict. Serbian President Aleksandar Vucic, when asked about World War III, said he does not expect a world war but that a major conflict seems imminent. Vucic’s response has echoed around the world, and a similar warning has been observed from Türkiye’s Foreign Minister Hakan Fidan. Fidan, highlighting the genocide in Gaza, warned that if Israel does not stop, it could lead to a major regional conflict, calling for restraint from regional countries. As can be seen, the post-Cold War world is, perhaps for the first time, seriously discussing the risk of World War III.
Escalating global tensions
After the war in Ukraine, Europe began to discuss security risks more than ever before, with previously neutral countries like Sweden and Finland joining NATO after significant debates. The situation in Gaza has also sparked major debates within Europe. For example, Hugh Lovatt, a policy expert at the European Council on Foreign Relations, stated in his assessment of Sky News that the current conflicts in the world are separate and unconnected, arguing that tensions in various regions such as Ukraine, the Middle East and the Asia-Pacific are not directly related. However, he adds that this situation poses significant risks for the international community, particularly for the U.K.
While Lovatt’s assessment that the conflicts are not directly related is notable, the way the actors are positioned in the relevant regions actually reveals the reality of a new polarization in the world. Deborah Haynes, Sky News’ security and defense editor, points out that the current global crises increase the risk of world war, particularly emphasizing that Iran’s sudden and large-scale attacks on Israel could deepen the crisis and turn a regional conflict into a global one. Haynes also warns that this situation carries the risk of triggering uncertainties and miscalculations. Haynes’ analysis, in a way, summarizes the Western perspective. While evaluating the current situation, it overlooks Israel’s attacks, which violate all international laws, and holds Iran solely responsible.
Another striking analysis that appeared in the world media was by Michael Vatikiotis in The Diplomat, which publishes analyses on the Asia-Pacific. In his analysis, Vatikiotis states that the “rules-based order” led by the West is weakening and that there is uncertainty about what will replace it. He notes that events like Russia’s invasion of Kyiv and Israel’s war in Gaza are seen as parts of a series of regional conflicts that could be called a world war. Vatikiotis also mentions that these conflicts are developing in an environment where mediation efforts have failed, increasing tensions between major powers. According to Vatikiotis, Israel’s attack on Gaza continues to kill and maim people in the besieged region, bringing the Middle East to the brink of a major war.
Israel’s attack on an Iranian consulate in Syria led to a direct response from Iran for the first time. A possible future missile attack by Israel on Iran could lead to much greater escalation in the region. Vatikiotis’ analysis appears more consistent compared to the Sky News analysis, as it highlights Israel’s irresponsible stance against international law while emphasizing that the uncertainty and disregard for rules in the international arena could lead to a major conflict.
Eurasian dynamics
Another significant analysis of World War III was published in The Week. According to an anonymous analysis published on July 4, 2024, China and Russia are moving to create a vision of an “alternative new world order” for Eurasian countries. In this context, it is highlighted that Moscow and Beijing are managing the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) and trying to transform this grouping from a “regional security bloc” into a “geopolitical counterbalance” against the West. The analysis also notes that the SCO, having accepted Iran as a member last year, is now preparing to include Belarus, Russia’s main European ally. The acceptance of Belarus shows that the SCO is expanding its “geopolitical goals” and emphasizes its aim to challenge U.S. “hegemony” and reshape the international system in their favor.
The recent SCO summit came shortly after Russia and North Korea announced an agreement to assist each other in case of attacks. The Week’s analysis describes all these developments as a “dangerous new chapter” for the world and warns, citing military historian Richard Overy, that the increasing division between the “democratic West and the authoritarian states in Eurasia” could turn into World War III. The analysis in The Week is quite important as it highlights and portrays the serious polarization and division beginning in the world.
The post-Cold War international environment has been tested by many crises, such as the disintegration of Yugoslavia, the Kosovo operation, September 11, the Georgia-Russia war and the Arab Spring, but perhaps for the first time, the emphasis on world war is this pronounced. Especially in Ukraine, the situation has turned into a game of mine between the East and the West. The parties are not hesitating to issue nuclear use warnings at every move in Ukraine. For example, Andrei Kartapolov, Chairman of the Defense Committee of the Russian Duma, told Reuters that if threats increase, they could shorten the decision-making process specified in the official policy for the use of nuclear weapons. While the Russians claim they are being encircled and besieged, the West argues that Putin must be deterred.
For instance, according to Sky News’ international relations editor Dominic Waghorn, if Putin is not deterred in Ukraine, Russia will likely try its luck in the Baltics, assuming that NATO is too “spineless” to stop him. This view will likely be revisited if Donald Trump wins the U.S. presidential election in November. Trump’s repeated threats to withdraw America from NATO, as he has often emphasized that he does not want to bear the costs of the North Atlantic Alliance outside the U.S., could, according to Waghorn, open the way for Putin to the Baltics.
While it is clear that all actors in the world are waiting for the U.S. elections, another topic of discussion after Ukraine is undoubtedly the Asia-Pacific. Particularly, North Korea has become an unending headache for the West, especially with the recent cooperation and defense agreement signed with Russia. North Korea has been focusing on modernizing its nuclear and missile arsenals since the 2019 talks with Trump collapsed due to disagreements over international sanctions on Pyongyang. Whether the recent agreement with Russia serves this purpose will be revealed over time. However, it is also a fact that South Korea and Japan, relying on American protection, are concerned about all these developments. Although no direct military action has been initiated from the North to the South since the 1953 armistice, it has been observed that the war drums around the world have also increased tensions on the Korean Peninsula in recent weeks.
The most significant factor fueling the discussion of World War III is perhaps that the world is no longer just two poles trying to stay balanced as it was during the Cold War. In an environment where the central and peripheral approaches in Wallerstein’s “World System Theory” have become blurred, the approaches of actors outside global powers like the U.S., Russia and China to world affairs are gaining increasing importance.
For instance, the views of Turkish Foreign Minister Hakan Fidan on this issue are quite noteworthy. Türkiye has become an actor that attracts attention in global affairs with its stance and rhetoric in recent years as a regional actor. Hakan Fidan, as a Foreign Minister coming from an intelligence background, emphasizes the importance of Europe becoming a more independent and confident geo-strategic actor in cooperation with Türkiye. Considering Trump’s potential re-election and his statements about Europe-NATO relations, Fidan’s remarks gain importance. Fidan warns that the world must take regional or global war scenarios seriously and highlights that the “massacre and genocide” in Gaza is dividing humanity.
If there is a common conclusion that can be drawn from the analyses of Hugh Lovatt, Deborah Haynes, and Michael Vatikiotis discussed in this study, it is that the rules-based order led by the West is weakening, and there is uncertainty about what will replace it. The recent debates in Europe are particularly noteworthy. The election processes and results in the European Parliament, France and the U.K., and the discussions during these elections seem like evidence of a loss in the search for an order. The balance between Europe’s geo-strategic independence and transatlantic relations could be decisive in the coming period. As Hakan Fidan emphasizes, Europe needs to maintain its internal peace and take global war scenarios seriously. If the process in Gaza and the crisis in Ukraine are not resolved through diplomacy, regional tensions could escalate to a global level. In this sensitive period, it seems that the eyes of the whole world are on the U.S. presidential elections.
However, it is also a fact that no one expects a miracle from the new U.S. president. What needs to be done here is to revise the system established after the Cold War against the possibility of a new global war. Because it is now a reality that crises and conflicts have the potential to create more instability worldwide. For the sake of global peace and stability, there is a need for a revision of the structure of the U.N. Security Council and to ensure the indisputability of international law. There is no need to wait for a new world war for this. Because after a new world war, there will be no sense in discussing all these issues.
