By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy asserts that Vladimir Putin has already initiated World War III, with Ukraine’s ongoing resistance being the critical factor preventing a wider global conflict. He believes Russia aims to impose its ideology worldwide, and that while restoring Ukraine’s 1991 borders would represent justice, a military attempt is currently too costly in lives due to insufficient weaponry. Zelenskyy has also rejected proposals for territorial concessions in exchange for a ceasefire, emphasizing the importance of not abandoning citizens or weakening national unity.
Read the original article here
President Zelenskyy’s assertion that Putin has effectively initiated World War III, yet Ukraine’s fierce resistance is preventing its full-scale escalation, paints a stark and complex picture of the current global landscape. This perspective suggests that while the seeds of a global conflict have been sown, Ukraine’s ongoing struggle is acting as a crucial bulwark, delaying and potentially averting a wider conflagration.
The driving force behind this perceived escalation, according to this viewpoint, is the notion that continuing the war is the sole means of Putin’s political survival. It’s argued that for him, halting the conflict now is not a viable option; any meaningful peace negotiations are impossible without Russian concessions, which seem unlikely given his current trajectory.
This situation inherently heightens the risk of escalation, as Putin’s objectives are seen as extending beyond Ukraine’s borders. The argument posits that if Russia were to easily conquer Ukraine, their expansionist ambitions would not cease there. It’s the very act of Ukraine resisting this perceived reckless expansion that Zelenskyy is highlighting as a deterrent to a wider World War.
The fear is that if Ukraine falls, it would embolden Putin to continue his campaign across Europe. The reasoning is that he believes Russia was historically treated unfairly and seeks retribution. This implies a long-term vision of reclaiming perceived lost influence, with Ukraine’s military-industrial complex potentially falling into Russian hands, granting them a significant advantage in drone manufacturing, a capability that could prove formidable against the West.
Indeed, the idea of “World War III” might be redefined by some to encompass situations where nations use proxies to indirectly damage other major powers. From this angle, the current conflict, with its global implications and proxy support, could be seen as a symptom of a larger, ongoing struggle, even if not a direct military clash between superpowers.
However, a counterpoint emerges, suggesting that framing the conflict as a “World War III” narrative is a strategic blunder that can actually hinder diplomacy. This perspective argues that such a portrayal polarizes the conflict, making it seem like an inescapable clash of civilizations. This, in turn, makes de-escalation appear as surrender and plays directly into extremist ideologies, potentially making the war seem endless.
The reality is that Putin doesn’t possess the conventional military resources to take on the entirety of his adversaries. As long as Ukraine continues its determined resistance, and a significant portion of Russia’s manpower and domestically produced weaponry remain committed to this front, Russia’s capacity to engage in wider conflicts is demonstrably limited.
This Ukrainian resilience is precisely what is preventing a more immediate and widespread escalation. They are effectively draining Russia’s military capabilities, and the extent to which they can continue to do so remains a critical variable. If Ukraine were to fall, Russia could potentially leverage whatever remains of its forces against other targets, and with a replenished war effort.
There’s a fear that if Russia is not held accountable for this invasion, they will return stronger. The argument is that Ukraine was invaded because it represented the largest military force in Europe. Removing that threat would widen the military disparity between individual European states and Russia, creating a scenario where no single European nation could adequately balance Russia’s quantity, a historical strength.
Furthermore, some believe that Western Europe’s delayed and hesitant support for Ukraine has been a strategic misstep. The hope that Putin would simply wear himself out has, instead, allowed Russia to tread water economically, making the conflict more painful for Europe in the long run. The longer the war persists, the more difficult and costly it becomes for the continent.
The concern is that Western Europe might be plugging its ears to the potential for further Russian aggression, only reacting when it directly impacts them, such as an invasion of the Baltics or Poland. The view is that Europe may be perceived as a potential expendable battleground while the rest of the EU gears up, a scenario that underscores the importance of Ukraine’s current stand.
There’s also the cynical observation that Russia might be aiming for a prolonged conflict, hoping that Ukraine or Europe will eventually give in. The tragic irony is highlighted by the West’s reluctance to provide Ukraine with the blueprints for manufacturing their own air defense systems, potentially due to the short-sighted concerns of Western manufacturers about losing profits, rather than fostering future technological advancement and maintaining a competitive edge.
Ultimately, the prevailing sentiment is that Putin cannot simply withdraw from this war without immense political and personal cost. His legacy, in his eyes, will be defined by this conflict, and he would rather be remembered as a victor, even at a devastating human cost, than a loser. This deeply entrenched position, combined with Ukraine’s tenacious defense, creates the precarious balance where a World War has, in essence, begun, but its full terrifying scope is being contained by the courage and sacrifice of the Ukrainian people.