Has World War 3 Already Begun? Examining Zelensky’s Claim, Global Conflict Expansion and the Economic Fallout of Modern War

24 February 2026

Paul Francis

Want your article or story on our site? Contact us here

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky has stated that Russia has “already started” World War 3, arguing that the conflict in Ukraine is no longer a contained regional war but part of a much wider global confrontation. The comment has triggered debate, scepticism and concern in equal measure.

Rusty, destroyed tank on a muddy street lined with bare trees. Distant construction vehicles and workers are visible under a cloudy sky.

At first glance, describing the Russia–Ukraine war as World War 3 sounds like political hyperbole. Historically, a world war involves multiple major powers formally fighting each other across multiple theatres. NATO forces are not in direct combat with Russia, and there are no formal declarations of war between global blocs. On those grounds alone, many analysts would reject the label.

However, a more serious question sits underneath the headline. Could the conflict already function globally in ways that resemble a systemic world war, even if it does not meet the classic twentieth-century definition? When you look at geopolitical involvement, proxy support and economic disruption, the picture becomes more complex.

Why Zelensky Is Framing It This Way

Zelensky’s language is not accidental. It serves both as a warning and as a strategic message to allies. He has repeatedly argued that Russia’s ambitions extend beyond Ukraine, and that failing to stop Moscow now risks broader instability in Europe and beyond.

From Kyiv’s perspective, two realities support that argument.

President Volodymyr Zelensky in black attire sits on blue chair holding papers, numbered "001," with a microphone nearby. Background shows blurred figures in suits. — Image by Le Commissaire

First, multiple external state actors are materially involved. Russia has received military equipment and support from Iran and North Korea. Iran has supplied drones that have been used extensively in strikes on Ukrainian infrastructure. North Korea has reportedly provided artillery ammunition and other military assistance. China has not directly entered the conflict, but it has maintained significant economic ties with Russia and continues to play a major role in global trade dynamics connected to the war.

Second, the consequences of the conflict are not limited to Eastern Europe. Dozens of countries are tied into the war through military aid, sanctions, intelligence sharing, or trade realignments. When nations across continents are financing, arming or economically isolating one side or the other, the conflict begins to take on a broader character.

That does not automatically make it a world war. But it does challenge the idea that this is a purely regional dispute.

A Web of Conflicts and Proxy Involvement

Modern warfare rarely resembles the declared total wars of the past. Instead, it is often fragmented, multi-layered and interconnected.

The Russia–Ukraine war sits within a wider environment of global tension. Conflicts in the Middle East, instability in parts of Africa, rising tensions in the Indo-Pacific and ongoing geopolitical rivalry between major powers create a backdrop that feels less like isolated crises and more like a shifting global fault line.

When states supply weapons, ammunition and strategic resources to opposing sides in conflicts, even indirectly, it introduces elements of proxy warfare. When sanctions regimes divide the global economy into competing blocs, economic rivalry starts to mirror political confrontation.

In that sense, Zelensky’s statement may be less about tanks crossing borders and more about the architecture of global alignment that is forming around this war.

The Global Economic Dimension

If there is one area where the argument gains measurable weight, it is economics.

The Russia–Ukraine war has had profound global economic consequences. Commodity markets were shaken early in the conflict. Energy prices surged. Agricultural exports were disrupted. Countries far from the battlefield experienced rising costs for food, fuel and raw materials.

This was not a temporary ripple. It triggered sustained inflationary pressure in many economies and forced governments and central banks to adjust policy. Energy-importing nations had to find new suppliers. Trade routes were reconfigured. Entire sectors were forced to reassess sourcing strategies.

Steel and industrial metals provide a useful example. Russia and Ukraine both play roles in global metallurgical supply chains. Disruptions to production and exports have contributed to price volatility and market uncertainty. When steel prices rise or become unstable, industries such as automotive manufacturing feel the impact. Car manufacturers depend on predictable input costs. When materials fluctuate sharply, production planning becomes more difficult, and margins are squeezed.

Molten metal is being poured into a container in a fiery, industrial setting. Bright orange and yellow sparks fill the air. — Conflicts have increased global steel prices

At the same time, defence spending has risen sharply in Europe and elsewhere. Industrial capacity is being redirected towards military production in several countries. That shift not only affects weapons manufacturers. It influences labour markets, raw material demand and public spending priorities.

Sanctions add another layer. Restrictions on Russian energy, technology and financial flows have reshaped global trade patterns. European nations have reduced reliance on Russian gas. Liquefied natural gas markets have tightened. New energy partnerships have formed. These are structural changes that may last decades.

When war reshapes global energy flows, industrial inputs, inflation rates and government budgets, its impact is not confined to the battlefield.

Is This Enough to Call It World War 3?

Under a strict historical definition, the answer is still no. Major global powers are not directly fighting one another in open warfare across multiple continents. Alliances have not formally declared war against each other.

But if the term is used to describe a systemic global confrontation that involves military, economic and geopolitical dimensions spanning continents, the argument becomes harder to dismiss outright.

The Russia–Ukraine war involves multi-national support networks, sanctions regimes that divide global markets, industrial reorientation towards defence, and economic shocks that reach households thousands of miles from the front line.

That does not make it World War 3 in the classic sense. It does suggest that modern conflict can generate world-scale consequences without traditional declarations.

Zelensky’s statement may be rhetorically charged. Yet when you examine the geopolitical alignments, proxy involvement and economic transformation underway, it becomes clear why he frames it in those terms.

Whether history will eventually classify this period as the early stage of a broader global conflict remains unknown. What is certain is that the war in Ukraine has already reshaped global politics and economics in ways that extend far beyond its borders.

Current Most Read

AI Video, Copyright, and the Turning Point No One Wanted to Talk About

Measles Is Rising Again: What Is Happening in London and Around the World

From Cinema to Screen: How Release Windows Have Changed Since the 1980s

Paul Francis
Nov 13, 2024
4 min read

In the late 1980s, movie lovers in the UK would often have to wait years for their favourite films to reach their home screens. A recent nostalgic advert from ITV, one of the UK’s main terrestrial channels, highlighted this waiting game with its Christmas Day 1988 premiere of The Empire Strikes Back, the second instalment of Star Wars, originally released in cinemas in 1980. ITV's showing was the first time UK audiences could watch the film on free-to-air television—a staggering seven years after its theatrical debut. Today, however, we live in an era where movies seem to hit streaming services almost as soon as they leave cinemas. Let's look at how the journey from cinema release to home viewing has changed over the decades.

The 1980s Waiting Game: From Theaters to TV

In the 1980s, there were a few different paths a film would take after leaving the cinema. After a theatrical run, some films might see a VHS release, but even that could take a year or more. Then, after an extended delay, they might make it onto a paid TV network, such as Sky in the UK. But for most viewers who didn’t have access to pay TV, the real prize was the “terrestrial premiere” on channels like ITV or BBC One, which often took years to arrive. Other examples from this era include:

Raiders of the Lost Ark (1981): It premiered in UK cinemas in 1981, but didn’t reach ITV screens until 1987.
Back to the Future (1985): Released in cinemas in 1985, but UK audiences had to wait until December 1990 for its terrestrial premiere on ITV.
E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial (1982): This iconic film hit cinemas in 1982 and didn’t appear on terrestrial TV until 1988 on BBC One.

This long delay was partially due to the licensing models and limited broadcasting options at the time. With fewer channels and the value of these television premieres sky-high, networks could demand—and viewers expected—a long wait for big films.

The 1990s and Early 2000s: Home Video Revolution and Cable TV

The 1990s brought a massive change with the rise of home video and the popularity of VHS rentals. This era shortened the wait for home viewing but still kept a long gap before films hit terrestrial TV. Pay-per-view and cable channels like Sky Movies (launched in the UK in 1989) began to narrow the gap, bringing films to television sooner but still long after cinema releases.

Throughout the 90s, blockbuster films like Jurassic Park (1993) and Independence Day (1996) saw quicker turnarounds to VHS and cable TV. Still, these films would typically reach terrestrial television about four years after their theatrical release. In the early 2000s, DVDs brought better accessibility and shortened the home-viewing window even more, but big premieres on free-to-air television were still highly anticipated and usually years in the making.

Today’s Fast-Tracked Releases: The Rise of Streaming

By the 2010s, the emergence of streaming services like Netflix, Amazon Prime, and later Disney+ and HBO Max, fundamentally shifted the landscape. Rather than waiting years to see a hit movie on their screens, viewers could see major films within a few months of their theatrical releases. This shift was accelerated by the COVID-19 pandemic, which led many studios to release films directly on streaming platforms either simultaneously with or shortly after cinema releases.

For example:

Black Widow (2021): Released in cinemas in July 2021, it premiered on Disney+ the same day for an additional fee.
Dune (2021): Released in October 2021 in cinemas, it became available on HBO Max within a month for streaming subscribers.
Avatar: The Way of Water (2022): Released in cinemas in December 2022, it was available for purchase online by March 2023, only three months after its release.

With this quick turnaround, viewers now expect movies to arrive on streaming within months. Terrestrial TV premieres are almost an afterthought, and viewers rarely wait years for a film to become accessible at home.

Are We Taking This Content for Granted?

In the 1980s and 90s, the excitement around waiting years for a beloved film to air on TV created a shared sense of anticipation and made each premiere a significant cultural event. Now, with nearly instant access, movies have become disposable. The unique experience of “the wait” has all but vanished. While we may appreciate the convenience, it’s worth considering that this immediacy may lessen the lasting impact that films once had.

This fast-track approach has also put pressure on the cinema industry. While box office numbers were recovering from pandemic shutdowns, more people are choosing to wait for films to hit streaming rather than paying for a cinema ticket. The shift recalls a debate that began in the 1950s when television was seen as a potential “cinema killer.” Each technological advancement—from TV to VHS to streaming—has sparked concerns about the survival of the cinema experience. Yet, for now, cinema still endures, albeit with increasing challenges.

The Changing Landscape of Film Consumption

Today, we live in an age of instant gratification where movies are accessible at the click of a button. Compared to the 1980s, when the wait for home viewing spanned years, modern viewers have an embarrassment of riches. While we may take this convenience for granted, it’s worth reflecting on how the excitement of movie premieres, both in cinemas and on TV, has diminished as a result.

As streaming services continue to shrink release windows, cinemas are adapting to an uncertain future. Whether this trend will ultimately lead to the “death of cinema” remains to be seen. But one thing is clear: the journey from the big screen to our living rooms has never been quicker, and the nostalgic value of waiting may soon be a thing of the past.

Did You Know? Fun Factoids

TV Was Cinema’s First Rival: The emergence of television in the 1950s sparked the first major concern about the survival of cinemas, with predictions that TV would keep people at home and reduce cinema attendance.
VHS and DVD Changed the Game: Before streaming, home video shortened the wait for movies at home, but most films still took at least six months to hit VHS shelves.
Streaming Today: Many studios now make films available on streaming within 90 days of theatrical release, compared to the 3-7 year delay common in the 80s.

This shift in film access means we now see films as content rather than events, changing how we value and interact with cinema culture itself.