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.
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.
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.
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
More Mascots in Advertising
Paul Francis
May 29, 2024
2 min read
Recently, I wrote an article that talked about some forgotten mascots, as well as a very bizarre one (depending on which country you’re from). That article can be found here.
Today, I want to highlight some characters you might remember, which were created by one company only to be remembered for another, as well as some that were once dropped, but which were revived almost instantly.
Originally a puppet created by Quentin Dupieux (Mr. Oizo), called Stephane, Flat Eric was redesigned by Janet Knechtel while she worked for Jim Henson’s Creature Shop. It was most famous for a small series of adverts for Levi Jeans in 1999. The puppet is still used by the original creator, Mr. Oizo.
Sometimes called the PG Tips’ Monkey, this slightly cowardly little scamp appeared originally with ‘Al’ (played by Johnny Vegas), on the now-defunct ITV Digital. Because Monkey was owned by advertising agency Mother, and not ITV Digital, it was allowed to appear in other programmes and media and played a part in 2001’s Comic Relief and 2002’s BRIT awards. It wasn’t until 2007 that Monkey appeared in adverts for PG Tips and was rebranded as ‘The PG Tips’ Monkey’.
The Tetley Tea folk were originally created by Canadian copywriter John McGill Lewis, with help from Peter Rigby and Wyatt Cattaneo Studios, back in 1973. Tetley’s fictional tea team grew substantially over the years, with several characters being added over time. Tetley put the Tea Folk on lots of their products and associated merchandise, with some becoming highly collectable items, selling for as much as £200 on second-hand markets.
They coined three catchphrases during their run, with ‘That’s Better, That’s Tetley’ being one of the most famous.
They were retired by Tetley in 2001 as the brand concentrated on a younger market with a more modern advertising campaign. By July 2002, however, the company’s sales had slumped by 14%, which they stated was down to the axing of the Tetley Tea Folk. As a result, they made a comeback in 2010 and have appeared on and off TV for the brand ever since.
Mascots can make a brand come alive; however, as shown above, they can sometimes become bigger than the brand they’re representing.
