Opinion | The risk of World War III is real
By Tom Fowdy
French President Emmanuel Macron has shocked the world by stating last night following a meeting of European leaders that the prospect of NATO troops committed to Ukraine cannot be ruled out, and affirmed that Russia "cannot be allowed to win." The remarks come amidst a series of setbacks for Kiev on the battlefield as US Congress holds up a $95 billion designating aid for them. Although Macron stressed that there was "no consensus" behind such a move, the comments represent a growing open alarmism that Ukraine will ultimately lose the conflict if things continue as they stand.
The prospect of NATO troops being sent to Russia directly raises the grim prospect of a potential World War III scenario. While such an outcome is often used with exaggeration and drama, it is undeniable that we are now realistically closer to it than at any point since 1945, because never at any point was a direct head-on conflict with the Soviet Union ever thinkable even amidst the gravest tensions of the Cold War, and of course neither during that time did we ever have an actual major European war of such a scale, let alone an influential European leader actually directly touting the prospect of war with Russia itself.
Rationally speaking, Macron's comments are more realistically a negotiating ploy to try and make America panic, as well as others to "up their game." He's raising it as a "last resort" to try and warn others of what outcomes await if things fail, but that hardly justifies the sentiment and doesn't lead to the outcomes he necessarily wants. If anything, it is likely to stiffen opposition to the Ukraine war in the long run because it demonstrates to the Western public that it is increasingly unwinnable and creates political questions, of which were silenced previously, as to what price is worth paying in order to ensure this outcome.
After all, for the past two years, the Western media have been able to legitimate and manufacture consent for continued aid to Ukraine by pushing the misleading narrative that Kyiv is in fact winning the country and Putin is finished, which was floated on one-sided, selective coverage and astronomical exaggerations of Russian casualties and setbacks, contrasted with a total censorship of that of the other side. The Western response to the Ukraine war was not in fact a calculated strategic masterplan (neither was it for the Kremlin) but in fact a hasty gamble which seemed to believe Russia could be crippled with a combination of sanctions and military support to Ukraine.
Thus, it was the expectation of Western leaders that Putin's revenue sources, and ability to procure and manufacture equipment, would collapse, and that in turn a Western-backed Ukraine would drive out his forces and force a settlement in their favor. It was for this reason that Boris Johnson, amongst others, played a key role in thwarting a swift peace agreement not long after the invasion began in April 2022, changing from a "stop the invasion now" to a "stop talking, let's push for a defeat of Russia" position. That was their overconfidence, and the events of that year seemed to affirm that and consolidate this narrative, thus allowing Western leaders to market "victory" to their populations.
However, reality has now struck, and Western leaders now must justify the predicament that escalation in Ukraine, to stop Russia from winning, is in fact worth it precisely because the previous strategy has failed. If we are to take Macron's comments literally, that means we are to consider putting our own lives, the risk of a nuclear exchange, and the subsequent global catastrophe it will create, on the table. The appeal of supporting Ukraine to the West was acceptable as it was marketed as helping a country fight for victory while we were not directly involved and at risk.
We have been armchair observers of this conflict, comfortable, amidst the economic inconveniences it may have otherwise caused as we sit from afar and watch Ukrainians and Russians kill each other, but now these politicians are raising the prospect of us really being part of it. This might enthuse some, but it otherwise for most wipes away the façade of propaganda which similar to 1914 said, "it will all be over before Christmas", the mythology of a swift, inevitable and decisive Ukrainian victory, built upon two years of mainstream media lies. Thus, now that we "really" have to think about it, some people will start to think twice and room for the marginalized resistance to the Ukrainian conflict will grow throughout Europe.
I personally believe that European leaders, apart from in fanatical countries such as the Baltics, do not have the political will to do this, and in continental Europe such an outcome would empower radical and populist movements pushing to overturn the status quo. But if it did, it certainly raises the prospect of World War III, and in this scenario with the election on the horizon and Trump looming, there is a zero chance the US would directly participate in such a war. If Congress can't pass an aid package for Ukraine, they aren't sending American lives into it, and the orange man would be back in a landslide victory.
The author is a well-seasoned writer and analyst with a large portfolio related to China topics, especially in the field of politics, international relations and more. He graduated with an Msc. in Chinese Studies from Oxford University in 2018.
The views do not necessarily reflect those of DotDotNews.
Read more articles by Tom Fowdy:
Opinion | How the media coordinated to kill Volkswagen in Xinjiang
Opinion | The politics of 'Chinese New Year' vs. 'Lunar New Year'
Comment