The rules-based world order is in retreat and violence is on the rise, forcing countries to rethink their relationships

In a week in which former allies in a redividing globe separately commemorated the 80th anniversary of the end of the second world war, the sense of a runaway descent towards a third world war draws ever closer.

The implosion of Pax Americana, the interconnectedness of conflicts, the new willingness to resort to unbridled state-sponsored violence and the irrelevance of the institutions of the rules-based order have all been on brutal display this week. From Kashmir to Khan Younis, Hodeidah, Port Sudan and Kursk, the only sound is of explosions, and the only lesson is that the old rules no longer apply.

Indeed Fiona Hill, the policy analyst and adviser to the UK government on its imminent strategic defence review, argues the third world war has already started, if only we would recognise it.

  • Tattorack@lemmy.worldEnglish
    12·
    15 hours ago

    I wonder what even defines a world war anymore.

    There have been several major conflicts in the Middle East (Afghanistan, Syria, Iraq, ISIS) that has involved a significant portion of the world and their armies. So why don’t those count as world wars?

    Or does it only count as a world war if it happens here on European soil?

    • MintyFresh@lemmy.worldEnglish
      6·
      4 hours ago

      Superpowers fighting one another directly across multiple continents. A substantial share of the world population directly involved.

      As terrible as Palestine, sudan, Congo, Yemen, and Ukraine are (I’m sure I missed a few hotspots), they’re rounding errors in terms of percentage of world population.

    • CookieOfFortune@lemmy.worldEnglish
      3·
      12 hours ago

      I’d argue at least a number of the belligerents need to have switched to a war economy and then simultaneously span multiple continents.

      Maybe only Ukraine right now is in a war economy?