Why Has World War III Not Started?

Dear Readers,

On the morning of February 24, 2022, when Russian tanks crossed the Ukrainian border, the world held its breath for a moment. A major war had begun in Europe again after many years. Television screens showed exploding missiles, burning cities, and refugee convoys stretching for kilometers. In those days, most international commentators were asking the same question: "Is World War III beginning?"

This fear was actually quite logical. Because at that time, world politics was polarizing around two increasingly hardened power axes. On one side were the United States, the European Union, NATO countries, Japan, and the Western alliance in general. On the other side, an increasingly close bloc was noticeable: Russia, Iran, China, and North Korea. History had taught us that such periods often ended in major wars.

However, what was expected did not happen. Although the war in Ukraine has been going on for four years, the world has still not plunged into a global war. NATO and Russia did not directly confront each other, China did not send troops to the war, and Iran and North Korea did not open a global front. So the main question is: Why did World War III not start?

The two great world wars of modern history followed a similar pattern. First, the great powers lined up in two blocs, and then a relatively small crisis ignited the entire system. In 1914, Europe was divided into two major alliances. The Entente Powers, consisting of Britain, France, and Russia, were on one side; the Central Powers, consisting of Germany and Austria-Hungary, were on the other. The assassination of Austrian Archduke Franz Ferdinand in Sarajevo became the spark in this system, and all blocs entered the war in a short time.

A similar situation occurred in 1939. While Germany, Italy, and Japan formed the Axis bloc; Britain, France, the Soviet Union, and later the USA were on the Allied front. Germany's invasion of Poland quickly started a global war. For this reason, historians usually explain the emergence of world wars in four stages: first, bloc formation occurs, then tension rises, a small crisis emerges, and finally, the blocs enter the war simultaneously.

Europe before the First World War is often described as a "powder keg" for this reason. Because at that time there was a great arms race, the alliance system was extremely rigid, nationalism was rapidly rising, and diplomatic crises were constantly increasing. In such an environment, even a small event was enough to explode the entire system. The Sarajevo assassination was only a spark; the real issue was that Europe had already turned into a powder keg ready to explode.

Russia's invasion of Ukraine at first glance resembled this historical model. The world seemed to be divided again around two major power axes. However, a very important difference emerged here. In 1914 and 1939, the blocs entered the war simultaneously. In 2022, this did not happen. Western countries provided great military and economic support to Ukraine, but NATO armies did not directly enter the war. As a result, the war was big but did not turn into a global war.

A different strategy seems to have emerged in today's international system. In the international relations literature, this is sometimes called "sequential containment." If we were to translate this into Turkish, this concept refers to the strategy of sequentially limiting or weakening rivals. The logic of this strategy is quite simple: instead of fighting a major war with the rival bloc simultaneously, pressure the significant forces of the other side at different times and on different fronts.

From this perspective, the Ukraine war can be seen as the first front. Russia has been focused on the Ukraine war for four years. This war is straining Russia not only militarily but also in areas such as economic sanctions, diplomatic isolation, and the intensive use of military resources. In other words, Russia has been drawn into a long-term war.

Why might the Iran war not turn into a global war?

Today, the ongoing Iran war in the Middle East makes many people ask the same question again: Could this war be the beginning of a global conflict?

Looking at historical examples, this fear is understandable. Because major wars have often started with a regional crisis. However, today's geopolitical conditions are significantly different from the past.

First and foremost, great powers now know very well the cost of fighting each other directly. The existence of nuclear weapons, the interdependence of the global economy, and the destructive costs of modern warfare deter great states from entering a direct world war.

Secondly, the competition seen in world politics today is mostly conducted through regional crises. The Ukraine war is concentrated in Europe. The Iran crisis has emerged in the Middle East. The Taiwan tension is experienced in the Asia-Pacific region. Although these crises are interconnected, they have not yet united on a single global front.

The third important point is that great powers do not want to confront their rivals simultaneously. If Russia, Iran, and China were to confront each other on a single front at the same time, this could indeed turn into a global war. However, the current strategy shows the exact opposite. Rival powers are being pressured at different times and in different regions.

Therefore, no matter how dangerous the Iran war may be, it may not immediately turn into a world war within the current international balances.

While Russia is concentrated in Ukraine, a new crisis line has emerged in the Middle East. The increasing military pressure of the US and Israel on Iran shows that Iran has also become a new front of global competition. Thus, the second important power of the opposing bloc has also come under serious geopolitical pressure.

In the long run, it is now accepted by many experts that the main great strategic competition will be with China. However, China has not yet been directly drawn into a major war. Instead, China is being pressured in areas such as trade wars, technology competition, military containment in the Pacific, and the Taiwan crisis.

North Korea, on the other hand, is a smaller but strategic actor in this great competition. Due to its nuclear weapons capability and missile program, it constantly carries the potential for crisis, but these crises often remain within regional tensions without turning into a global war.

When all these developments are brought together, a striking picture emerges. In the First and Second World Wars, the blocs entered the war simultaneously. Today, however, rival powers confront each other not simultaneously, but on different fronts and at different times. For this reason, some analysts describe today's world as "a period of sequential crises instead of global war."

Russia's invasion of Ukraine made many people think that World War III had begun. However, the past years have shown that the world no longer operates as it used to. Today's great power competition proceeds with a different logic. Russia is being worn down in the Ukraine war, Iran is being pressured on another crisis front, China is at the center of long-term strategic competition, and North Korea stands on the sidelines of the system as a constant element of tension.

Therefore, the world is not experiencing a single big explosion. Instead, a period of long-term and fragmented crises is emerging. Perhaps this is the greatest paradox of our age: while the world is becoming increasingly tense, great powers now prefer to wear down their rivals over time and on different fronts, rather than fighting simultaneously.