Russia’s repeated threats of deploying nuclear weapons in the war in Ukraine appear to be just empty rhetoric so far. Moscow authorised the use of its intermediate-range ballistic missiles to strike Ukraine in response to the latter’s launching an attack using US ballistic missiles. The Russian missile was carrying a conventional warhead and not a nuclear one.

Russian President Vladimir Putin said that Ukraine’s use of US missiles against Russian territory amounted to direct US and UK and also NATO involvement in the war and again threatened the deployment of nuclear weapons in response with the implication that this could lead to a world war.

Some analysts saw the US decision to authorise the use of US ballistic missiles against Russia in the conflict as a ploy by outgoing President Joe Biden to complicate a major foreign policy issue for President-elect Donald Trump. Regardless of the motives, however, no one would provide weapons to a party at war and assume that it would not use them.

Fortunately, the prospect of a wider war, between the NATO countries and Russia, for example, is not as likely as the noise surrounding it might imply. Israel’s aggression against Gaza and the West Bank, which has now widened into aggression against Lebanon and Syria, has not developed into a regional war as many feared, at least for now.

During his election campaign, Trump bragged that his previous term in office had been war-free, implicitly blaming Biden and the Democratic administration for being involved in two wars, Ukraine and Gaza, on its watch. He promised to end those wars, but whether he can do so is another matter. There is a need to be sceptical, especially given the isolationist policy the incoming Republican administration is expected to follow.

With US institutions in general weakening since the turn of the century, nothing would stop Trump and his team from executing most of the policy agenda that has been announced so far. The end result is expected to be the implementation of the “America First” slogan on every front. The US role in the world may start to wane, with its Western allies having to live with an isolationist rather than internationalist superpower across the Atlantic.

Could this situation embolden other parties aspiring to a more prominent international role to start advancing their ambitions? Russia might try to overturn its stalling advance in Ukraine, while China might move to annex Taiwan. India might annex the rest of Kashmir and so on. Such developments might seem far-fetched at the moment, but they are not unrealistic, and with the US focusing more on its internal affairs, the world stage could allow such moves one way or another.

Until World War I and the early decades of the last century, the US largely kept itself out of international affairs. When it first became involved in the war, the administration at the time and Congress blamed it on the banks and munitions manufactures that wanted to make profits in Europe. The US only became fully engrossed in global affairs with World War II, not only because it was answering a call from countries such as the UK, but also because it needed to expand to revive its own ailing economy.

Since then, the US has become more and more of a global force, inheriting the legacy of the failing European colonial empires. Its economy thrived on its global interventions, and Washington stretched itself to live beyond its means by borrowing billions of dollars to feed its federal deficits.

With the US flourishing in the second half of the 20th century to become the largest economy in the world, the global economy also grew. Growth was not confined to the traditional centre, in other words Europe and the Western countries, but also took place in the emerging economies in Asia, Africa, and Latin America. The world started to come out of the misery of the depression of the 1930s after the experience of World War II.

Looking at the current state of the world economy, beyond the official macroeconomic indicators, and one sees a different picture that is not sustainable over the long term. Policy adjustments and technological innovations are giving rise to short-lived economic cycles that do not provide the necessary solid foundations for economic and political stability. A major shock might well be necessary to force radical reform followed by a period of regeneration and re-alignment. Could that shock come in the form of a third global conflict?

There is no need for the use of a nuclear weapon, by Russia or anyone else, for a world war to start today. Border clashes between Serbia and Kosovo could spike at any moment, with Serbia regaining Kosovo and Albania involved in an already tense situation. The Balkans have traditionally been seen as the powder keg that has ignited wars, including World War I in the 20th century. But with the tide changing today, such sparks could come from anywhere.

Land-locked Ethiopia could venture into Somalia to secure maritime access from the coast of Somaliland, for example. Venezuela might be prepared to annex Guyana after it becomes a major oil state due to offshore discoveries by US energy companies. In any case, the traditional and emerging global powers have vested interests in a lot of such power struggles. A small war could easily turn into wider clashes that could eventually snowball into a world war.

Trump may not want wars. Russia is still struggling in Ukraine, and China is reluctant to enter any military conflict while it is trying to mend its economy. But these constraints would not be enough to prevent a miscalculation by any party that could trigger a full-blown conflict.

That said, the outcome of such damage could potentially give birth to something positive. The world is in desperate need of structural rebalancing, on both a global and domestic level. One should pray that it does not take full-scale destruction for progress and change to take place, but if that is the case, we should pray that the best will come out of it.  

The writer is a London-based seasoned journalist.
* A version of this article appears in print in the 28 November, 2024 edition of Al-Ahram Weekly