Share This Article
Has the global conflict already begun?
Many people wonder when the Third World War will break out, without considering an alternative interpretation of the current geopolitical landscape: according to this view, a global conflict is already underway, even though there has been no official declaration of war between the major powers.
The victims and battlefields of war may seem distant but the economic, financial and strategic dynamics of conflict on a global scale are becoming increasingly evident.
After all, world wars do not necessarily begin with an official declaration. They can develop gradually as major powers compete for control of resources, trade routes and strategic infrastructure.
Strategic resources: then and now
The dynamics of today’s competition are, in some respects, reminiscent of those that characterised the 20th century.
During World War II, for example, military campaigns such as the Battle of El Alamein and operations in the Caucasus were also linked to control over energy resources and supply routes.
Oil was a key strategic resource, while control of the main sea routes made it possible to manage trade flows to the Far East.
The Pacific also played a decisive part in the competition between the great powers, with the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor forming part of a broader context of military, energy and commercial tension.
Today, the nature of the competition has changed but strategic resources remain at the heart of geopolitical balances.
Finance, gas, oil, rare earths and major shipping routes are among the most important assets in the new global competition.
New strategic fronts have also been added:
- microchips and semiconductors, with Taiwan at the centre of technological competition;
- space and satellite networks, which are becoming increasingly important for communication and military systems;
- cyberspace, where cyber-attacks have become a means of exerting pressure;
- energy and commercial infrastructure, which are essential to the functioning of the global economy.
Financial warfare and de-dollarisation
One of the most significant aspects of the new geopolitical confrontation concerns international finance.
In recent years, the concept of the weaponisation of finance has gained prominence, referring to the use of economic and financial instruments as tools of geopolitical pressure.
From this perspective, the international financial system is no longer merely infrastructure designed to facilitate trade but has also become a strategic tool in relations between states.
The role of the dollar, together with the influence of international financial infrastructure, therefore assumes central importance.
Economic sanctions, restrictions on market access and the freezing of foreign exchange reserves can have significant consequences for a country’s economy, affecting its supply chains and its ability to trade internationally.
This form of pressure can be interpreted as a sort of “invisible artillery”: it does not require the direct deployment of armies on the ground, yet it can nonetheless have very significant economic effects.
BRICS and the race toward de-dollarisation
Against this backdrop, several countries are seeking to reduce their dependence on the dollar-dominated financial system.
De-dollarisation has thus become one of the central themes of an international geopolitical and economic analysis.
The BRICS countries, together with emerging economies and other nations of the Global South, are evaluating or developing alternative payment systems and seeking to make greater use of national currencies in international trade.
One of the objectives is to reduce dependence on the dollar in transactions involving commodities and energy.
The confrontation between these two models represents one of the key dimensions of the new global economic competition.
The stakes are particularly high: any transformation of the current international monetary system could profoundly alter capital flows, world trade and financial balances.
In this sense, digital payment systems, national currencies and foreign exchange reserves have become an integral part of geopolitical competition.
The battlegrounds of the energy war
The international crises that dominate the news on a daily basis can, according to this interpretation, be viewed as part of a broader competition for control over energy resources and trade routes.
Eastern Europe
Ukraine represents a strategic hub in energy relations between Europe and Russia and has assumed a central role in the reorganisation of European energy supplies.
The Middle East
The Persian Gulf and the Strait of Hormuz are two key areas for global energy trade. Iran’s position makes this region particularly important in the international energy balances.
Latin America
Venezuela possesses enormous oil reserves and therefore represents another significant element in the broader framework of global energy competition.
The United States and China: the competition for trade routes
Against this backdrop, the United States seeks to maintain a strong presence along major international shipping routes.
According to this interpretation, the strategic objective includes containing China in the Indo-Pacific, maintaining a presence in the Atlantic and the Mediterranean and safeguarding energy interests in the Persian Gulf.
China, for its part, is strengthening its naval capabilities and energy ties with several countries, including Russia, Saudi Arabia and Iran.
At the same time, Beijing is continuing to develop land-based and commercial infrastructure with the aim of expanding alternatives to traditional sea routes.
The competition between the United States and China therefore extends beyond the military sphere to encompass energy, infrastructure, technology, trade and finance as well.
Sabotage, infrastructure and commercial shipping
Another element of the current scenario concerns the attacks and acts of sabotage that have affected energy infrastructure and international commercial trade.
Among the incidents cited in the analysis are:
- the Nord Stream pipeline, a European energy infrastructure system damaged by explosions in September 2022;
- incidents involving ships and infrastructure linked to energy trade;
- tension in the Mediterranean, which is becoming increasingly important for commercial and energy routes;
- seizure and interdiction operations involving ships and cargoes linked to countries subject to sanctions.
These episodes demonstrate how civilian infrastructure, commercial vessels and energy routes can become strategic elements in contemporary conflicts.
The historical parallel lies with the Battle of the Atlantic, when sea routes and the transportation of resources were an essential component of the clash between the major powers.
The fundamental difference is that today’s confrontation simultaneously involves multiple geographical areas and multiple levels, ranging from conventional warfare to finance, via technology and cyberspace.
The role of international law and diplomacy
The growing confrontation between the major powers also raises questions about the future of international law and diplomacy.
According to critics of the current geopolitical approach, the increasingly frequent use of sanctions, economic pressure and military means risks reducing the scope for diplomacy.
At the same time, international confrontation is accompanied by a growing polarisation of information and a strong narrative divide between the different sides.
In this context, the ways in which various conflicts are portrayed and the role of international institutions are increasingly being called into question.
Issues such as the rulings by the International Criminal Court, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and the policies of the United States, NATO, the European Union, Russia and Ukraine are also fuelling a particularly heated political and diplomatic debate.
The central issue, however, remains the progressive weakening of the international community’s ability to find shared diplomatic solutions to crises.
The Third World War: why don’t we recognize it?
Why, then, do we keep asking ourselves when the Third World War will begin?
One possible answer lies in our traditional concept of war: we imagine a global conflict as a direct confrontation, with clearly identifiable fronts and the armies of the major powers simultaneously engaged on the battlefield.
Contemporary warfare, however, can take different forms.
Economic sanctions, trade wars, cyber-attacks, technological competition, control of resources, energy crises and regional military conflicts can all be part of a broader international confrontation.
It is precisely this overlapping of different levels that makes it difficult to pinpoint a precise moment in which a hypothetical global conflict might have begun.
How can we move beyond global conflict?
The question can therefore be framed differently.
Not merely whether the Third World War will begin, but whether the world is already undergoing a phase of global conflict characterised by economic, financial, technological and military means.
The process of reshaping the international balance of power is already visible in the transformation of alliances, supply chains, energy markets and financial flows.
The real issue, then, becomes how to reduce the risk of further escalation and how to re-establish scope for diplomacy and international cooperation.
