THE WAR: The Age of Wars and the WW3 by Dmitry Trenin

lighteye (71)memberin Deep Dives • 15 hours ago (edited)

^{Source / Извор: profile.ru}

Аутоматски превод на српски језик

You can consider this text a continuation of the previous article by Dimitri Trenin entitled “The West’s war on Russia will go beyond Ukraine”…

This is an automatic translation from the Russian original, with a few minor corrections by me. Since neither English nor Russian are my native languages, inaccuracies are not excluded, but I hope that the essence of the text will not escape you.

* * * Dmitry Trenin * * *
The Age of Wars: The Third World War has already begun, but not everyone understands it

July 12th, 2025

Many people are talking about humanity’s drift towards a “Third World War,” implying that something similar to the events of the 20th century awaits us. However, war is constantly evolving. It will not come to us in the same way as it did in June 1941 (a large-scale military invasion) or as we feared in October 1962 during the Cuban Missile Crisis (a massive nuclear attack). In fact, the world war is already here, even if not everyone has noticed or understood it. The pre-war period ended for Russia in 2014, for China in 2017, and for Iran in 2023. Since then, the scale and intensity of the war in its current form have been steadily increasing. This is not a “second Cold War.” Since 2022, the Western war against Russia has taken a decisive turn, and the transition from a hot but indirect conflict in Ukraine to a direct nuclear confrontation with NATO countries is becoming increasingly likely. Donald Trump’s return to the White House provided an opportunity to avoid such a confrontation, but by the middle of the year, the prospect of a major war had once again become dangerously close, thanks to the efforts of European countries and American hawks. The current world war is a combination of several conflicts involving the leading powers: the United States and its allies, China, and Russia.

Despite the variability of its forms, the cause of this world war is traditional: a shift in the balance of power in the world. Sensing that the rise of new centers of power (primarily China) and the restoration of Russia as a great power threatens its dominance, the West has launched a counteroffensive. For America and Europe, this is not the last, but certainly the decisive battle. The West is unable to accept the loss of global hegemony. This is not just about geopolitics. Western ideology (political and economic globalism and socio-cultural posthumanism) fundamentally rejects diversity, national or civilizational identity, and tradition. For the modern West, abandoning universalism would be disastrous, as it is not prepared for a regional status. Therefore, the West, with its substantial resources and a shaky but still existing technological advantage, seeks to eliminate its perceived rivals.

To destroy is not an exaggeration. When former U.S. President Joe Biden used the word in a conversation with Brazilian President Lula da Silva, he was more outspoken than when his Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin spoke of “strategically defeating Russia.” What a war of annihilation looks like was demonstrated by Western-backed Israel, first in the Gaza Strip, then in Lebanon, and finally in Iran. The fact that the same scheme was used to destroy targets on the territory of the Islamic Republic as in the attack on Russian military airfields on June 1 is no coincidence. It is also logical that the United States and the United Kingdom are likely to be involved in both sabotage operations, as Russia, like Iran, China, and North Korea, is considered an implacable enemy of the West in Washington and London. This means that compromises are not possible in the ongoing war; only temporary lulls are possible.

Two hotbeds of world war are already burning: Eastern Europe and the Middle East. A third has long been identified: East Asia (Taiwan, the Korean Peninsula, the South and East China Seas). Russia is directly involved in the war in Europe; its interests are affected in Iran; and it may be involved in the Far East in one way or another. The three hotbeds are not all. New ones may be created, from the Arctic to Afghanistan, and not only along the country’s borders but also within it. Instead of the previous strategies of warfare, which included breaking the enemy’s will and ability to resist, as well as controlling their territory, modern strategies focus on provoking internal destabilization and chaos rather than occupying the enemy’s state.

The West’s strategy towards Russia – after the failed attempt to inflict a “strategic defeat” – is to exhaust it economically and psychologically in the war, to destabilize our society, to undermine the country’s leadership and its policies, causing new unrest. The adversary assumes that its efforts should culminate during the period of transfer of supreme power.

As for the methods of achieving this goal, the West does not limit itself (and its proxies) to almost anything. Absolutely anything is acceptable. The war has become voluminous. Thanks to the widespread use of increasingly sophisticated drones, the entire territory of any country, its facilities, and its citizens have become vulnerable to targeted attacks. Such strikes are carried out against strategic infrastructure and strategic nuclear forces; against facilities of the nuclear complex and nuclear power plants; politicians, scientists, public figures, diplomats (including official negotiators), journalists, and, it is important to add, their family members are assassinated. Mass terrorist attacks are organized; residential areas, schools, and hospitals are targeted – not randomly! – and shelled. This is a total war in the truest sense of the word.

Total methods of warfare are based on dehumanizing the enemy. The sacrifices of others (including those of one’s own allies, not to mention proxies) are not taken into account. The enemy’s living force and population are considered to be biomass. Only one’s own losses matter, as they can affect the level of electoral support for the government. The enemy is an absolute evil that must be defeated and destroyed. The attitude towards evil is not a matter of politics but of morality. Hence-no even external respect for the enemy, as it was in the Cold War. Instead, it’s hate speech. Enemy leadership is criminal by definition, and the populations of enemy countries are collectively responsible for the leaders they tolerate. The international structures captured by the West (organizations, agencies, tribunals) have been turned into part of a repressive apparatus aimed at persecuting and punishing opponents.

Dehumanization is based on total control over information and methodical and high-tech brainwashing. Rewriting history, including the Second World War and the Cold War, blatant lies about the current state of affairs, the prohibition of any information coming from the enemy, and the persecution of those citizens who doubt the validity of the single narrative, turning Western societies into convenient targets for manipulation by the ruling elites. At the same time, the West and its proxies, often using a more lenient regime in the enemy’s country, recruit agents to provoke internal conflicts, such as social, political, ideological, ethnic, religious, and others.

The enemy’s strength lies in the cohesion of the global globalist (already post–national) elite and the successful indoctrination of the population. The strength of the enemy. The split between the United States and the rest of the West under Trump should not be exaggerated. There has been a split within the Trump group itself, and Trump is also drawing closer to his recent critics. Recent experience has shown that many important decisions are being made by the deep state, bypassing the current president. This is a significant risk factor. The West still possesses a significant military force and the means to project it globally. It maintains technological leadership, financial hegemony, and dominance in the information field. Its theater of war encompasses everything from sanctions to cyberspace, from biotechnology to the realm of human thought. Its strategy is to defeat its enemies one by one. The West has practiced this strategy on Yugoslavia, Iraq, and Libya, where no one stood up for them. Currently, it is engaged in an indirect war with Russia. Israel, supported by the West, has attacked Iran. North Korea and China are on the waiting list.

The “hot” war in Ukraine is moving towards a direct war between Europe and Russia. In fact, Europeans have been deeply involved in the conflict for a long time. British and French missiles are striking Russian targets, NATO intelligence is being shared with Ukraine, and Europeans are training the Ukrainian Armed Forces and planning military, sabotage, and terrorist operations together. Many EU countries are supplying Ukraine with weapons and ammunition. Ukraine is a tool and a disposable asset for Europe, and the war is not limited to Ukraine. As Ukraine’s human resources dwindle, NATO/EU will draw on the resources of other Eastern European countries, particularly those in the Balkans. This should give Europe time to prepare for a medium-term war with Russia.

A reasonable question is: is this preparation for defense or for attack? Perhaps some European elites have fallen victim to their own propaganda about the “Russian threat,” but for most, it is a matter of maintaining power in the face of pre-war hysteria. Nevertheless, the dangers coming from the west must be taken seriously. Of course, we should not expect a literal repeat of June 24, 1812, or June 22, 1941. There may be (and probably will be) provocations from the Baltic to the Black Sea; attempts to open a “second front” in Transnistria, Transcaucasia, or somewhere else are likely. Particularly dangerous may be: the transfer of powerful weapons by Europeans to Kiev, about which it will be claimed that Ukraine itself produced them; attempts to block the exit from the Gulf of Finland or Kaliningrad; new sabotage against Russia’s strategic facilities. The main thing is that the European elites have once again set out to solve the “Russian question” in one way or another.

In no way should Europeans be taken lightly or condescendingly. Because Europe has failed in many ways, its leaders are nervous and mobilized. Europe’s loss of strategic thinking and its leaders’ lack of prudence and even common sense make it more dangerous. The hostility of Europe’s ruling circles towards Russia is not a passing trend that will soon be replaced by a “business-as-usual” attitude. It’s not just about using Russia as an enemy to unite the European Union and combat internal competitors. And it’s not just about old-fashioned phobias and grievances. More importantly, Russia is not just a “significant other”; it stands in the way of the West’s (including Europe’s) hegemony, representing a civilizational alternative that confuses ordinary Europeans and limits the ability of European elites to exploit the rest of the world. As a result, a united Europe is seriously focused on defeating Russia.

So we have a long war ahead of us. There will be no such victory in Ukraine as in 1945. The confrontation will continue in other forms, it is possible that it will also be in the military. Nor will there be a sustained standoff (also known as peaceful coexistence)like during the Cold War. On the contrary, the next few decades promise to be very dynamic. We will have to continue fighting for Russia’s rightful place in the emerging new order.

What should we do? There’s no turning back, and there’s no peace ahead. It’s time for decisions and actions. This is not a time for half-measures; half-heartedness leads to disaster.

The main thing for us is to strengthen the rear without weakening the front. We need to mobilize our forces, but not according to the instructions of 50 years ago, but in a smart way. If we fight half-heartedly, we will definitely lose. Our strategic advantage, which is our confident political leadership, must remain intact and, most importantly, must be seamlessly reproduced. We must have a clear understanding of where we are going and how we are going to get there. Our economic, financial, and technological policies must fully comply with the harsh realities of a long-term confrontation, and our demographic policies (from birth rates to migration) must stop and reverse the dangerous trends that threaten us. The patriotic unity of the population, the practical solidarity of all its social groups, and the strengthening of a sense of justice must be the primary concern of the government and society.

We need to strengthen our external alliances and partnerships. The military alliances in the west (Belarus) and in the east (the DPRK) have proven to be effective. However, we do not have a similar ally in the south. We need to work on strengthening the southern tier of our geopolitical strategy. We must carefully analyze the outcomes and consequences of the war between Israel and Iran and its regional allies. The enemy is acting as a unified bloc, aiming to eliminate its enemies one by one. From this, we and our partners need to draw an obvious conclusion: instead of copying Western formats, we need to achieve better coordination and effective cooperation.

It is possible and necessary to play a tactical game with the Trump administration, as it has already yielded some tactical results (for example, it has helped to reduce the U.S. involvement in the Ukrainian conflict). However, it is important to remember that tactics are not a strategy. The willingness to engage in dialogue has discouraged many people and led to dreams of a return to the “bright past.” On the other hand, the American political elite remains generally hostile towards Russia. There will be no new détente with the United States, and the previous one ended poorly. Yes, the process of reformatting the American foreign policy strategy from “imperial” to “great power” will probably continue after Trump’s departure. We should keep this in mind and use it in our practical policies.

The European leaders of the struggle against Russia-Britain, France, Germany-need to be made clear (not only in words) that they are vulnerable and will not be able to remain unscathed in the event of a new escalation of the Ukrainian conflict. The same message should be addressed to the “activists of the first hour” of the anti-Russian war – Finns, Poles, and Balts. Provocations on their part must be met with an immediate and powerful military response. Our goal is to instill in the enemy (saving) fear, knock down his arrogance, make him think and stop.

In general, one should act according to one’s own choice and logic. One should act boldly, not necessarily in a mirror-like manner. And not necessarily in response. If a confrontation is inevitable, one will have to launch preemptive strikes. Initially, with conventional means. If necessary, after careful consideration, with special means, i.e., nuclear weapons. Nuclear deterrence can be not only passive but also active, involving the limited use of nuclear weapons. The experience of the war in Ukraine shows that decision-making centers should not be immune. There, we were heavily “in debt” with strikes, which gave the enemy a false impression of our level of determination. In the struggle that was imposed on us, we must be focused on victory, i.e., the complete destruction of the enemy’s plans.

We need not only to break through the enemy’s air defense in Ukraine (and, if necessary, in other places), but also to break through the information dome that the West has erected. Post-Soviet Russia has refused to interfere in the internal affairs of other countries. In wartime, this is an unaffordable luxury. We cannot rely on traditional right-wing or “normal” left-wing forces to come to power and make everything better. Instead, we must undermine the united front of our opponents from within, playing on the conflicting interests and ambitions of different states, forces, and individuals. Europe is not homogeneous. Along with the leadership cell (England, France, Germany) and a group of provocateur activists (Finland, Poland, the Baltic states), there are dissidents (Hungary, Slovakia – while the current governments are in power there), the number of which may increase (for example, to the size of the former Austro-Hungary), as well as a fairly large “passive” from among the countries of Southern Europe (Italy, Spain, Greece, Cyprus). In general, the field for information and political work is large. NATO and the EU are hostile organizations for us, the OSCE is mostly useless, but we need to actively engage in dialogue with all sober-minded forces in Europe and create coalitions for life, peace, and humanity. Russia does not intend to “kidnap” Europe, but we will have to bring peace to it.

Dmitry Trenin is the Director of the Institute of World Military Economy and Strategy at the Higher School of Economics.

Source in Russian: Эпоха войн: Третья мировая уже началась, но не все это понимают