Recent headlines out of Eastern Europe have set the world on edge. The 1,000-day mark in the war between Ukraine and Russia passed in mid-November, with news of escalations in the fighting on both sides. 

In the past month alone, North Korea has sent troops into Ukraine on Russia’s behalf, the Biden administration has given Ukraine permission to fire long-range missiles and use anti-personnel landmines, and Russia has launched an intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) into Ukraine. 

What should Americans make of these rapid developments? Are fears that the crisis is heading toward world war unfounded? 

Experts in international relations appear divided on the cause of the escalation and the motivations of the major players involved. They are also split on the danger posed by war involving Russia, which is the world’s foremost nuclear power. 

The intensification comes during a period of increasing global instability, which includes a complicated transfer of power in the United States and increasingly high-level cooperation between Russia, China, North Korea and Iran. Domestic political posturing and strategic misdirection by the conflict’s main actors further blurs the reality on the ground. 

 

Transfer of Power in the US

Experts across the divide appear to agree that the timing of the escalation and the transfer of power in the U.S. is not coincidental. 

Some, such as Justin Logan, director of defense and foreign-policy studies at the Cato Institute, believe the Biden administration’s decision to permit Ukraine to fire long-range missiles into the Russian mainland was influenced by concerns over President Joe Biden’s legacy. 

“Our side is losing this war, and it’s an important legacy item for the Biden administration,” he told the Register. “As they leave office, they’re throwing everything they have to stop the bleeding, in terms of Ukraine losing territory. Notably, they have released anti-personnel mines to Ukraine, which is not something you do when you’re winning. I think they see things slipping away from them, and they are panicking.” 

Jakub Grygiel, professor of politics at The Catholic University of America, also believes the transfer of power in the U.S. is playing a role in the escalation — on both sides.

“Putin sees a window of opportunity because the transfer of power is a moment of chaos,” said Grygiel, who was a former senior adviser to the U.S. State Department. “And Biden is trying to not lose Ukraine under his watch. He started his presidency with the disastrous Afghanistan withdrawal, and he certainly doesn’t want it to end with the collapse of Kyiv.”

Biden’s decision on long-range missiles came as a result of the presence of North Korean troops on the front lines, according to reports. In response, Vladimir Putin altered Russia’s nuclear doctrine to lower the threshold for nuclear-weapons use. And Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov stated that Ukraine’s use of long-range missiles signals direct involvement in the war by America and its allies. 

But many believe these escalations are occurring because, with the coming of the second Trump administration, a negotiated peace deal is on the horizon.

“Wars often get ugliest just before diplomacy starts,” said Logan. “Both sides are trying to maximize their negotiation leverage.”

The Trump presidency is certain to signal a new American approach to the conflict. Trump repeatedly vowed to broker a peace deal between Russia and Ukraine during the 2024 campaign. And during a recent interview with Fox News, Trump’s selection to become his national security director, Republican U.S. Rep. Mike Waltz of Florida, reiterated the call to bring the war to a “responsible end.”

Eugene Finkel, professor of international affairs at Johns Hopkins University, believes Biden’s long-range missile move means that he believes the war will soon have a negotiated conclusion. 

“Ukraine will try to get as much as they can before they will be stopped by the Trump administration,” he told the Register. “As for the Russians, they are trying to scare the Ukrainians to be more willing to negotiate and make concessions once Trump comes to power.”

World War III?

The introduction of approximately 11,000 North Korean troops comes after the June signing of a “comprehensive strategic-partnership treaty” between Putin and North Korean leader Kim Jong Un. In exchange for the troops, North Korea reportedly received air-defense missiles and military equipment, as well as the opportunity to learn about modern warfare. 

In addition to the North Korean pact, Russia has agreed to a “no-limits” partnership with China that includes strategic military cooperation to counter what it believes is the belligerence of the West. Russia has also strengthened its ties to Iran in recent years, including joint military support in Ukraine and in Iran’s conflict with Israel. The increased cooperation between these Eastern powers sparked fears of a third world war.

Grygiel believes fears of a global conflict are warranted, though a larger conflict is not a forgone conclusion because the objectives of the Eastern powers remain divergent: In Ukraine, for instance, Russia prefers a quick victory, while China prefers a protracted struggle that keeps both Russia and the U.S distracted from Beijing’s designs in the Indo-Pacific, he said. 

When asked if he is worried if the current situation could spiral into a global war, Grygiel responded, “The short answer is yes. There’s coordination based on the expectation that it will benefit each side. They’re all very selfish, and self-preservation trumps everything else. Would they form a grand alliance against the West? I don’t know.”

Finkel believes these partnerships are not as deep and won’t be long-lasting.

“The cooperation between Russia and North Korea is not necessarily for ideological reasons, and the same goes for Russia and Iran,” Finkel told the Register. “Those are not alliances but marriages of convenience. It’s much more driven by immediate concerns and money. They are not a bloc. They are all looking for their own advantage.”

For Logan, the increased cooperation between Eastern powers is the result of failed American policy.

“There should be tensions between Russia and China, but by isolating Russia, we have pushed Moscow into an unbalanced relationship with Beijing,” he said. “Russia needs to take whatever deals it can get with China, which is the dominant power. When it comes to the North Koreans and Iranians, we’ve left them very few choices. Having locked out the Iranians from large chunks of the international economy, they have begun to work with Russia in creative ways.” 

How Alarming Is This?

These escalations have split the American foreign-policy intelligentsia into two camps, broadly speaking: those who are highly alarmed and those who believe the conflict will wind down without additional major calamities. 

Logan describes himself as being in the former camp, though he is admittedly more concerned by the threat of nuclear war than most. 

“I’m quite alarmed. I don’t know whether the chances of a nuclear detonation have gone up five times or 10 times, but that’s too much, in my view,” he said. “The consequences would be so dramatic that these chances are too high. The update in the Russian nuclear doctrine was expected, but that doesn’t make it any less alarming.” 

Grygiel, however, finds himself neither among the alarmists nor the optimists.

“I’m not alarmist in the sense that every time Russia says, ‘This is a red line, and if you do this, we’re going to go ballistic,’ I think something is going to happen, because often nothing happens,” Grygiel said. “But I’m also not saying that these developments are irrelevant. After all, they just launched an ICBM the other night. It’s an escalation, sure, but it’s not Armageddon yet.”