Although the general public is not belligerent, the rolling of drums of war, the clomp of marching boots, and the clatter of breech-loaders grow louder. Under pressure from Trump, military budgets have begun an upward climb that is set to accelerate. They are to rise to 5% of GDP for each Western country by 2035. Several of them had, however, previously struggled to reach the 2% target. The budget of the US Department of Defense, by far the largest in the world at US$1 trillion per year, will increase to the astronomical sum of US$1.5 trillion. Japan approved a record military budget. Europe is not lagging behind, with the German program being the most ambitious: a large army (the largest in Europe), and war industries to replace civilian industry hampered by “sanctions” against Russian gas. Old revanchist urges are resurfacing. As the continent’s industrial heartland deindustrializes, it would reindustrialize through rearmament. Finally, a NATO bank will soon be created to finance military projects.
This vast reallocation of resources toward “defense” can only be achieved at the expense of social needs, public services, and infrastructure, even the economy itself. Accumulated debt is already skyrocketing, and further recourse to printing money would lead to hyperinflation and currency devaluation, particularly of the US dollar. The immediate objective is to fill the order books of the arms industry, in which US arms manufacturers would have the lion’s share. But the availability of military hardware, coupled with bellicose rhetoric, makes passing to action easier and points toward an increasingly violent future.
The European Commission is on a war footing; van der Leyen and Kallas are pushing relentlessly. With a martial tone and in battle order, Western European leaders have set a three- to four-year timeframe for the outbreak of hostilities against Russia. Even the German church is preparing for the fateful moment.[1] Two major conflicts are already underway in Ukraine and West Asia, while an armed confrontation with China is in the making. The war would be global if the major military powers—the United States, Russia, and China—were to engage in direct conflict, as the repercussions would extend across the entire planet, including to non-belligerent countries.
The approach in this article is twofold: first, to identify the conditions that give rise to fears of a world war; then, to identify the factors that could counteract them.
The possibility of a world war arises because new developments in recent years make it conceivable. To grasp the essential characteristics of our era, the analysis must be situated within its historical context. Three distinct periods can be identified.
Defensive imperialism
In the aftermath of World War II, the United States held a dominant position and wielded a hegemony unmatched by any previous empire. While Europe lay devastated, the US controlled nearly half of global industrial production, three-quarters of the world’s gold reserves, the world’s reserve currency, and virtually limitless raw materials. They were ideally positioned to establish, for the first time in history, a global imperialism that placed the entire world in a subordinate position, at their disposal. This is the defining characteristic of US imperialism compared to its European and Japanese predecessors. However, the strengthening of the USSR during World War II, the entry of Eastern Europe into its sphere of influence after 1945, the revolution in China in 1949, and the decolonization of the Global South wrested most of the globe from US control. It was necessary to wait and postpone the prospect of placing the entire globe under the control of a single imperialism. From the 1940s to the 1970s, the prevailing winds blew in a liberating, anti-colonialist, and anti-imperialist direction. American policy was that of an imperialism thwarted, or at the very least, put on hold. It was largely defensive: to preserve acquired possessions and prevent, by all means, more countries from joining or aligning themselves with the socialist camp.
The reversal began in the 1970s. On the one hand, newly independent countries experienced enormous difficulties in developing, achieving stability, and preserving their independence. Gradually, they lost various gains made thanks to decolonization and found themselves once again dependent and in a neocolonial position vis-à-vis their former colonizers or the United States directly. On the other hand, socialist countries experienced economic malfunctions that they were unable to overcome, leading to the loss of their status as models, dependence on capitalist countries, and ultimately, the collapse of their systems and the dismantling of the USSR.
Conquering imperialism
The consequence was a complete transformation of the international context from 1990 onward. Obstacles to US hegemony seemed to have been eliminated, and the path appeared clear for the establishment of a global American imperialism. What had been put on hold between 1945 and 1990 now became achievable. It was a moment of euphoria, of self-congratulation for the ” sole superpower,” of celebration of “the end of history,” of the advent of “freedom” worldwide, of the proclamation of an Americentric globalization that would benefit everyone, of daydreams about the end of conflicts and the enjoyment of the “peace dividend.” Idealism ran rampant, optimism was at its peak, and utopia seemed within reach.
The United States’ policy then consisted of expanding the boundaries of American imperialism to make it truly global. The formerly defensive policy became offensive and expansionist. Many countries were reluctant or slow to fall into line and assume the subordinate position assigned to them in the hierarchy of global imperialism. In that system, also called neoliberal globalization, sovereignty is not recognized and is considered a hindrance to its smooth operation. Independence is antithetical to imperialism. It was therefore necessary to resort to force to compel recalcitrant states to bend and submit.
It all began in 1991, with the war against Iraq serving as a show of force by the hegemon to impress them. Among other things, a range of weapons systems was displayed to intimidate them. This was only the beginning. The neoconservatives, fanatical warmongers, were in charge in the West and, like their Israeli siblings, were convinced that force was the appropriate means to overcome the resistance of “enemies,” demonized and slandered as the “Axis of Evil,” “rogue states,” “terrorists,” and so on. For three decades, triumphant and hubristic, the United States waged endless wars. At no point were they at peace, nor did they leave the world at peace. Turning into an absurdity, the promises of 1990-1991 proved to be nothing but a sham, at best a mirage. And demagoguery about imperialism being « humanitarian » or aiming to spread « human rights » and « democracy » served to hoodwink public opinion.
From Iraq to Somalia, Yugoslavia, Sudan, Iran, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, Yemen, and Ukraine, the United States attacked directly, by proxy, or through hybrid warfare (military aggression combined with destabilization by various means). Direct wars were militarily successful because the targets were always weaker countries, and the wars resembled the colonial campaigns of the past, with a staggering imbalance in the number of deaths. However, military victories resulted in strategic failures because the United States was unable to control the countries it occupied and was forced to withdraw, sometimes ignominiously, as in Iraq and Afghanistan. It was quick to declare victory, but unable to establish peace. Therefore, it preferred proxy wars, which allowed it to remain on the sidelines. Simultaneously, it launched “color revolutions” with “regime changes” to bring countries under its control (Serbia, Georgia, Ukraine, Armenia, Venezuela, Iran, Kazakhstan, Belarus). The record was mixed. The United States was primarily active in two directions: against the Arab world through violence (support for Israel, wars, destabilization), and against Russia through NATO expansion eastward and “color revolutions” aimed at taking control of countries surrounding Russia.
Intoxicated by its power, that it took to be eternal, oblivious to any sense of proportion, the United States did as it wished in the world, enjoying extraordinary impunity. It considered itself an “exceptional” and “indispensable” nation, above the law, not subject to the rules that apply to others. The “rules-based world order” imposed by the United States was intended as a substitute for international law. The victims of their misdeeds worldwide number in the millions. An article in The Lancet highlights that American “sanctions” caused 38 million deaths between 1971 and 2021.[2] As for their Israeli accomplice, it behaved likewise on a West Asian scale. The UN resolutions it violates would fill volumes. Both are unrepentant outlaws who believe that, for them, anything goes. Lately, trampling on agreements reached (notably the 2014-2015 Minsk agreements, the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action with Iran, the 1987 Intermediate-Range Missile (INF) Treaty abolished in 2019 and the June 2026 Protocol with Iran), cavalier U-turns contradicting policy statements made the day before and assassinations, including under the guise of negotiations, are becoming commonplace.
Distressed imperialism
The twilight of the unipolar era began with the failure of the 2003 invasion of Iraq. The series of fiascos that followed only confirmed that fact. The United States struggled to extend its hegemony, despite the enormous power gap in its favor and the often eager assistance of Western countries linked to it (the allies-vassals) within the framework of imperialism. Meanwhile, the world order was evolving. First, the Americacentric globalization, presented as the ultimate model for humanity, revealed the depth of its flaws during the 2008 financial crisis and then during the 2020-2022 pandemic. Second, as the world continued to evolve, non-Western countries developed rapidly, recovered, strengthened themselves, and loosened their bonds of vassalage. This phenomenon is striking in the case of China and Russia, but it can be observed elsewhere as well.
As a result, the balance of power, overwhelmingly in favor of the United States during the 1990s, shifted in favor of the non-Western world. Consequently, the possibility of integrating them into a subordinate position within US global imperialism faded. On the contrary, the emerging trend was one of emancipation from the American order, of weakening the grip of the dollar, of regaining economic and political independence, and of transitioning from unipolarity to multipolarity. For the United States, the outlook was alarming: to the mixed results of the use of force that underpins imperialism would be added the loss of the privilege of exploiting the world’s economic resources at will by printing dollars and living off the backs of others.
Reflecting these realities, the geopolitical situation underwent a significant transformation. US wars changed in nature. Previously undertaken to expand imperialism, they were now waged to slow its disintegration and attempt to return to the bygone era of absolute hegemony of the 1990s. All of this was reminiscent of King Canute and the legend that he commanded the waves of the sea to recede. Offensive and aggressive in the immediate tactical sense, took on a strategically defensive character aimed at preserving an imperialism on its last legs. A belligerent agent and troublemaker in the world during the expansion phase, the United States is even more so in the current phase of contraction. The conquering imperialism of the late 20th century is now an anguished, anxious, and bewildered imperialism. It is flailing about to reverse the course of history and return to the past. Erratic, irrational, devoid of even the most basic logic, a cartoon character, Trump is its very embodiment. Mistaking its desires for reality, underestimating its victims, overestimating its power, the United States suffered a string of major setbacks: failure against Russia in the proxy war in Ukraine, open defeat (jointly with its Israeli associate) in a direct war against Iran which revealed to the world the limitations of their instruments of coercion, essential to domination. The only solace is the concoction of increasingly ludicrous “stories” and “narratives.” Faced with an implacable reality, the US leadership takes refuge in mythmaking (“alternative facts,” “parallel world”) in the hope of finding relief and deceiving the public. And the anticipated confrontation with China is yet to come.
Facing the threat of a new world war
The United States still clings to the fantasy of imposing its global imperialism on the entire world, just as its partner Israel cherishes the chimera of becoming the hegemon in West Asia (“Greater Israel”) and redrawing the region’s map (a continuation of the 1916 Sykes-Picot Agreement, secretly concluded by Great Britain and France). Two entities, each representing a tiny minority in their respective worlds (4% of the global population and 1.5% of the population of West Asia, respectively), aspire to dominant roles. Both are unhinged, despite their setbacks in Iran.
As for the geopolitical landscape, it boils down to this: the United States is desperately fighting against the natural evolution of the world, believing it can halt the course of history. Its failures only make it more belligerent, more insensitive to risk, and more prone to delusion. It is putting the world at risk and endangering it. The “color revolutions” and conflicts on Russia’s periphery have escalated into a war against Russia through the instrumentalization of Ukraine, and then into a war with direct military intervention against Iran. The United States is striving to seize the sources of China’s oil and gas supplies (Venezuela, Iran) and to disrupt its lines of communications (Asia, the Indian Ocean) with the aim of strangling it. All that remains is direct confrontation with Russia and open war against China – in other words, world war. The current global conflict can turn into a world war.[3] These are not mere conjectures. Currently, lacking other solutions, the US authorities, with their conventional weapons stockpiles wasted in Ukraine and Iran, are debating the use of tactical nuclear weapons, as if their use could be confined to the “theater of operations” without leading to strategic missiles of mass destruction, global thermonuclear war, and the extinction of life on Earth. This relentless pursuit of hegemony is the primary source of instability, disorder, and conflict on a global scale. The continuity of this policy is evident in the Trump presidency. Elected on a promise to end the neoconservative warmongering line, he is proving to be its zealous executor.
Two far-reaching and contradictory trends are clashing. On the one hand, the United States cannot suspend its imperialism because it depends on it. Lacking sufficient profitability, its industrial production has been abandoned or transferred abroad, while the United States retains the military industries, the upper echelons of finance, and the tools of command and control (information technologies, the industry for manufacturing ideology in all its forms, and the apparatus of mental warfare and cognitive distortion). The privilege of the dollar allows it to attract foreign investment without economic justification, to freely print money and import cheaply, and to live beyond its means as a rentier. This system constitutes the imperialism of our time. It is entirely to its advantage and will be defended by force of arms. Unable to compete or maintain its economic position, it pursues a policy of “sanctions,” destabilization, disruption, and the promotion of chaos against countries that threaten to slip from its grasp, as it exploits their vulnerabilities and the fault lines within and between them. Unable to maintain its dominance or turn back the clock to the 1990s, it resorts to destroying anything that evolves outside its control. Its policy is purely negative. It has nothing constructive to offer.
n the other hand, the world beyond continues to develop, whether the United States approves of it or not. This development is not directed against it, but its success demonstrates that subordination to US imperialism is unnecessary and that it is even advantageous to do without it. Economic interactions independent of the United States will eventually take place in national currencies, thus stripping the dollar of its exorbitant privilege. Representing the pinnacle of imperialism, the dollar’s exceptional status allows the United States to siphon wealth from abroad. The development of the rest of the world leads to its strengthening and, as a corollary, to challenging any submission to a foreign rentier, a parasite fattening itself on an artificial monetary status quo. Ultimately, the imperialist system would be called into question.
These are the two profound forces whose contradiction underlies the current global struggle, which could degenerate into a world war. Were it not for nuclear weapons, a conventional world war, like those before it, would have already broken out. Faced with the Russian and Chinese arsenals, the United States is forced to think carefully, if only to survive. The doctrine of mutually assured destruction remains operative, notwithstanding the inclination of certain hotheads to play with fire. Paradoxically, the destructive power of nuclear weapons can dampen warlike fervor. Above all, it compels a different approach. This is why the war against Russia has a hybrid character. The United States prioritizes external pressure to promote destabilization, “color revolutions,” and “regime change” in order to prevail without exposing itself to reprisals. It counts on internal collapses to achieve victory without a fight. The first instruments of external pressure are “sanctions”, asset freezes and a range of hostile actions intended to incite a population to revolt not against the United Stated but against its “regime”.
This was played out in recent weeks with the drone campaign on Russian territory. Russia refrains from retaliating because most of the drones are shot down and the damage remains minor and easily repairable. It is not allowing itself to be distracted from the war in Ukraine by a diversionary operation whose only tangible result is the continued flow of arms and money to Kiev. Nor does it want to play into the hands of European leaders who are calling to arms while chanting in unison that Russia intends to conquer Europe (while being pathetically inept in the face of Kiev’s victorious troops). A contradiction in “narratives.” The costly consequences of their 2022 decision to follow the United States down the path of conflict with Russia dictate their need for a permanent war psychosis to absolve themselves of responsibility. Furthermore, the Russian population, which suffered 27 million deaths between 1941 and 1945, does not flinch because of a targeted bus or a burned-down refinery. So the West is raising the stakes in the hope of having an impact. Soon, this will be followed by the boarding and capture on the high seas of tankers carrying Russian oil. Therein lies the danger: from one provocation to the next, the escalation could very well one day touch a vital Russian interest, trigger a response, and lead to war. We know that NATO’s expansion toward Russia since 1994 eventually reached Ukraine, a region extremely sensitive for Russian security, and that this ultimately resulted in war.
The march toward world war is plain, but it is not inevitable. At the very least, it can be delayed and postponed to an indefinite future. Globalization and, for the United States, the pursuit of imperial objectives across the globe, have drained Western economies of their industrial substance. War requires rearmament (which has already begun) that can only be achieved at the expense of the population’s social needs and through increased debt and taxes, not to mention further inflation. The sacrifices this entails, the pressures on social cohesion, the rise in tensions, and the expression of political opposition will follow, as we are witnessing in Europe. It is true that we must guard against illusions: in 1914, powerful socialist parties and major trade union federations, all dedicated to peace, were swept away by the tsunami of chauvinism that engulfed the continent.
Nevertheless, it is not a foregone conclusion for either the peacemakers or the warmongers. As the danger materializes, awareness will grow. If social and political forces unite to emphasize the priority of collective well-being, saber-rattling governments could be ousted from power. This will not guarantee peace, but its chances will be improved.
[1] https://braveneweurope.com/geopolitics/pascal-lottaz-germanys-churches-ready-for-war/
[2] https://www.thelancet.com/journals/langlo/article/PIIS2214-109X(25)00189-5/fulltext
[3] Samir Saul, Michel Seymour, Le conflit mondial du XXIe siècle, Paris, L’Harmattan , 2025.
