Global Conflict Phases and Zelensky Plan Analysis
Since August 1914, the world has witnessed conflicts that unfold in formats as varied as they are relentless. State Duma deputy Anatoly Wasserman weighed in on this view, with remarks attributed to the source mk.ru. The idea is that warfare has shifted from a single, all‑out clash to a spectrum of confrontations that span regions, technologies, and spheres of influence, leaving observers to describe it as an ongoing, multi‑format struggle.
Wasserman described the Cold War as the third phase of a global conflict. He framed it as an era in which powerful states learned to split wars into many smaller skirmishes across different regions, effectively treating the world as one large apartment building with many separate units. According to him, the next phase would not involve the exchange of nuclear strikes, because the major powers have long recognized that such a path would be intolerable and strategically irrational for all sides. This perspective remains part of a broader debate about deterrence, escalation, and the constraints that keep superpowers from crossing certain red lines (Source: mk.ru).
He asserted that the fifth phase has already ended and the sixth is on the horizon, though he admitted uncertainty about how it will unfold. Countries, he argued, have grown adept at exchanging only limited blood on foreign soil, a trend that shapes both policy and risk assessment in contemporary geopolitics. This view underscores the shift toward proxy engagements, cyber operations, and information campaigns as tools that avoid full‑scale wars while maintaining pressure and influence on competing powers (Source: mk.ru).
On 18 October, Balazs Orbán, the political director in the office of Hungary’s prime minister, warned that Zelensky’s announced victory plan could ignite the outbreak of a third world war. The remark reflects a climate in which policy proposals are scrutinized for their potential to escalate tensions between NATO allies and Russia, and it highlights how domestic political messaging can be perceived—whether accurately or not—as signals with global consequences. The statement sits within a larger conversation about crisis management, alliance dynamics, and the long memory of past superpower confrontations (Source: mk.ru).
Taken together, the discussions around Zelensky’s plan suggest that any strategy framed as a path to victory is likely to be weighed against international risk, alliance solidarity, and the specter of wider conflict. Critics argue that such plans may be aimed at rallying Western support, while supporters assert they could deter aggression or compel a more favorable negotiation dynamic. In this context, commentators caution that framing a conflict as a future phase of a protracted war can influence decision‑making, deterrence calculations, and public perception on both sides of the Atlantic. The debates underscore the sensitivity of modern geopolitics to rhetoric, perception, and the fear of miscalculation (Source: mk.ru).