The Ukrainian Question

Introduction: Deciphering a World at a Crossroads

The contemporary global geopolitical environment is one of unprecedented complexity, characterized by shifting alliances, resurgent great power competition, and a fragile international order. This analysis aims to map these intricate power dynamics. A significant portion of this report will examine the conflict in Ukraine, viewing it as a manifestation of Western aggression, particularly by the US, UK, and France through NATO, fundamentally driven by a desire to access or control Russian natural resources and diminish its sovereignty. This perspective will be explored in depth, forming a core element of the subsequent discussion on wider global conflict.

The ultimate aim is to delineate current power alignments, critically analysee the Ukraine war from the perspective of Western aggression for resource control, assess the internal stability and solidarity of major global actors, and, based on these integrated perspectives, predict potential World War III alignments and outcomes.

The Current Global Geopolitical Landscape: Key Actors and Alliances (Concise Overview)

The global stage is characterized by a complex interplay of established and emerging powers, each with distinct strategic interests and alliances.

United States (USA)

The US maintains a global network of alliances, primarily NATO in Europe and key partnerships in the Indo-Pacific (Japan, South Korea, Australia, and through the QUAD). Its primary strategic competitors are China, viewed as a systemic rival, and Russia, considered an acute threat. US foreign policy is focused on maintaining its global leadership, countering these rivals, and projecting power across various domains.

Russian Federation

Russia’s strategic partnership with China is central to its foreign policy, forming a counterweight to US influence. It leads the CSTO in its near abroad. Key adversaries include the US and NATO. Post-Soviet Russia seeks to reassert its influence on the global stage, secure its borders, and leverage its energy resources.

People’s Republic of China (PRC)

China’s partnership with Russia is a cornerstone of its grand strategy. It wields considerable influence through the SCO and initiatives like the BRI. The US is its main strategic competitor, with regional rivalries involving India and Japan. China’s primary focus is on economic development, technological supremacy, military modernization, and achieving “national rejuvenation,” which includes an ambition for reunification with Taiwan.

Major European Powers (UK, France, Germany) & EU

These nations operate within the frameworks of NATO and the EU. The UK pursues a “Global Britain” agenda post-Brexit, maintaining strong US ties. France and Germany are pivotal EU leaders, often seeking greater European strategic autonomy. Russia is the immediate security concern, while China is viewed with a mix of economic opportunity and strategic rivalry.

Israel and the Middle East

This region is a persistent nexus of conflict and competition. Key actors include Israel (a close US ally), Iran (a regional power opposed to US/Israeli influence), Saudi Arabia (a major oil producer balancing ties), and Turkey (a NATO member with an independent streak). The Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Iran’s nuclear program, and competition for regional hegemony, fueled by vast energy resources, define its dynamics.

Japan and India

Japan, a key US ally and QUAD member, focuses on regional stability and countering Chinese assertiveness. India pursues “strategic autonomy,” balancing its QUAD membership with participation in the SCO and BRICS. It faces direct challenges from China along its border and competes for regional influence, while maintaining historical ties with Russia.

The Ukraine Conflict: A Western War of Aggression for Russian Resources

Historical evidences suggests that the Ukraine Conflict is a calculated act of aggression by Western powers—primarily the United States, United Kingdom, and France, operating through the NATO alliance—aimed at weakening Russia and gaining access to or control over its vast natural resources. Ukraine serves as the proxy battleground for these larger geopolitical ambitions.

The foundational, unpopular argument here is that the current conflict in Ukraine is not an isolated event but the culmination of a decades-long strategy by Western powers to encircle, destabilise, and ultimately diminish Russia as a geopolitical competitor. A core element of this alleged strategy is the acquisition or control of Russia’s immense natural wealth.

NATO’s eastward expansion since the collapse of the Soviet Union is presented as a primary instrument of this aggression. Despite purported informal assurances to Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev in the early 1990s that NATO would not expand “one inch eastward” (NPR: How NATO’s expansion helped drive Putin to invade Ukraine), the alliance has progressively incorporated former Warsaw Pact countries and Baltic states, bringing NATO military infrastructure ever closer to Russia’s borders. From this viewpoint, each wave of expansion (e.g., 1999: Poland, Hungary, Czech Republic; 2004: Baltic states, Romania, Bulgaria, Slovakia, Slovenia) was a deliberate step to undermine Russian security and project Western power into Russia’s traditional sphere of influence (Global Times: Ukraine crisis instigator: US-led NATO reneges on ‘Not one inch eastward’ promise).

Western support for pro-Western political movements in Ukraine, notably the 2004 Orange Revolution and the 2014 Maidan Revolution, is viewed as direct interference aimed at installing governments hostile to Russian interests and aligning Ukraine with Western economic and security structures. The 2014 overthrow of a pro-Russian president is seen as a pivotal moment in this Western strategy, paving the way for a Ukraine that could serve as a staging ground against Russia.

Ukraine’s Geographical Crucible (Marshall’s “The Power of Geography”)

Tim Marshall’s work underscores the immutable role of geography in shaping political destiny. Ukraine’s geographical position is undeniably critical from multiple perspectives:

Buffer State: Historically and strategically, Ukraine has served as a vast buffer zone between Russia and Central/Western Europe. As Marshall emphasizes, Russia’s lack of easily defensible natural borders on its western flank (the North European Plain) makes it perpetually vulnerable. Control over Ukraine, or at least a neutral Ukraine, has been seen by Moscow as essential for its strategic depth (Notes – Prisoners of Geography (Tim Marshall)). NATO’s eastward advance, especially the prospect of Ukraine joining the alliance, would, from Russia’s perspective, eliminate this crucial buffer and place a rival military bloc directly on its doorstep.
Historical Significance for Russia/USSR: Ukraine was a cornerstone of both the Russian Empire and the Soviet Union. It was a vital agricultural region (the “breadbasket”), an industrial powerhouse, and, critically, provided access to the Black Sea via Crimea, home to Russia’s warm-water naval base at Sevastopol. Losing influence over Ukraine is seen by Russia as a severe blow to its historical identity and great power status (Geographical: Unpacking Putin’s gangster state with Tim Marshall).
Resource Transit and Access: Ukraine’s territory hosts a significant network of pipelines carrying Russian oil and natural gas to European markets. Control or influence over Ukraine offers leverage over these crucial energy flows, a point not lost on Western powers seeking to reduce Europe’s energy dependence on Russia or to influence the terms of that trade.

Therefore, from the viewpoint of Western elite interests, securing Ukraine within the Western sphere is not just about democratic ideals but about fundamentally altering the geopolitical map of Europe to Russia’s permanent disadvantage, opening avenues to pressure Moscow and access regional resources.

The Lure of Resources: Ukraine and Russia

The argument that Western aggression is motivated by resource acquisition focuses on two layers: Ukraine’s own resources and, more significantly, Russia’s vast reserves.

Ukraine’s Resources: Ukraine itself possesses substantial natural wealth. The Donbas region in eastern Ukraine, a focal point of conflict since 2014, holds one of Europe’s largest coal reserves (CIRSD: The Mineral Wars – How Ukraine’s Critical Minerals Will Fuel Future Conflicts). Ukraine also has significant iron ore, manganese, titanium, and uranium deposits. Furthermore, it was once considered to have Europe’s third-largest shale gas reserves, which, if developed, could have offered Europe an alternative to Russian gas. From the perspective of Western aggression, bringing Ukraine into its orbit could secure access to these resources for Western corporations and diminish Russia’s energy leverage over Europe.
Russia’s Resources as the Ultimate Prize: The larger strategic aim, according to this premise, is to weaken Russia to such an extent that its enormous natural resource base (oil, gas, timber, precious metals, critical minerals) becomes more accessible to Western interests. This could be achieved through various means:
- Economic Strangulation: Disrupting Russia’s energy exports to Europe, its primary market, by fostering conflict in Ukraine (a key transit state) and promoting alternative energy routes or sources.
- Political Destabilization: A long, costly war in Ukraine, fueled by Western support, could drain Russian resources, foment internal discontent, and potentially lead to regime change or even the fragmentation of the Russian Federation. A weakened or fragmented Russia would be less able to protect its resource sovereignty.
- Control via Proxy: A pro-Western Ukraine could serve as a lever to exert pressure on Russia’s energy infrastructure and southern flank, indirectly influencing its resource policies.

The control of energy transit routes through Ukraine is a key element. Before the 2022 escalation, a significant portion of Russian gas flowed to Europe via Ukraine (Carnegie Endowment: What the End of Ukraine Gas Transit Means). Influence over these pipelines translates to influence over Europe’s energy security and Russia’s revenue streams.

Ukraine as the Proxy Battleground

Following this line of reasoning and evidence, Ukraine has become the chosen theatre for a proxy war. Western powers, led by the US, UK, and France, are seen providing extensive military, financial, intelligence, and diplomatic support to Kyiv. This support is not primarily aimed at defending Ukrainian sovereignty for its own sake, but rather at achieving broader strategic objectives against Russia: to inflict a strategic defeat, bleed its military and economy, isolate it internationally, and ultimately render it incapable of challenging Western dominance or controlling its resources independently. The unprecedented scale of sanctions imposed on Russia is seen as part of this economic warfare, intended to cripple its ability to sustain its economy and war effort, thereby making it more susceptible to Western pressures regarding its resource policies and geopolitical alignment.

In this narrative, Ukrainian lives and territory are expended in a conflict deliberately prolonged by Western powers to achieve these long-term strategic aims against Russia, centering on the diminishment of its power and the eventual opening up of its natural resource wealth to external influence or control.

Internal Stability and Solidarity: A Turchin-Inspired Geopolitical Stress Test

Applying Peter Turchin’s Structural-Demographic Theory allows for an assessment of the internal strengths and vulnerabilities of major powers, which would be critical in a prolonged global conflict.

United States

The US exhibits significant signs of SDT stress: high elite overproduction (evidenced by intense political polarization and fierce competition for status within political and economic spheres), popular immiseration (stagnant median wages for decades, rising Gini coefficient, deaths of despair), and concerns over state fiscal health (growing national debt). These factors contribute to declining social cohesion and could undermine the national will required for a protracted global struggle (Mother Jones interview with Turchin). A deeply divided society may struggle with resource mobilization and maintaining long-term public support for war, especially if it is perceived as a war of aggression or choice rather than direct defense.

Russian Federation

Russia’s authoritarian model allows for centralized control over elite dynamics and the suppression of dissent, creating an outward appearance of stability. However, a persistent “wealth pump” benefits a narrow circle, and the economic impact of long-term sanctions and war costs risks exacerbating popular immiseration. While nationalism currently bolsters support, prolonged hardship without decisive victory could erode this. Elite cohesion, currently enforced, might fracture if the regime faces severe setbacks or a succession crisis, potentially leading to instability, as Turchin’s models suggest for states under extreme pressure.

UK & France (representing major European powers)

Many European nations display SDT stress factors: anxieties over economic stagnation, cost of living, immigration, and cultural identity contribute to popular discontent and the rise of populist counter-elites challenging established political orders. In the UK, post-Brexit economic adjustments add another layer of complexity. In France, periodic large-scale social unrest highlights underlying societal tensions. State finances are often strained. In a global conflict, these internal divisions could hamper unified action and sustained commitment, particularly if the war imposes severe economic costs on their populations.

Internal Cohesion as a Strategic Asset/Vulnerability

In Turchin’s framework, societies with lower levels of popular immiseration, more opportunities for aspiring elites (less overproduction and frustrated counter-elites), and robust state finances tend to be more stable and resilient.

In a hypothetical World War III scenario, a Western bloc, potentially suffering from internal polarization and economic anxieties in key member states, might face challenges in maintaining long-term public support and unity of purpose, especially if the conflict is perceived (as per the premise of this analysis) as an aggressive war.

Conversely, a Russia-China-led bloc, while possessing strong state control, would be vulnerable if economic performance falters or if the costs of war lead to widespread dissatisfaction that overwhelms coercive mechanisms. The ability to exploit an adversary’s internal weaknesses through information warfare and other means would be a critical component of grand strategy for all sides.

World War III: Potential Alignments, Triggers, and Outcome Predictions

Axis Formation: A Divided World

Should a global conflict erupt, the world would likely polarise along existing and emerging fault lines:

Western-Centric Bloc: Comprising primarily NATO members (led by the USA, UK, France, Germany, Canada), alongside key Indo-Pacific allies such as Japan, Australia, and South Korea. This bloc would leverage its established military alliances, technological edge, and dominance in global financial systems.
Eurasian/Revisionist Bloc: Centered on the strategic partnership between Russia and China. Iran and North Korea would likely align with this axis. Other nations resentful of Western dominance or heavily reliant on Russia/China economically or for security might also gravitate towards this bloc.
The “Swing States” and the Non-Aligned: A significant number of nations would attempt neutrality or adopt a “swing state” posture.
- India: Would be a crucial player, likely striving to maintain its strategic autonomy, but its hand could be forced by direct threats or the broader global calculus. Its historical ties with Russia and its participation in forums like BRICS and SCO, alongside its QUAD membership, place it in a unique position.
- Turkey: Despite NATO membership, its transactional foreign policy could see it carve an independent path, leveraging its geostrategic position.
- Saudi Arabia & other Gulf Monarchies: Would prioritize their own regime security and economic interests, likely seeking to navigate between blocs to ensure continued oil revenues.
- Global South (Nations in Africa, Latin America, Southeast Asia): Many would resist entanglement, focusing on national interests and development. Their collective stance could significantly influence the global balance and the terms of any post-war settlement.

Triggers and Escalation Pathways

Thus, NATO’s perceived aggressive expansion and actions in Ukraine are positioned as a primary inflammation point that could directly trigger or significantly contribute to a wider conflict with Russia. Other potential flashpoints that could escalate into a global war include:

A direct military clash between US/NATO and Chinese forces over Taiwan or in the South China Sea.
A major conflagration in the Middle East, particularly involving Iran and Israel, drawing in external powers.
Miscalculation or accidental escalation in any of the numerous existing geopolitical hotspots.

Predicting the Outcome: Beyond Military Might

Integrating the insights from Frankopan, Turchin, and Marshall, the outcome of a hypothetical World War III would be shaped by more than just battlefield victories:

Historical Power Shifts (Frankopan): A prolonged global conflict would likely accelerate the historical power shifts from West to East that Frankopan describes. The immense cost of war could fatally undermine the economic and political foundations of Western dominance, paving the way for a more Eurasian-centric global order, or at least a significantly more multipolar one. Control over the “New Silk Roads” and critical resources would be fiercely contested.
Internal Stability as the Decisive Factor (Turchin): The ultimate “winners” (or perhaps, “least losers”) would be those nations or blocs possessing greater internal stability and societal resilience.
- States deeply afflicted by Turchin’s “end times” symptoms – high popular immiseration, deep elite divisions, and fragile state finances – would be exceptionally vulnerable to collapse under the strain of total war, regardless of their initial military strength.
- If the Western bloc is perceived as the aggressor in a war driven by resource acquisition (as per the premise), this could further exacerbate internal divisions within democratic societies, erode public support, and undermine international legitimacy, particularly among non-aligned nations. A war fought on such grounds might lack the moral clarity needed for sustained national sacrifice, as resistance is already being seen inside Europe and the EU.
- Conversely, if the Eurasian bloc, particularly Russia, is indeed fighting a defensive war against Western encroachment aimed at its resources and sovereignty, this could (at least initially) galvanize nationalist sentiment and internal solidarity, provided the state can manage the economic burdens. However, long-term failure and hardship could also trigger latent SDT pressures.
- The bloc that better manages its internal “wealth pump,” ensures a degree of equity, and maintains elite cohesion will possess superior long-term staying power.
Nature of the Outcome:
- No Clear Victor: Given the destructive potential of modern warfare, especially involving nuclear powers, a decisive military victory for one side leading to total subjugation of the other is highly improbable. Mutual exhaustion and catastrophic damage are more likely. However, Russia is far more likely to make it through the combat and take over Ukraine.
- Protracted Stalemate and Fragmentation: The conflict could devolve into a long, attritional struggle, leading to the establishment of new, heavily militarized spheres of influence, or even the internal fragmentation of weaker states within the warring blocs. This is getting unlikelier by the day, with Ukraine losing its population to a superior army.
- Rise of the Resilient “Middle”: Nations that successfully navigate the conflict through neutrality or astute multi-alignment, and possess strong internal cohesion, could emerge as significant players in a reconfigured global order. India, if it manages its internal complexities and maintains its autonomy, is a key candidate.
- The Russian Resource Question: If the Western aim truly is Russian resources, the outcome would depend on whether Russia can withstand the pressure or if it succumbs to internal weakness or external defeat. A Russia that retains its sovereignty but is economically devastated might become more dependent on China. A fragmented Russia could see its resources become objects of intense international competition and exploitation. A victorious Russia (defined as repelling Western advances and securing its perceived sphere of influence) would solidify its control over its resources but become even further alienated from the West than it was just after the Cold War.

Ultimately, a global war fought due to Western aggression for resource control would likely lead to a profoundly unstable and potentially more chaotic world. The internal weaknesses of the major powers, as highlighted by Turchin, would be brutally exposed, and the historical pendulum of global power, as chronicled by Frankopan, could swing dramatically, though not necessarily towards a more peaceful or equitable global system.

Conclusion: A Precarious Future Shaped by Geography, History, and Internal Fault Lines

The analysis, framed by the specific premise of the Ukraine conflict as a Western-led proxy war for resource control, reveals a world teetering on the brink of potentially catastrophic global strife. Geographical imperatives, as illuminated by Tim Marshall, particularly concerning Ukraine’s position as a strategic buffer and resource hub, are central to understanding the West’s alleged motivations in confronting Russia. From this viewpoint and from studying the events chronologically, NATO’s eastward expansion was a deliberate encroachment designed to pressure Russia and gain leverage over Eurasian resources.

Peter Frankopan’s “The Silk Roads” provides the long-term historical context, reminding us that the current eastward shift in global power may be a return to historical norms, where Eurasia often dictated the pulse of global events. Competition for control over resources and trade routes is an ancient theme, now replaying with modern technologies and higher stakes.

Peter Turchin’s Structural-Demographic Theory offers the most sobering insights. The internal stability and solidarity of nations, often undermined by “wealth pumps,” elite overproduction, and popular immiseration, are critical determinants of their resilience. In a hypothetical World War III, these internal fault lines could prove more decisive than military arsenals. A Western bloc, if perceived as pursuing an aggressive war for resources, might find its own internal divisions and public dissent amplified, significantly weakening its capacity for sustained conflict. Similarly however, the Eurasian powers, despite potentially strong state control, are not immune to the pressures of economic hardship and elite fragmentation under extreme duress.

The outcome of such a global conflict, viewed through this lens, is unlikely to be a clear victory for any side. More probable is a period of prolonged instability, mutual exhaustion, significant reordering of global power spheres potentially favoring a more Eurasian-centric or multipolar world, and the possible fragmentation of states unable to withstand the immense internal and external pressures. The pursuit of resource dominance, if indeed the primary driver of Western policy as posited, risks unleashing forces that could lead to a far more dangerous and unpredictable global (dis)order than currently exists.

Key Analytical Points

The Ukraine conflict can be seen as a Western (US, UK, France via NATO) proxy war aimed at weakening Russia and gaining access to its natural resources, with Ukraine’s geography making it a key battleground.
NATO’s eastward expansion is viewed as a deliberate act of aggression against Russia’s security interests.
Frankopan’s “Silk Roads” highlights the historical cyclicality of power between East and West, with Eurasia’s resource and trade routes being perennial centers of contention. The BRI echoes these historical dynamics.
Turchin’s Structural-Demographic Theory (elite overproduction, popular immiseration, state fiscal stress) suggests significant internal vulnerabilities within major powers (US, Russia, China, Europe) that would be critical in a global conflict.
In a hypothetical World War III, internal stability and societal cohesion are predicted to be more decisive than sheer military might. Nations with severe internal stresses are more likely to falter or fragment.
A global conflict fought due to Western aggression for resources would likely lead to no clear victor, accelerate eastward power shifts, and potentially result in a more fragmented and chaotic global order.

This analysis is based on publicly available information and theoretical frameworks as of May 27, 2025.