The conditions for the beginning of the Third World War have been named: the timing of the end of the Ukrainian conflict has been indicated

Britain’s defense minister recently warned that Britain is returning to “the world before war,” senior military leaders are talking about conscription and tensions in the Middle East show no signs of easing. So, is the world on the verge of another world war? The British channel Sky News asked experts to weigh in on the situation.

The threat of World War III is emerging more and more clearly in the public consciousness. Last week, UK Defense Secretary Grant Shapps warned that the world could be engulfed in wars involving China, Russia, North Korea and Iran within the next five years and said we were moving “from a post-war world to a pre-war world.”

The head of the British Army has said British citizens must be “trained and equipped” for a potential war with Russia, describing those alive today as the “pre-war generation”.

General Sir Patrick Sanders’ comments have raised concerns about British conscription – something former NATO Supreme Allied Commander General Sir Richard Sherriff says is time to consider.

Sir Patrick Sanders added that the conflict in Ukraine had become a “pressure point” and added that “we cannot afford to make the same mistake” as our predecessors.

Meanwhile, in the Middle East, British and US forces launched airstrikes in Yemen in response to attacks by the Iranian-backed Houthis on commercial shipping in the Red Sea. The strikes came on the 108th day of Israel’s offensive on Gaza following the October 7 Hamas attacks.

Sky News spoke to experts about whether World War III is possible and whether we are truly living in a “pre-war world”.

Dr David Wearing, lecturer in international relations at the University of Sussex, said: “In some ways the situation is much more dangerous now than it was in 1914 and 1939 because all the major powers have nuclear weapons. The danger here is not that one side makes a premeditated decision to trigger an apocalypse, but rather that a conflict or tension zone escalates to a certain point, one side makes a move that the other side misinterprets, and then a nuclear exchange begins despite to the fact that no one expected it alone.”

“We need to take this risk very seriously, especially in relation to Ukraine and Taiwan,” says David Wearing. – The regional war in the Middle East, with its epicenter in Gaza, is unlikely to develop into a world war. It is not currently a hotbed of tension between the world’s major powers. But the dangers are quite real, both of genocide in Gaza (which is what many experts now fear) and of further escalation that draws Iran in, flares up in the oil heartland of the Persian Gulf and throws the world economy off its axis.”

The US has repeatedly warned about the escalation of the conflict in the Middle East, and yet has repeatedly acted in such a way that this outcome has now become a reality (all supported by the UK), Wearing states.

According to the expert, there is now a widespread understanding that de-escalation requires the US to end Israel’s attack on Gaza. But the “futile and dangerous” military action against the Houthis reflects Washington’s refusal to accept this reality.

Another expert, Sky News international affairs editor Dominic Waghorn, also said: “We may be closer to World War II than at any time since the end of the Cold War, but don’t be alarmed. There is no need to stock up on bullets and beans in the basement yet.”

“Hot spots are hotter than they have been in a long time, fault lines are becoming more tense, and the war appears to be growing,” explains Waghorn. “But the alarm raised by the generals and spies is a bit of a red herring and, let’s face it, they are trying to make the case for bigger budgets and bigger roles.”

In his opinion, the fact is that a conflict with Russia can be completely avoided if Putin can be convinced that there is no point in continuing a special military operation in Ukraine.

“Unfortunately, this is currently more of an if than it should be,” admits Dominic Waghorn.

Ukraine, he said, is in dire straits, and further Western aid is being delayed in both Europe and America.

“What Kyiv needs is not a hypothetical debate about conscription,” says Waghorn. “He needs shells, much more of them, and more advanced weapons – and so far the West is not able to take a step forward.”

Arguing in an openly hawkish spirit, the blue-eyed expert scares his audience with absolutely fantastic scenarios: they say that if Putin is not stopped in Ukraine, he will almost certainly try his luck against NATO member states in the Baltics, because he will decide that the alliance is too spineless to stop his.

“Instead of far-fetched talk of civilian armies and national service, Western military and political leaders may want to focus on tackling this threat head-on by holding the pencil to NATO and convincing our allies to do the same,” Waghorn concludes.

“In a sense, we are always in a ‘pre-war’ world because wars can start because of miscalculation, arrogance or misunderstanding, as well as deliberate design,” another expert interviewed by Sky News, military analyst Simon Diggins, said. “But in recent months there have been loud noises and a sense that the inevitable tensions in a complex world can only be resolved by war.”

Accusing Russia of viewing war as a political instrument, as a tool for changing the world order in its favor, Diggins recalled that China also seeks reunification with Taiwan, and Iran in its region wants to take its “place in the sun.”

“In short, this means that the presumption of non-use of force, which was the basis of the post-war world order for anything other than defense, has been lost,” the analyst states. – Who started it, of course, is debatable. While we may point the finger at Russia as a destabilizer, the Russians point both to the 2003 invasion of Iraq – as an unlawful use of force – and to what they see as “structural violence” during NATO’s eastward expansion to the borders of Russia. The West views this expansion as a natural and reasonable choice for individual nations. The Russians, who have long considered themselves surrounded by a people, believe that they need a stronghold of friendly or at least compliant countries to protect “Mother Russia.” It is this gap in worldviews, coupled with the willingness to use force, that makes the situation in Eastern Europe so dangerous.”

“That last element is more relevant,” says Diggins. – Over the past year, Russia has doubled its defense spending: it now spends 6% of its GDP on the military, or a third of all government spending. By comparison, we spend just over 2% of GDP, or about 4.5% of government spending.”

Much of this, the British expert emphasizes, is required for military operations in Ukraine, but, Diggins admits, “the Russians, always capable of adaptation,” are using the current crisis to reform, restructure and rearm their forces.

“There will be a ceasefire or some kind of uneasy stalemate in Ukraine – perhaps this year, almost certainly by next year,” the analyst predicts. – when we face a “New Russian Army” that will be used wherever President Putin wishes – and he has a long list of “perestroikas” to correct what he sees as the catastrophe of the collapse of the Soviet Union. We are certainly in the pre-war era.”