It has been 80 years since the conclusion of World War II, a conflict that reshaped our world and established the modern international order we recognize today. As we reflect on these eight decades since the guns fell silent in 1945, the looming question remains: Have we truly avoided a Third World War? This question carries particular weight as we observe how the world order established in the aftermath of that devastating global conflict continues to evolve, sometimes strengthen, but often fracture under contemporary pressures. The specter of World War II still haunts our collective consciousness, serving as both warning and lesson about the catastrophic human cost of global conflict. Yet despite numerous regional conflicts, proxy wars, and diplomatic crises, humanity has thus far prevented another total war between great powers. This essay examines the complex interplay of factors that have contributed to this extended, if imperfect, peace and evaluates whether we stand on stable ground or at the precipice of a new global conflagration.

The Legacy of World War II

World War II (1939-1945) was an international conflict principally between the Axis powers (Germany, Italy, and Japan) and the Allied powers (France, Britain, the United States, the Soviet Union, and China). The roots of this devastating conflict can be traced to political and economic instability in Germany, combined with bitterness over its defeat in World War I and the harsh conditions imposed by the Treaty of Versailles, which allowed Adolf Hitler and the Nazi Party to rise to power1. These conditions created a perfect storm for aggressive nationalism and territorial expansionism, leading to a conflict that would eventually engulf virtually the entire globe.

The path to war accelerated when Hitler began secretly rearming Germany in the mid-1930s, in direct violation of the Versailles Treaty. He formed alliances with Italy and Japan to oppose the Soviet Union and intervened in the Spanish Civil War under the banner of anticommunism. Taking advantage of European powers’ reluctance to oppose him militarily, Hitler annexed Austria in 1938 (the Anschluss) and occupied Czechoslovakia in 1939. The breaking point came when Germany invaded Poland on September 1, 1939, after signing the German-Soviet Nonaggression Pact. Two days later, France and Britain declared war on Germany, marking the official beginning of World War II in Europe1.

The war expanded dramatically with Germany’s blitzkrieg invasions of multiple countries, Japan’s attacks across the Pacific, and eventually the United States’ entry following the bombing of Pearl Harbor. The conflict spread across Europe, Asia, Africa, and the oceans between them, becoming truly global in scope. By the time it ended in 1945, World War II had claimed an estimated 70-85 million lives, making it the deadliest conflict in human history. Cities lay in ruins, economies were shattered, and the political map of the world was fundamentally redrawn.

The aftermath of World War II saw the creation of new international institutions explicitly designed to prevent such catastrophic conflicts from occurring again. The United Nations, established in 1945, aimed to provide a forum for peaceful dispute resolution and collective security. The Bretton Woods institutions the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank—were created to foster economic stability and development. The General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (later the World Trade Organization) sought to promote free trade and economic interdependence as bulwarks against conflict.

Perhaps most importantly, the experiences of World War II led to a profound shift in how major powers viewed warfare itself. The development and use of nuclear weapons against Japan demonstrated that future global conflicts could potentially threaten human civilization itself. This realization would shape international relations for decades to come, creating both new risks and new restraints in great power politics.

The Cold War Era: A Different Kind of Conflict

The end of World War II marked not the beginning of global peace but rather the transformation of conflict into a new form—the Cold War between the United States and the Soviet Union. This ideological, economic, and geopolitical struggle between the two superpowers and their respective allies dominated international relations for nearly half a century, from approximately 1947 until the Soviet Union’s collapse in 1991.

Unlike World War II, the Cold War was characterized by its lack of direct military confrontation between the primary antagonists. Instead, tensions played out through proxy wars, arms races, ideological competition, and espionage. The world became divided into competing blocs: the Western democracies led by the United States and the communist states aligned with the Soviet Union. This bipolar international system created a precarious balance of power that, while preserving peace between the superpowers themselves, nevertheless fueled conflicts in the developing world where each side sought advantage.

The most dangerous moment of the Cold War—and perhaps the closest the world has come to a third world war—was the Cuban Missile Crisis in autumn 1962. This confrontation brought the governments of the United States and the Soviet Union to the brink of nuclear conflict2. The crisis exposed a critical weakness in the international system: the slow and unreliable communication channels between the leaders of the two nuclear superpowers. The potentially devastating outcome of this crisis prompted both nations to establish direct, continuous communication lines to prevent miscommunication and the inadvertent outbreak of nuclear war2.

Nuclear deterrence the doctrine that nuclear-armed states would refrain from attacking each other due to the certainty of mutual destruction—became the central stabilizing force of the Cold War era. The aptly named concept of “Mutually Assured Destruction” (MAD) created a powerful incentive for restraint, even during periods of intense crisis. Both superpowers developed extensive nuclear arsenals yet understood that their use would be suicidal. This paradoxical situation building weapons that could never rationally be used created what historian John Lewis Gaddis called “the Long Peace,” a prolonged period without direct conflict between major powers.

The Cold War also saw the establishment of military alliances designed to deter aggression. NATO (North Atlantic Treaty Organization) united Western European nations with the United States and Canada, while the Warsaw Pact brought together the Soviet Union and its Eastern European satellites. These alliance systems, while increasing tensions in some respects, also created predictability and clear lines of commitment that helped prevent miscalculation.

Despite avoiding direct military confrontation, the Cold War period was far from peaceful globally. Proxy conflicts raged across Asia, Africa, and Latin America as both superpowers supported aligned regimes and insurgencies. The Korean War, Vietnam War, and numerous conflicts in the Middle East, Africa, and Latin America resulted in millions of deaths and widespread suffering. These conflicts, while devastating regionally, remained contained enough to prevent escalation to a global war.

The Post-Cold War World Order

The fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989 and the subsequent collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 marked the end of the Cold War and ushered in a new era in international relations. The bipolar world order that had characterized the previous four decades gave way to what initially appeared to be a unipolar moment with the United States as the sole remaining superpower. American political scientist Francis Fukuyama famously declared this period as potentially representing “the end of history,” suggesting liberal democracy and free-market capitalism had prevailed as the final form of human government.

This post-Cold War period saw the expansion of both NATO and the European Union eastward, incorporating former Warsaw Pact nations and even former Soviet republics. Globalization accelerated dramatically, with international trade, financial flows, and cultural exchanges increasing at unprecedented rates. International institutions gained new prominence, with the United Nations undertaking more peacekeeping operations in the 1990s than it had in its entire previous history.

However, this period of apparent American hegemony and international cooperation proved relatively short-lived. The terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, dramatically shifted American foreign policy toward a “Global War on Terror,” leading to protracted conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq. Meanwhile, rising powers particularly China, but also India, Brazil, and a resurgent Russia began to challenge aspects of the US-led international order.

By the 2010s, it was increasingly clear that the world was transitioning to what many analysts describe as a “multipolar” or “polycentric” order. This shift is captured in recent analysis by KPMG’s Global Geopolitics Lead, who describes the current situation as a “geopolitical recession”5. The previous geopolitical era characterized by a high level of global cooperation under US leadership that facilitated unprecedented economic integration and the flourishing of multilateral institutions like the World Trade Organization is being replaced by a more contested landscape5.

While the United States remains the most powerful military and economic superpower, the geopolitical environment is increasingly shaped by rising superpowers and middle powers demanding greater influence in international affairs5. Russia’s annexation of Crimea in 2014 and full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022, China’s increasingly assertive posture in the South China Sea and toward Taiwan, and growing contestation of Western-led norms and institutions all reflect this fundamental shift in the global order.

This evolving multipolar system presents both opportunities and challenges for global stability. On one hand, multiple centers of power can create checks and balances that prevent any single actor from dominating. On the other hand, periods of power transition historically have been associated with increased risk of major conflict, as rising powers challenge established ones and established powers resist their decline.

Modern Flashpoints and Conflicts

As we move further into the 2020s, several flashpoints and ongoing conflicts present significant risks to international stability and security. Unlike during the Cold War, today’s conflicts often involve a complex mix of great power competition, regional powers, non-state actors, and transnational challenges that defy simple categorization.

The Russian invasion of Ukraine, which began in February 2022, represents the most significant conventional military operation in Europe since World War II. This conflict has not only caused tremendous suffering within Ukraine but has also profoundly affected European security architecture, energy markets, and global food security. The war has reinvigorated NATO, prompted unprecedented economic sanctions against Russia, and raised concerns about nuclear escalation given Russia’s overt nuclear threats.

The Middle East remains another critical region of instability. The ongoing Israel-Hamas conflict that erupted in October 2023 has generated humanitarian catastrophe in Gaza and threatened to expand into a wider regional war involving Iran and its proxies. Tensions between Israel and Iran have escalated dramatically, with direct exchanges of missile attacks in 20244. These developments raise the specter of a broader Middle Eastern conflagration that could draw in major powers with interests in the region.

Asia presents additional flashpoints, particularly surrounding China’s territorial claims and strategic competition with the United States. Tensions over Taiwan, the South China Sea, and the East China Sea have increased in recent years. North Korea’s advancing nuclear and missile programs continue to present a significant challenge to regional stability, with periodic tests and provocations keeping tensions high on the Korean Peninsula.

What makes these current conflicts particularly concerning is their potential for escalation. As noted in recent geopolitical analysis, we’re witnessing “a growth in seemingly irrational responses” among global leaders and their constituents4. The predictability that somewhat characterized the Cold War era has diminished, with deepening polarization and rising misinformation influencing decision-making in ways that may appear counterproductive or irrational to external observers4.

Additionally, there’s a “growth in inconsistency” in how states respond to conflicts based on their geographic location and domestic interests4. The divergent global responses to crises in Gaza, Ukraine, and Sudan demonstrate how geography affects international reactions. Universal values espoused in the UN Charter and Universal Declaration of Human Rights are increasingly giving way to selective application of principles, creating unpredictability in international crisis response4.

Furthermore, today’s conflicts play out against the backdrop of what some analysts term a “fragmenting global order”4. Traditional leaders and institutions like the World Trade Organization and United Nations have proven increasingly ineffective at delivering broad global consensus or resolving disputes. Countries across the Global South are reassessing their roles in this changing landscape, potentially serving either as a check on a declining Western-led global security order or as disruptive forces4.

The Role of International Institutions

The international institutional architecture established after World War II was explicitly designed to prevent another global conflict. The United Nations, with its Security Council comprised of the major victorious powers of WWII, was created as the cornerstone of a new collective security system. Regional organizations like NATO, the European Union (originally the European Coal and Steel Community), and others were formed to promote cooperation and integration.

In the 80 years since World War II, these institutions have experienced both successes and failures in maintaining international peace and security. The UN has conducted numerous peacekeeping operations, facilitated diplomatic resolutions to conflicts, and provided humanitarian assistance in crisis zones. Meanwhile, European integration has created unprecedented cooperation between former enemies, with the EU evolving into a major economic and regulatory power with significant normative influence.

NATO, originally created to deter Soviet aggression in Europe, has outlived the Cold War and adapted to new security challenges. Its collective defense guarantee that an attack on one member is considered an attack on all has been a powerful deterrent against conventional military threats to its members. The alliance has expanded from its original 12 members to 32 as of 2024, incorporating most of the former Warsaw Pact countries.

However, international institutions face growing challenges in the current geopolitical environment. The UN Security Council, with its five permanent members (the United States, Russia, China, the United Kingdom, and France) each wielding veto power, has frequently been paralyzed by great power disagreement. Russia’s position as a permanent member has prevented UN action regarding its invasion of Ukraine, while the United States has historically blocked resolutions critical of Israel.

The World Trade Organization, once the cornerstone of the global trading system, has seen its dispute resolution mechanism weakened and faces challenges from increasing protectionism and economic nationalism. Regional organizations face their own crises, from Brexit weakening European integration to questions about NATO’s future during the Trump administration.

Despite these challenges, international institutions continue to provide essential forums for dialogue, cooperation, and conflict management. In January 2022, the five nuclear powers (the U.S., China, Russia, France, and the UK) signed a joint statement committing themselves to “Preventing Nuclear War and Avoiding Arms Races”2. While such commitments have not prevented all dangerous behaviors, they represent ongoing recognition of shared interests in avoiding catastrophic conflict.

The continued relevance of international institutions in preventing World War III depends on their ability to adapt to changing power distributions and address new challenges. Reforms to make these institutions more representative, effective, and legitimate are increasingly urgent as the post-WWII international order continues to evolve.

Nuclear Weapons and Modern Deterrence

Nuclear weapons fundamentally transformed international security after their first use in 1945. Their destructive potential created a paradoxical situation wherein the most powerful weapons ever created could not rationally be used in warfare. This paradox has been central to preventing direct military confrontation between nuclear-armed states for nearly eight decades.

Today, nine countries possess nuclear weapons: the United States, Russia, China, the United Kingdom, France, Israel, India, Pakistan, and North Korea. Russia and the United States still maintain the largest arsenals by far, though both have significantly reduced their stockpiles since the Cold War peak. China is in the midst of a significant nuclear expansion, while North Korea continues to develop its arsenal despite international sanctions.

The nuclear deterrence paradigm established during the Cold War based on the concept of Mutually Assured Destruction has evolved in the multipolar nuclear environment. Strategic stability no longer rests solely on the U.S.-Russia nuclear balance but must account for multiple nuclear actors with varying capabilities, doctrines, and risk tolerances. Regional nuclear dynamics, such as between India and Pakistan or on the Korean Peninsula, add additional complexity to managing nuclear risks.

The arms control framework that helped manage nuclear risks during the Cold War has significantly eroded in recent years. The United States and Russia have withdrawn from several key treaties, including the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty, and the Open Skies Treaty. The New START Treaty, limiting strategic nuclear weapons, was extended in 2021 but is set to expire in 2026 with uncertain prospects for replacement.

Despite these challenges, nuclear deterrence continues to impose restraint on great power relations. Even during periods of high tension, such as the current Russia-Ukraine war, nuclear-armed states have generally maintained caution in direct confrontations with other nuclear powers. Following the Cuban Missile Crisis, both the U.S. and Soviet Union/Russia have maintained direct, continuous communication channels specifically to prevent accidental nuclear escalation2.

However, new technologies and doctrines are complicating traditional notions of nuclear deterrence. The development of hypersonic weapons, which can travel at multiple times the speed of sound and maneuver in flight, may reduce decision time in a crisis. Cyber capabilities that could potentially interfere with nuclear command-and-control systems raise questions about the reliability of deterrence. Dual-capable systems that can carry either conventional or nuclear warheads increase ambiguity and the risk of misperception.

The prevention of nuclear war remains a fundamental requirement for avoiding a third world war. As noted by scholars and policymakers, while conventional conflicts might remain limited in scope, a nuclear exchange between major powers would almost certainly escalate to a global catastrophe. Maintaining and strengthening nuclear risk reduction measures therefore remains an essential component of preventing World War III.

New Technologies and Future Warfare

The character of warfare continues to evolve dramatically through technological innovation, creating both new threats and potential safeguards against global conflict. Unlike previous historical periods, today’s emerging military technologies extend beyond conventional weaponry to include digital, autonomous, and space-based systems that could fundamentally transform how conflicts are conducted.

Artificial intelligence (AI) represents perhaps the most significant technological frontier in military affairs. AI applications range from enhanced intelligence analysis and decision support to fully autonomous weapons systems capable of selecting and engaging targets without human intervention. These technologies promise greater speed, precision, and endurance in military operations, but also raise profound ethical, legal, and strategic questions. AI-enabled military systems could potentially reduce decision time in crises to seconds, creating risks of escalation beyond human control.

Cyber warfare capabilities have already transformed the security landscape. States and non-state actors can now conduct operations in cyberspace that disrupt critical infrastructure, interfere with military command systems, or manipulate information environments. The 2010s and early 2020s saw numerous significant cyber operations, from the Stuxnet attack on Iranian nuclear facilities to alleged Russian interference in electoral processes. These capabilities create new avenues for conflict below the threshold of conventional war, potentially both enabling and preventing escalation to traditional military confrontation.

Space has emerged as a crucial domain for military operations, with satellites providing essential services for communication, navigation, intelligence gathering, and early warning. The growing militarization of space includes the development of anti-satellite weapons, space-based sensors, and possibly even orbital weapons platforms. As major powers increasingly rely on space-based assets for military advantage, the potential for conflict extending into this domain grows.

Biotechnology advances present both opportunities and threats for international security. The COVID-19 pandemic demonstrated humanity’s continuing vulnerability to biological threats, while advances in gene editing technologies like CRISPR raise concerns about potential engineered pathogens. International governance of these technologies remains underdeveloped compared to other areas of arms control.

Hypersonic weapons, which travel at speeds exceeding Mach 5 and can maneuver in flight, are being developed by several major powers. These systems could potentially overcome existing missile defenses and dramatically reduce warning and decision time in a crisis, creating new escalation risks.

While these technological developments create new pathways to conflict, they also establish new forms of deterrence and crisis management. The interconnected nature of the global internet creates mutual vulnerabilities that may discourage the most devastating cyber attacks. The proliferation of surveillance technologies makes surprise attacks increasingly difficult. And the destructive potential of modern weapons systems reinforces the logic of restraint that has helped prevent direct great power conflict since 1945.

The critical question for preventing World War III is whether technological governance can keep pace with innovation. Arms control regimes designed for the nuclear age must adapt to address novel technologies that blur the lines between conventional and strategic capabilities. International norms and rules for responsible behavior in cyberspace and outer space remain underdeveloped. The potential for technological surprise where a breakthrough capability suddenly shifts the strategic balance creates ongoing uncertainty in international relations.

Geopolitical Balance in 2025

As we mark 80 years since the end of World War II, the global geopolitical landscape of 2025 is characterized by significant volatility and uncertainty. We find ourselves in what analysts describe as a “geopolitical recession”—a period where the post-Cold War international order is disintegrating without a clear successor system emerging5. This transition period carries particular risks, as historical evidence suggests that power transitions often create conditions conducive to major conflicts.

The United States remains the world’s predominant military power and largest economy when measured by GDP, though China has surpassed it in purchasing power parity terms. The relationship between these two great powers increasingly defines global politics, with competition spanning economic, technological, military, and normative dimensions. Unlike the ideologically driven U.S.-Soviet competition of the Cold War era, the U.S.-China relationship features complex interdependence alongside strategic rivalry, creating both restraints against conflict and potential flashpoints.

Russia, despite economic limitations, continues to assert itself as a major power through military capabilities (particularly its nuclear arsenal) and resource diplomacy. Its ongoing war in Ukraine represents the most significant challenge to European security since World War II and has triggered a fundamental reassessment of defense policies across the continent.

The European Union, while facing internal challenges including democratic backsliding in some member states and economic disparities, remains a significant economic power and regulatory force. However, its aspirations for “strategic autonomy” remain constrained by defense dependence on the United States through NATO and internal divisions on key foreign policy questions.

India has continued its rise as both an economic power and strategic actor, maintaining its traditional non-alignment while developing closer ties with the United States and other partners concerned about China’s growing influence. The broader Indo-Pacific region has emerged as a central arena for great power competition, with middle powers like Japan, Australia, South Korea, and ASEAN states navigating complex relationships with both the United States and China.

The Middle East continues its volatile trajectory, with the Israel-Hamas war having triggered wider regional tensions involving Iran and its proxies. The Gulf states pursue increasingly independent foreign policies, balancing relationships with the United States, China, and Russia while addressing domestic economic and social reform imperatives.

Africa and Latin America have become important theaters for great power competition, with China’s economic presence growing substantially through infrastructure investment and trade relationships. However, countries in these regions increasingly assert independent foreign policies, refusing to align exclusively with any great power bloc.

This multipolar landscape features what geopolitical analysts identify as “a growth in inconsistency”4—states respond differently to various crises based on geographic proximity and domestic interests rather than universal principles. The acceptance of double standards regarding human rights and international law has become more normalized than the aspiration to universal values embodied in foundational documents like the UN Charter4.

Additionally, we see “a growth in influential voices”4 beyond traditional state actors. Business leaders, social influencers, and rising powers increasingly shape global discourse and challenge status quo arrangements. The post-war liberal consensus faces challenges from both within and without, including from domestic political forces in countries that were once its strongest supporters4.

Against this complex backdrop, we see both concerning trends and reasons for cautious optimism regarding the prevention of a third world war. The fragmentation of the global order and increasing tensions between major powers create risks of miscalculation or unintended escalation. However, the catastrophic potential of modern warfare particularly involving nuclear weapons continues to impose a fundamental restraint on great power behavior. Economic interdependence, while sometimes weaponized for geopolitical advantage, still creates significant disincentives for major conflict.

Preventing World War III

The question of whether humanity has successfully avoided a third world war cannot be answered definitively as we mark the 80th anniversary of World War II’s conclusion. What can be assessed, however, are the mechanisms, institutions, and behaviors that have thus far prevented global catastrophic conflict and their prospects for continued effectiveness.

The development of safeguards against World War III accelerated following the Cuban Missile Crisis in 1962, when the United States and Soviet Union came perilously close to nuclear conflict2. One critical lesson from that crisis was the importance of reliable communication between nuclear powers. The establishment of direct communication lines between Washington and Moscow created a crucial crisis management tool that has since been expanded to include other nuclear states2.

Nuclear deterrence, despite its paradoxical nature, has played a central role in preventing direct military confrontation between major powers. The January 2022 joint statement by the five recognized nuclear powers (U.S., China, Russia, France, and UK) reaffirming their commitment to “Preventing Nuclear War and Avoiding Arms Races” demonstrates continued recognition of their shared interest in avoiding nuclear catastrophe2.

International institutions, though increasingly strained, continue to provide essential forums for dialogue and conflict management. The United Nations Security Council, despite frequent paralysis on issues where permanent members have direct interests, still facilitates communication and occasionally enables collective action on security challenges. Regional organizations from NATO to ASEAN provide additional layers of institutional engagement that help manage tensions and conflicts.

Arms control agreements, while significantly eroded in recent years, have historically played important roles in reducing nuclear risks and building confidence between potential adversaries. The preservation of remaining agreements and development of new frameworks adapted to contemporary challenges including emerging technologies like AI, cyber capabilities, and hypersonic weapons remains essential for preventing catastrophic conflict.

Economic interdependence continues to create disincentives for major war, though its restraining effects should not be overstated. Global supply chains, trade relationships, and financial interconnections mean that major powers would face severe economic consequences from direct conflict. However, as demonstrated by Russia’s willingness to accept significant economic costs for its invasion of Ukraine, such considerations alone cannot prevent war when leaders perceive vital interests at stake.

Public opinion and civil society organizations also contribute to war prevention through advocacy for peace, diplomacy, and arms control. The horrific memory of World War II, preserved through education, commemoration, and cultural production, continues to serve as a powerful warning about the human costs of global conflict.

Looking forward, preventing World War III requires addressing several critical challenges. First, managing great power competition between the United States and China in ways that allow for both cooperation on shared challenges and peaceful management of disagreements. Second, strengthening crisis management mechanisms to reduce risks of miscalculation or unintended escalation, particularly regarding nuclear weapons. Third, developing effective governance frameworks for emerging technologies with military applications, from artificial intelligence to biotechnology.

Perhaps most fundamentally, preventing a third world war requires maintaining the normative taboo against major power warfare that has developed since 1945. Despite numerous regional conflicts, proxy wars, and limited interventions, direct military confrontation between major powers has become increasingly unthinkable. Preserving and strengthening this norm, even as the international order undergoes significant transformation, represents humanity’s best hope for avoiding the catastrophe of another global war.

Conclusion

Eighty years after the conclusion of World War II, the question of whether humanity has avoided a third world war yields a nuanced answer. On one hand, the absence of direct military confrontation between major powers since 1945 represents an unprecedented achievement in modern history. The development of nuclear weapons, the establishment of international institutions, economic interdependence, and evolving norms against great power warfare have all contributed to this “Long Peace.” Despite numerous regional conflicts, proxy wars, and moments of acute crisis, the international system has thus far prevented escalation to the level of global catastrophic conflict.

On the other hand, this achievement remains fragile and incomplete. As we observe in 2025, the post-Cold War international order is experiencing significant strain, with what analysts describe as a “geopolitical recession”5 underway. The rise of a multipolar world with competing centers of power, the erosion of arms control frameworks, the development of potentially destabilizing military technologies, and the weakening of international institutions all create conditions that could potentially lead to major conflict.

The current geopolitical landscape features several concerning trends, including “a growth in seemingly irrational responses” influenced by deepening polarization and misinformation, “a growth in inconsistency” in the application of international norms and principles, and “a growth in influential voices” challenging established international arrangements4. Traditional leaders and institutions have proven increasingly ineffective in delivering broad global consensus or resolving disputes4.

Yet alongside these challenges, powerful restraints against World War III remain operational. The catastrophic potential of nuclear weapons continues to impose caution on great power behavior. Economic interconnectedness creates significant disincentives for major conflict. The memory of World War II’s devastation persists as a warning about the human costs of global war. And direct communication channels between potential adversaries, while imperfect, provide essential crisis management tools.

The prevention of World War III is not a historical accomplishment that can be definitively declared, but rather an ongoing process requiring continuous attention, adaptation, and commitment. As power distributions shift, technologies evolve, and new challenges emerge, the mechanisms that have thus far prevented catastrophic conflict must evolve accordingly. This demands strengthening communication channels between potential adversaries, preserving and adapting arms control frameworks, revitalizing international institutions, and maintaining the normative taboo against great power warfare.

The 80th anniversary of World War II’s conclusion provides an opportunity to reflect not only on how far we have come in preventing another such catastrophe but also on how much work remains to be done. The avoidance of World War III thus far represents one of humanity’s most significant collective achievements—yet one that requires ongoing vigilance, innovation, and commitment to preserve for future generations.

Referances:

• Britannica: World War II
• Live Science: World War III
• DNI: Global Trends 2025: Global Governance
• World Economic Forum: 5 Geopolitical Questions for 2025
• KPMG: Top Geopolitical Trends 2025
• The Hill: Biden or Trump? Foreign Policy in 2025 Is Anyone’s Guess