Are we really 'gambling with WW3'? The three steps that could put the West on a collision course with Russia

Are we really ‘gambling with WW3’? The three steps that could put the West on a collision course with Russia

Posted by author March 3, 2025 Gambling

It’s generally agreed that Volodymyr Zelensky’s meeting in the White House on Friday was an unmitigated disaster.

After exchanging blows with Donald Trump and JD Vance in front of the world, the Ukrainian President departed the White House without signing the US-Ukraine minerals deal, having any security guarantees and the very real prospect of Trump pulling the plug on sending military aid to the war-torn country.

This resulted in an emergency meeting with Nato allies on Sunday night, who rallied around the Ukrainian President and reaffirmed their support for Ukraine as America wavers.

In what analysts interpreted as a thinly veiled swipe at Trump, whose absence at the Nato summit was noticeable, Emmanuel Macron said: “If anyone is gambling with World War III, his name is Vladimir Putin” – a reference to Trump accusing Zelensky of escalating the war in Ukraine by refusing to compromise and come to the negotiating table with Russia.

The spectre of war between the West and Russia was raised the moment Putin invaded its neighbour three years ago but it now seems more plausible than ever.

With the growing prospect of America walking away from Ukraine or even aligning with Russian interests and Nato allies, led by Keir Starmer, vowing to keep supporting the war-torn country, we look at three scenarios that could lead to the worst outcome imaginable.

Miscalculation during deployment of a ‘Europe Plus’ force

Following the London summit on Sunday night, Starmer declared: “Now is the time for us to unite in order to guarantee the best outcome for Ukraine, protect European security, and secure our collective future.”

This has fuelled speculation that Britain will deploy a peacekeeping force of around 20,000 troops to western Ukraine in a bid to deter Russian aggression after a shaky ceasefire.

France and the UK are pushing this ‘Europe Plus’ coalition to protect Ukraine. However, it would need to be guaranteed with a US backstop.

The risk of miscalculation is very high, particularly as Article 5 obligations would kick in if shots were fired on either side.

For example, if a European soldier dies, say a French, British or Polish troop, the coalition would invoke Nato’s collective defense mechanism, escalating to retaliatory strikes on Russian positions.

War game strategies, like those explored by RAND Corporation in past simulations, suggest Russia might test this force’s resolve with hybrid tactics—cyberattacks, sabotage, or limited missile strikes on supply lines.

The prospect of deploying a European force to Ukraine has broad backing among allies, but they have also highlighted key challenges.

Lord Richard Dannatt, former head of the British Army, said Starmer was “doing the right thing” but raised logistical concerns.

He said: “Frankly, we haven’t got the numbers and we haven’t got the equipment to put a large force onto the ground for an extended period of time at the present moment.

“Now, if Keir Starmer wants to do that, that’s fine. The British Army will always stand up to the plate, but here we go again. We’ve got to have the right number of people with the right equipment and the right training, and start to fund that now.”

Claudia Major, an analyst for the German SWP think tank, echoed these concerns, noting that assembling a European peacekeeping force was “barely achievable” without weakening the continent’s own defense or planned defense of regions like the Baltics.

Underscoring the risk of escalation, Russia’s foreign minister has also said deploying a peacekeeping force in Ukraine after the war ends would be “unacceptable”.

“The presence of troops from Nato countries, whether under foreign flags, EU flags, or their own national flags, does not change anything. This is, of course, unacceptable to us,” Sergei Lavrov said in a statement, following talks with the US in Saudi Arabia about ending the war in Ukraine.

Likewise, Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova branded such a move as “uncontrollable escalation”.

The risk of miscalculation is very high, particularly as Article 5 obligations would kick in if shots were fired on either side

Getty Images/Reuters

Russian attack on critical European infrastructure

Russia could ramp up its campaign in Europe in a bid to sow disunity and intimidate Nato into backing away.

Putin, increasingly frustrated by European economic sanctions and arms flowing to Ukraine (the UK’s £1.6 billion missile deal announced on Sunday will not have helped), could launch a devastating cyber or kinetic attack on European infrastructure— say, the Nord Stream 2 remnants or a Polish power grid—to signal resolve.

War games conducted by the Atlantic Council have modelled Russia targeting Western vulnerabilities to fracture unity.

Moscow could deploy hypersonic missiles to destroy a key LNG terminal in the Baltic, blaming it on “Ukrainian provocation”.

A ‘Europe Plus’ coalition, already primed for Ukraine, could shift focus to defend NATO’s eastern flank, deploying forces near Belarus. Russia could then counter with troop buildup, claiming self-defense.

This could take the fight beyond Ukraine’s borders.

Officials have already gathered evidence of Russian subversion occurring across Europe since the start of the war.

In addition to the Nord Stream attacks, German and British authorities have linked Russia to a series of incendiary devices sent through logistics networks, intended to disrupt air transport and potentially endanger civilian lives.

In July 2024, a parcel ignited at a DHL logistics center in Leipzig, Germany, which officials believe was a test run for a larger attack. A similar incident occurred at a DHL facility in Birmingham, UK, that same month.

Thomas Haldenwang, head of Germany’s domestic intelligence service, stated last October: “We are observing aggressive behaviour by the Russian intelligence services”, warning that such actions were “putting lives at risk”.

Following the Nord Stream attacks, the European Commission emphasised the vulnerability of Europe’s physical critical infrastructure, stating that “Europe’s era of naivety and innocence is now over”.

Since the Ukraine invasion, cyberattacks attributed to Russian state actors or proxies have also surged in Europe. For instance, Germany faced significant cyber operations, with Russia accused of penetrating systems.

Poland, the Baltic states, and others reported similar incidents, often tied to GRU-linked groups like Sandworm.

Writing in The Times last October, former UK Foreign Secretary William Hague said: “Russia’s sabotage efforts are part of a much broader ‘cognitive warfare’ campaign,” highlighting cyberattacks as a key component since the Ukraine war began.

Speaking to GB News, Air Vice-Marshal Sean Bell recently warned that Britain is particularly vulnerable to a devastating sabotage attack from Russia.

“Something which has caused a lot of concern for some time is the vulnerability of our undersea pipelines, data and power cables,” he said.

As he explained, Britain is “heavily reliant” on these undersea cables to provide some of that capability.

Indeed, these cables carry more than 99 per cent of the world’s data traffic, facilitating everything from financial transactions to personal Internet usage. They are indispensable for the UK’s financial sector, which handles $10trillion (£7trillion) in daily financial transfers.

Putin could turn off Britain’s lights, internet and disrupt its banking system, the ex-RAF pilot warned.

LATEST MEMBERSHIP DEVELOPMENTS

Russia could launch a devastating cyber or kinetic attack on European infrastructure

SWEDISH COAST GUARD/AFP/Getty Images

No compromise leads to a nuclear exchange

Putin’s nuclear posture has informed the West’s response to Russia ever since the war broke out.

For example, former Secretary of State Antony Blinken told reporters in a press briefing seven months into Russia’s invasion that if Putin “perceives that there’s no off-ramp, no willingness to find a way out through dialogue, the danger of miscalculation grows—including the possibility they [Russia] resort to nuclear weapon”.

However, this threat could grow teeth if ceasefire talks, pushed by Trump’s “make a deal or we’re out” ultimatum, collapse due to Zelensky’s insistence on “no compromises with a killer”.

In an interview with Newsweek this week, retired Rear Admiral Mark Montgomery warned “a lack of diplomatic breakthroughs in Ukraine could see nuclear thresholds crossed”.

Russia could test Western resolve with a tactical nuclear demonstration near Ukraine, prompting the ‘Europe Plus’ coalition to intervene directly.

Nuclear brinkmanship could then ensue, resulting in a catastrophic miscalculation.

War game scenarios from the U.S. Department of Defense have explored Russia’s nuclear threshold since the start of the war. Suppose Putin authorises a low-yield nuclear detonation in the Black Sea as a warning after talks fail.

European leaders, backed by Ursula von der Leyen’s call to Zelensky to “be strong, be brave, be fearless”, deploy a rapid reaction force to Kyiv under the ‘Europe Plus’ banner.

Russia views this as crossing a red line and targets a European convoy with conventional missiles, killing dozens. NATO debates nuclear retaliation as tensions spike.

For Admiral Montgomery, “any major war will almost certainly result from tensions between five major players: Russia, China, North Korea, Iran, and the United States”.

Four of the above countries possess nuclear capabilities, while Iran is accelerating production of near weapons-grade uranium amid growing tensions with the US and Israel.

The Council on Foreign Relations has also modelled a scenario in which Russia used tactical nuclear weapons against Ukrainian military or energy infrastructure targets in an attempt to weaken the country’s will and damage its military capacity.

Tactical nuclear weapons have a smaller payload and more precise targeting, which makes them conducive to battlefield use.

Putin may deem he can get away with this without Nato intervening, as it would not be as devastating as a strategic nuclear weapon.

In fact, Sergei Karaganov, Russian foreign policy analyst close to the Kremlin, spelled this out in an interview with RT on June 13, 2023.

He said: “A limited nuclear strike could sober up the West… They won’t risk their cities for Ukraine, and we can demonstrate resolve without hitting NATO soil.”

However, Nato might still conduct a calibrated response on Russian soil, which could lead to a full-blown nuclear exchange.

Jake Sullivan, who served as the United States National Security Advisor to Former President Joe Biden, said in September last year: “Any use of nuclear weapons will have catastrophic consequences for Russia, but we’ve been clear we’re not looking to start World War III”.

No official in the Trump administration has explicitly addressed Russia’s potential use of low-yield tactical nuclear weapons, leaving a gap in deterrence messaging.

Trump’s reluctance to offer security guarantees—ceding that role to Europe—and his administration’s focus on “peace through strength” without defining red lines could lead Putin to believe a limited nuclear strike in Ukraine might not provoke NATO intervention, especially if confined to non-NATO territory.