Are we heading for World War Three? Experts give their verdicts

Published

1 year ago

April 16, 2024

admin

In a world that has grown more dangerous in recent years, the nightmare scenario of a Third World War is in the public consciousness.

Earlier this year, UK Defence Secretary Grant Shapps warned the world could be engulfed by wars involving China, Russia, North Korea and Iran in the next five years, and said we are moving “from a post-war to pre-war world”.

The relief felt at the end of the Cold War in the late ’80s has been replaced with increasing alarm at Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, and there is outcry at the humanitarian catastrophe in Gaza.

Sky News spoke to experts about whether World War Three is a possibility – and if we really are living in a “pre-war world”.

Here’s what they had to say…

‘The international order is fraying’

Hugh Lovatt, senior policy fellow at the European Council on Foreign Relations thinktank

“The reassuring news is we are not heading towards the Third World War,” he says.

While there are conflicts in tensions in various theatres – Ukraine, the Middle East, Asia-Pacific – these are all “separate and not connected”, according to Mr Lovatt.

“The Gaza war has been going on for six months and is driving regional escalation – Iran’s retaliation against Israel is just the latest example of this.”

There are implications for the international community, including the UK, for example in terms of the Houthi attacks on Red Sea shipping and the impact that has on global trade.

There is, he says, a risk that British troops become sucked into a conflict in the Middle East.

“We need to see these risks in a certain context which is they do impact the UK but they are not existential risks.

“This is also happening at a time when the international order is fraying, is under considerable strain. This is something that we should be very troubled by.”

‘More likely now than at any time since the end of the last world war’

Deborah Haynes, Sky News security and defence editor

Given the scale of the turmoil shaking parts of the globe – in particular in Ukraine and the Middle East – the potential for a spark that ignites World War Three already exists.

That does not mean an escalation to global confrontation is inevitable but it is arguably more likely now than at any time since the end of the last world war.

A decision by Iran to launch an unprecedented barrage of missiles and drones against Israel has just raised the stakes even higher.

Israel has vowed to respond though its allies, including the UK and the US, are urging restraint especially as they helped ensure the vast majority of incoming munitions were blasted out of the sky before they could cause harm on the ground.

Should Israel choose to retaliate, the crisis could yet be contained if its return strike is limited and any further Iranian response triggered by such an attack is also curbed. But they are two big ifs.

Also, every time even limited military action is taken there is the risk of error or miscalculation that leads to uncontrolled escalation to regional war.

What happens in the Middle East also has a global impact, especially because Iran is backed by Russia and has close ties to China, while Israel’s strongest allies, led by the US, are predominately Western nations.

It means the crisis pitches authoritarian states against democracies – just as the concurrent war in Europe does.

Despite vows of Western support, Russia is slowly gaining ground in Ukraine. Western allies are failing to deliver the weapons and ammunition the Ukrainian military needs – leading to an almost inevitable retreat unless the balance of military strength on the ground changes.

Success by Vladimir Putin in Ukraine may embolden the Russian president, whose country is on a “total war” footing, to test the strength of the NATO alliance by invading a member state.

Again, this would create a direct war between authoritarian Moscow, armed by Iran, North Korea and also with assistance from China, against the West’s NATO alliance.

Evidence that military force has proved effective against Western powers could further harden China’s resolve to make good on a pledge to reunite the island of Taiwan with the mainland even if that means invading.

Such a move could also plunge Asia into conflict, again along the same dividing line of authoritarian states versus democracies.

‘Diversion of attention’

Edward R Arnold, senior research fellow at the Royal United Services Institute (RUSI) thinktank

“I think people really need to understand what the North Atlantic Treaty is, which is the foundation of NATO,” he says.

Mr Arnold argues that the public seem to believe that NATO’s Article 5 (the principle that an attack on one member is treated as an attack on all) is automatic.

“That’s not the case or certainly does not have to be the case… escalation is not automatic and there are measures to de-escalate things.”

Looking to the situation in Ukraine, where NATO has been providing weapons and assistance, he says the risk of a miscommunication between the West and Russia has increased.

“The chances of a miscommunication where one ship accidentally fires on another, I think that goes up.

“We need to be really prepared about what that means.”

He also argues that in some ways the threat of a wider conflict with Russia is reducing at the moment. Kremlin forces are starting to make progress in Ukraine, but the quality of their troops has been degraded significantly such that they are not in a position to present a threat to NATO.

Mr Arnold continued: “Vladimir Putin will be looking pretty closely at what happens in the Middle East: how each nation responds and just the diversion of attention (from Ukraine).

“It’s all helping Putin at the moment because while focused on the Middle East we are not as focused as we have been on Ukraine.”

‘Donald Trump could undermine NATO’

Dr Luigi Scazzieri, senior research fellow at the Centre for European Reform thinktank

“It depends on your definition of World War Three. A possible conflict between Iran and Israel has the potential to expand into a major military conflagration in the Middle East, with global implications.

“The US would almost certainly be drawn in on Israel’s side and other Western countries, including the UK, may do the same to a lesser extent.

“But their involvement would be limited and this would not be World War Three, not least as Russia can ill-afford to support Iran and because China is unlikely to.

“The impact of such a conflict on Europe would be primarily economic, through further disruption in energy flows and trade.

“The primary pathway to a World War Three scenario remains a direct Western clash with Russia. That scenario will be more likely if Donald Trump wins and undermines NATO, tempting Vladimir Putin into an attack on the Baltics.

“A clash with Russia would also be quite likely if Western forces become involved in supporting Ukraine in frontline combat roles.”

US

Harvey Weinstein accuser breaks down in tears on witness stand – and swears at his lawyer

Published

11 hours ago

May 3, 2025

admin

Harvey Weinstein accuser breaks down in tears on witness stand - and swears at his lawyer

One of Harvey Weinstein’s accusers broke down in tears and swore on the witness stand as a sexual abuse trial continues.

Warning: This article contains references to sexual assault

Miriam Haley claims the former Hollywood mogul forced oral sex on her in July 2006.

The case is being retried after the appeals court overturned his conviction last year.

She was working as a production assistant at the time.

Weinstein has strenuously denied all allegations, and Ms Haley also testified at Weinstein’s initial trial.

The 48-year-old was testifying in a Manhattan court when Weinstein’s defence lawyer Jennifer Bonjean questioned her account of the incident.

In court, Ms Bonjean asked why Ms Haley would agree to Weinstein’s invitation to his apartment after testifying about his previous behaviour, including her alleging that he barged into her home.

Ms Haley then became emotional after being asked how her clothes came off before Weinstein allegedly pulled out a tampon and performed oral sex on her.

She said Weinstein took off her clothing, but she didn’t recall the details, before Ms Bonjean asked: “You removed your clothes, right?”

Ms Haley then told jurors that Weinstein “was the one who raped me, not the other way around” – to which his lawyer said: “That is for the jury to decide.”

She then started crying and said: “No, it’s not for the jury to decide. It’s my experience. And he did that to me.”

Sky’s US partner network NBC News reported that Ms Haley said during the exchange: “Don’t tell me I wasn’t raped by that f*****g asshole.”

Judge Curtis Farber then halted questioning and sent jurors on a break. Ms Haley’s eyes were red and her face was glistening as she left the witness stand.

In February 2020, Weinstein was found guilty of sexually assaulting Ms Haley – along with raping former actor Jessica Mann in a New York hotel in 2013 – and sentenced to 23 years in prison.

His conviction for the two crimes was overturned in April after an appeals court ruled the trial judge unfairly allowed testimony against Weinstein based on allegations that weren’t part of the case.

After the appeal ruling, Weinstein was charged with raping one woman and forcing oral sex on two others.

Two of the charges are those he faced during the original trial, while the third – one of the charges of forcing oral sex on Kaja Sokola – was added last year.

Weinstein denies all allegations, and his lawyers argue his accusers had consensual sexual encounters.

Regardless of the outcome of the retrial, he will remain in prison over a 2022 conviction in Los Angeles for a separate count of rape. His lawyers are also appealing this sentence.

US

Mike Waltz’s ‘Signalgate’ mistake weakened Trump – so why isn’t Pete Hegseth also getting fired?

Published

2 days ago

May 1, 2025

admin

Mike Waltz's 'Signalgate' mistake weakened Trump - so why isn't Pete Hegseth also getting fired?

Timing’s everything for Donald Trump.

The time for sacking Mike Waltz was, clearly, not before the 100-day milestone – the measure of his performance in office.

The national security adviser had his card marked from the day the ‘Signalgate’ scandal broke.

Trump latest: Waltz ‘leaving White House’ hours after TV appearance

In any other government, at any other time, political expediency would have demanded his immediate sacking.

To have shared sensitive military information on a group chat is a most reckless error of judgement.

Bad enough that the information reached the inbox of a US journalist – who knows who else might have accessed the information in what is a commercially available app? China, Russia? Iran, the very country that backs the Houthi rebels who were under attack?

Initially, Donald Trump defended Waltz as a “good man” who had “learned a lesson”. The president will have known, though, that he’s a man who has fundamentally weakened him.

Waltz’s mistake put the lives of US service personnel at risk and called into question the credibility of his ultimate boss.

The emoji-laden group chat read like the stuff of excited youngsters breathlessly sharing gossip.

It was recklessness over responsibility at the heart of government, and it reflected on the commander-in-chief and his judgement in appointing Waltz in the first place.

To keep him in post for weeks following the scandal looked like an acceptance, of sorts, and it didn’t look good. If there are questions about the circumstances surrounding Waltz, there are, too, about Trump’s defence secretary, Pete Hegseth.

Hegseth was also part of the Signalgate group chat and more.

Separately, he shared messages on Signal with his wife and brother about military strikes. Both are involved with the Pentagon, but are nowhere near the security clearance typically required to access that kind of detail.

If Waltz committed a sackable offence, why didn’t Hegseth?

It’s a question that won’t go away.

The answer, I suspect, is that Donald Trump invested considerable political capital in forcing Hegseth into position, in spite of strong opposition.

In a story that acknowledges weakness at the heart of government, Donald Trump has his limits.

US

US and Ukraine sign deal to establish investment fund

Published

3 days ago

April 30, 2025

admin

US and Ukraine sign deal to establish investment fund

The US Treasury has announced it has agreed to establish an American-Ukrainian reconstruction investment fund.

For Ukraine, the economic deal was seen as possibly key to ensuring its access to future US military aid in its war against Russia.

President Trump had previously called for Kyiv to compensate Washington for billions of dollars in assistance to help repel the Kremlin’s forces.

A senior Ukrainian official said on Wednesday the US will make “direct financial contributions” to the fund and “may also provide new assistance” such as air defence systems for Ukraine.

In return the US is set to get preferential access any new deals concerning Ukraine’s mineral resources.

Trump latest: Deal shows Trump ‘committed to free Ukraine’

The US Treasury said “in recognition of the significant financial and material support” the US has provided to the “defence of Ukraine… this economic partnership positions our two countries to work collaboratively and invest together to… accelerate Ukraine’s economic recovery”.

US treasury secretary Scott Bessent said: “This agreement signals clearly to Russia that the Trump administration is committed to a peace process centered on a free, sovereign, and prosperous Ukraine over the long term.”

He also said “this partnership allows the US to invest alongside Ukraine, to unlock Ukraine’s growth assets, mobilise American talent, capital and governance standards that will improve Ukraine’s investment climate and accelerate Ukraine’s economic recovery”.

Donald Trump indicated in February he wanted access to Ukraine’s rare earth materials, describing it as reimbursement for the billions of dollars in aid the US has given to Kyiv.

But talks stalled after a heated Oval Office meeting between him and Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, and reaching an agreement since then has proven difficult amid strained relations between Washington and Kyiv.

Trump is closer to ending Ukraine war than ever before

They are calling this a “reconstruction investment fund” but it gives the US access to things like graphite, aluminium, oil and gas.

The White House has confirmed this is indeed the oft-referenced “minerals deal”, and it will pay dividends in various ways.

Economically it allows the US to say they are clawing back the billions of dollars it has offered in military aid to Ukraine.

Politically, by having an investment on the ground, it allows Donald Trump to claim he’s giving Volodymyr Zelenskyy the security guarantees he’s sought for so long.

It is the latest chapter in a remarkable story.

The jaw-dropping showdown between Mr Trump and Mr Zelenskyy in the Oval Office at the end of February, when the US was seemingly suggesting Ukraine was somehow responsible for the Russian invasion, redefined old allegiances in real time before our very eyes, to the shock of other world leaders.

Then last weekend, we saw the two men again seated together just feet apart at St Peter’s Basilica in Rome at the funeral of Pope Francis, closing the gap both literally and politically.

Mr Trump vowed to end the war in Ukraine on his first day in office. On his 101st day, he’s closer to doing that than he ever has been before.

Why is US interested in Ukraine’s raw materials?

The US is seeking access to over 20 raw materials seen as strategically critical to its interests, including some non-minerals such as oil and natural gas.

Among them are Ukraine’s deposits of titanium, which is used for making aircraft wings and other aerospace manufacturing, and uranium, that is used for nuclear power, medical equipment and weapons.

Ukraine also has lithium, graphite and manganese, which are used in electric vehicle batteries.

On Wednesday, Ukraine’s first deputy prime minister Yulia Svyrydenko said she had signed the agreement in Washington DC to create the investment fund.

She wrote on X: “Together with the United States, we are creating the fund that will attract global investment into our country.

“Its implementation allows both countries to expand their economic potential through equal cooperation and investment.

“The United States will contribute to the fund. In addition to direct financial contributions, it may also provide new assistance – for example air defence systems for Ukraine.”

The announcement comes as the Trump administration is pushing to stop the war, which erupted in February 2022 when Russia launched a full-scale invasion.

Russian President Vladimir Putin backs calls for a ceasefire before peace negotiations, “but before it’s done, it’s necessary to answer a few questions and sort out a few nuances,” Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov has said.

Mr Putin is also ready for direct talks with Ukraine without preconditions to seek a peace deal, he added.

On Monday, the Russian leader declared there would be a three-day ceasefire from 8 May to 10 May.

Mr Zelenskyy wants an immediate ceasefire lasting at least 30 days.