World War Three: Who Would Fight, Who Would Ally, and Where the Battles Would Rage

The prospect of a third world war has shifted from Cold War-era paranoia to a disturbingly plausible scenario in the 2020s. With a land war raging in Europe, international law being openly flouted, and tensions escalating across multiple continents simultaneously, the question is no longer purely academic. Former US congresswoman Jane Harman, chair of the bipartisan US Commission on National Defense Strategy, stated in mid-2024 that the United States faces the ‘most serious and most challenging’ threats since the end of the Second World War, including a real risk of ‘near-term major war.’

Polling data reinforces the anxiety: YouGov reported in 2024 that 53 percent of Britons believe another world war is likely within the next five to ten years, while 51 percent of Americans — stereotypically the world’s most optimistic people — agreed in a similar survey. So what would a global conflict actually look like if it erupted tomorrow? Who would stand on which side, and where would the fighting take place?

How Likely Is World War Three?

The unsettling reality is that a third world war sits within the realm of genuine possibility rather than pure fiction. Jane Harman’s 2024 warning about ‘near-term major war’ was not the rhetoric of a fringe commentator but the considered assessment of a bipartisan defence commission. Public sentiment mirrors that concern on both sides of the Atlantic, with majorities in both the UK and the US expecting a world war within a decade.

Of course, likelihood and certainty are very different things. Any analysis of a hypothetical WW3 must rest on the assumption that geopolitics at the outbreak of war closely resembles geopolitics today — no sudden pro-Western revolutions in Belarus, no dramatic realignments in East Asia. The focus here is deliberately narrow: who would fight and where, rather than outcomes, nuclear escalation, or economic collapse, each of which could fill volumes on their own.

The Western Coalition: Team Composition and Logic

The first and most recognisable bloc in any global conflict would be what is commonly — if geographically imprecisely — called ‘the West.’ Its captain is the United States. If a world war erupted tomorrow, it would almost certainly pit the US against several of its biggest adversaries; if China, Russia, and the United States were somehow on the same side, the conflict would likely be over in a week. US hegemony, and the desire of rival powers to challenge it, would be a root cause of war in the first place.

Surrounding the US is an executive core of Anglophone allies: Canada, the United Kingdom, Australia, and New Zealand. These five nations share language, culture, liberal-democratic governance, and — critically — the Five Eyes intelligence and security network, widely regarded as the world’s most comprehensive intelligence-sharing arrangement. Canada is the US’s northern brother; Britain maintains the enduring ‘special relationship’ with Washington; the UK, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand are bound through the Commonwealth; and Australia and New Zealand are natural partners in the Pacific who would rely heavily on US support in that theatre.

Beyond the Anglosphere, two overlapping institutional frameworks would shape the Western coalition: NATO and the European Union. NATO’s Article 5 — an attack on one is an attack on all — makes the military calculus straightforward for its members. The EU, while not a military alliance per se, would function as its own decision-making entity, coordinating a formidable economic and military coalition.

Nations like Germany, France, Italy, Spain, Portugal, and Greece share political values, economic ties, and cultural affinity with the broader Western bloc. Not every EU member is in NATO, however. Austria, Malta, Cyprus, and Ireland sit outside the alliance; if push came to shove, they might contribute to varying degrees depending on whether they themselves were attacked, but on balance they would either join the West or remain uninvolved.

In the Indo-Pacific, Taiwan and Japan would be geographically and strategically vital additions to the Western side. Taiwan’s participation would be born of necessity: if China moved to seize the island over the longstanding dispute about who constitutes the ‘real China,’ Taipei would have no choice but to seek Western support. Japan, a loyal NATO partner, liberal democracy, and major Pacific economy, would be essential for projecting naval and air power against regional adversaries. The Philippines and South Korea, both Western-aligned East Asian states, would likely support this Pacific wing of the coalition.

Ukraine, Israel, and the Coalition’s Contentious Members

Two nations would find themselves on the Western side for very different — and politically charged — reasons: Ukraine and Israel. Ukraine’s inclusion is a near-certainty given its ongoing war with Russia; assuming that conflict persists when a wider war ignites, Kyiv’s deep integration with US military equipment and Western support structures makes its alignment obvious.

Israel has historically been backed by the West and serves as a key ally in the Middle East. Even as some European nations increasingly question Israeli actions, its strategic value and longstanding relationships with Washington would place it firmly in the Western camp. Crucially, however, Israel’s presence on the Western side is itself a polarising factor — one that could push certain nations toward the opposing coalition purely out of opposition to Israeli policies.

The Fence-Sitters: India, Saudi Arabia, Brazil, and Others

Not every significant power would rush to pick a side. India is perhaps the single most consequential undecided player. As a BRICS nation with ties to several of the West’s adversaries, New Delhi might prefer neutrality. Yet with a rival superpower in China on the opposing side, true neutrality would be difficult.

The US and India have spent years strengthening bilateral ties, and if forced to choose, India would probably lean West. There is a compelling counter-argument, however: a global conflict could allow India to emerge as the new global hegemon simply by staying home while everyone else exhausts themselves. Diplomatic tensions between India and Canada add another layer of unpredictability.

Saudi Arabia is closely linked to the United States but operates as a force unto itself. As one of the world’s largest oil producers, Riyadh knows its leverage. The West can likely offer a better deal than the opposing coalition, but Mohammed Bin Salman is not easily coerced. Reluctance to align openly with Israel could give Riyadh pause, though the presence of regional rival Iran on the other side might tip the scales toward the West.

The UAE presents a similar dilemma: a staunch US ally that nonetheless maintains warm relations with Moscow and has its own strategic interests, including involvement in Sudan.

Brazil, another BRICS member, would likely attempt to stay out of the conflict altogether, guided by its longstanding principle of non-interference. Mexico, while a US partner, might demand assurances from Washington before committing. South America as a whole would probably lean Western, but the commitment would be far from uniform or enthusiastic.

The Axis of Disorder: Russia, China, and Their Partners

Opposing the Western coalition would be a grouping best described as the ‘Axis of Disorder’ (AOD) — nations united less by shared values than by a common desire to disrupt the US-led international order.

Russia is the most obvious member. Moscow has been on a collision course with NATO since the mid-2000s, when Vladimir Putin described the fall of the Soviet Union as ‘the greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the 20th century.’ Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has placed it squarely at odds with the West, and Putin’s ambitions are widely understood to extend beyond Ukraine. The problem for Moscow is that almost every country it might target in Europe is already a NATO member or part of a Western strategic alliance.

Moldova could be a target, but Ukraine currently stands in the way.

Belarus would follow Russia almost automatically. Europe’s last dictatorship is Moscow’s closest European ally, having facilitated Russia’s initial thrust toward Kyiv by allowing troops to cross Belarusian territory. In August 2024, Belarusian troops massed on the Ukrainian border under the guise of military exercises. While President Lukashenko has resisted sending Belarusian troops into Ukraine, a full-scale global conflict would almost certainly see Minsk align with Moscow.

China rounds out the AOD’s core. PLA troops conducted military exercises in Belarus in July 2024, and Beijing’s ties with Moscow have deepened considerably. In a world war, China would bring unmatched manufacturing capacity and manpower to the AOD. However, China’s participation comes with a caveat: Beijing does not like to share.

Its resources would be needed first and foremost for its own strategic objectives, and it might decline to assist AOD partners in theatres — such as a European land war — that do not directly serve Chinese interests.

Iran and North Korea add volatile elements to the AOD. Pyongyang is a longstanding Chinese ally whose relationship with Russia has strengthened to the point of agreeing to send troops to Ukraine. North Korea’s nuclear arsenal and its proximity to South Korea make it a wildcard.

Iran, potentially approaching nuclear breakout capability, is fiercely anti-Western and conducted joint naval exercises with Russia and China in the Gulf of Oman in March 2024. Tehran’s energy resources would be valuable to the AOD, but Iran has many enemies and few friends — it is unclear whether anyone would come to its aid if it found itself in serious trouble.

NATO and EU Members Who Might Defect or Stay Neutral

Not every member of Western institutions would be a reliable coalition partner. Turkey and Hungary stand out as potential disruptors. Turkey, a NATO member, has frequently clashed politically with its supposed allies, and President Erdogan would likely attempt to play both sides. Hungary’s Viktor Orbán, despite authoritarian tendencies and warm relations with Moscow, would probably hesitate to jeopardise his country’s place in the EU’s single market.

Both nations would most likely prefer neutrality if war broke out tomorrow.

Pakistan presents another interesting case. While technically a NATO partner, Islamabad’s close ties to Beijing and its rivalry with India could push it toward the AOD, particularly if New Delhi sided with the West. For Pakistan, the calculus is straightforward: the enemy of my enemy is my friend.

The Central Asian nations — sandwiched between Russia and China with historical ties to the Soviet Union — might feel compelled to join the AOD for security reasons, though many maintain solid Western ties. Their alignment would likely depend more on the consequences of refusing to join than on genuine ideological affinity. Cuba and Venezuela, defined more by anti-Americanism than by any deep similarity with other AOD members, would probably pledge support but achieve little given their proximity to the US and its allies.

Africa: The Great Unknown

The biggest question mark on the global map is Africa. Some nations, such as Nigeria and South Africa, might lean Western if forced to choose, potentially holding onto Commonwealth or former colonial ties. Others might side with China or Russia, given the presence of Wagner mercenaries providing security services and the significant economic investment China has poured into African infrastructure. Yet these same influences could just as easily provoke a backlash.

A third world war would likely push Africa toward intra-continental disputes, with local rivalries determining who fights whom rather than global alliance structures. Some nations might simply decide the conflict is not their fight. East African states could be drawn in by their proximity to the Red Sea, the Suez Canal, and the Gulf of Aden, but even then it is difficult to predict which side they would support, if any. Africa’s vast mineral resources could prove decisive for whichever coalition secures access to them, but it remains unclear how this would translate into firm alliances.

The Perpetually Neutral and the Genuinely Uncertain

Switzerland, true to centuries of precedent, would almost certainly refuse to commit troops unless directly attacked. In Southeast Asia, Vietnam has been moving closer to the United States while Thailand has drifted toward China following its recent coup — yet both fall within Beijing’s sphere of influence, creating genuine uncertainty. Afghanistan, under Taliban control since the US withdrawal in 2021, is unlikely to involve itself in a global conflict; as the source wryly notes, the Taliban might simply find the whole spectacle amusing after decades of being on the receiving end of foreign invasions.

Theatre One: The South and East China Seas

If the ‘who’ of World War Three is complex, the ‘where’ follows a logic familiar from previous global conflicts: distinct theatres of combat, much like the Pacific, European, and North African theatres of World War Two.

The South and East China Seas would almost certainly be the most strategically critical theatre. Securing the waterways around China would be absolutely vital for both coalitions, guaranteeing heavy naval and air engagements. The region is already riddled with border disputes, and its strategic significance extends far beyond territorial claims.

For China, national security demands keeping Western forces from shelling coastal cities like Shanghai and Xiamen, and — crucially — out of the Yellow Sea, which provides a direct approach to Beijing. Yet defending these waters against the combined naval power of the US, Japan, Australia, New Zealand, Taiwan, and the Philippines would be an enormous challenge. If China cannot secure alternative shipping routes to its allies, its status as the world’s largest manufacturing base and economic powerhouse could be fatally undermined. And then there is Taiwan’s semiconductor manufacturing industry, vital to global computing infrastructure — a prize China would need to capture at virtually any cost.

China’s vulnerabilities are not limited to the sea. It shares land borders with Vietnam and India, both of which could side with the West. India is by far the larger concern: having overtaken China in population, it possesses comparable potential in terms of military personnel. India could engage China directly over territorial disputes in Kashmir, the Indian Ocean, or Arunachal Pradesh — where Beijing attempted to rename 30 villages as recently as April 2024.

A war on multiple fronts simultaneously is not a decision Beijing could take lightly.

Theatre Two: The Middle East

The Middle East would be inescapably central to any world war, driven by the sheer density of opposing states packed into a relatively small geographic area and the region’s irreplaceable energy resources. On one side stands Israel, backed by the US, the UK, and other Western nations, with potential collaboration from Saudi Arabia. On the other stands Iran at minimum, possibly joined by Pakistan, with states like Turkey, Syria, Iraq, and Egypt capable of acting in strategically significant ways regardless of their formal alignment.

The resource dimension is what elevates the Middle East from a secondary concern to a primary theatre. Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, and Qatar are all more closely affiliated with the West, which would desperately need their energy output to fuel military operations and keep civilian infrastructure running. The AOD, meanwhile, possesses two energy giants in Russia and Iran. Control over Middle Eastern oil and gas could directly dictate the military capacities and capabilities of both coalitions, making the region a focal point for some of the war’s most intense fighting.

What This Hypothetical Reveals About Today’s Geopolitics

Mapping out the alliances and theatres of a hypothetical World War Three is, at its core, an exercise in understanding the fault lines that already exist in contemporary geopolitics. The Western coalition’s strength lies in its institutional depth — NATO, the EU, Five Eyes, and a dense web of bilateral relationships — but its cohesion is not guaranteed, with potential defectors in Turkey and Hungary and fence-sitters across the Global South. The Axis of Disorder’s strength lies in its willingness to disrupt and its combined resource base, but its members are united more by opposition to the US-led order than by any positive shared vision, and China’s reluctance to subordinate its own interests to collective goals could prove a critical weakness.

The undecided nations — India, Saudi Arabia, much of Africa, and large parts of South America and Southeast Asia — hold the balance. Their choices, driven by self-interest, regional rivalries, and the specific circumstances of the conflict’s outbreak, could determine which coalition prevails. In a globalised world where supply chains, energy markets, and information networks span every continent, true neutrality may be the hardest position of all to maintain.

Theatre Three: Europe’s Eastern Flank and the Wider Continental Battleground

Further west from the Indo-Pacific lies the theatre where battle lines have already been drawn in blood: Europe. Ukraine has been fighting Russia since 2014, and the outbreak of a wider world war would be unlikely to change that dynamic — it would simply spread the conflict across the continent. Ukraine would remain locked in combat with Russian forces, but Russia, with assistance from Belarus, might also choose to wage war on the territory of other European nations.

The Baltic states of Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia would be obvious early targets. All three are NATO members, but their small size and geographic proximity to Russia make them acutely vulnerable to a rapid incursion. Finland, NATO’s newest member, shares a border with Russia stretching over 1,300 kilometres — a geographic reality that could set the stage for what might be described as a ‘Winter War Part Two,’ echoing the Soviet-Finnish conflict of 1939–1940.

Poland has been preparing for a potential showdown with Russia for years, massively increasing its defence spending in anticipation of exactly this kind of eventuality. Warsaw would be a cornerstone of any Western defence of Eastern Europe. A broader Eastern European theatre, however, would create deeply uncomfortable dilemmas for more Russian-aligned European powers such as Serbia and Hungary.

Both nations maintain warmer relations with Moscow than their neighbours, but both also sit in extremely close proximity to firmly Western-aligned states, limiting their room for manoeuvre. The Balkans, with their long history of hostility and cyclical violence, could well descend into infighting — as the region has done repeatedly throughout the modern era.

A broader European conflict could also spell the end for Transnistria, the Russian-backed separatist region of Moldova. Without a direct land corridor to reinforce its garrison there, Moscow would struggle to sustain the breakaway territory. Romania, which borders Moldova and is both a NATO and EU member, would be a key Western ally in any such scenario, providing a staging ground for operations aimed at stabilising the region.

Europe’s Maritime Dimensions: The Mediterranean, the Black Sea, and the North Atlantic

Europe’s seas would be almost as strategically important as its land borders in a global conflict. The Mediterranean provides access to the Suez Canal and serves as the conduit for energy exports discussed in the context of the Middle Eastern theatre. Control of Mediterranean sea lanes would be essential for both coalitions seeking to move resources between theatres.

Turkey could prove to be a decisive actor as the de facto power in the Black Sea and, critically, through its control of the Bosphorus Strait, where Russia’s Black Sea Fleet is currently stationed. Stuck geographically between Russia, Europe, and the Middle East, President Erdogan’s position would be unenviable — but his leverage would be enormous. Whichever side Turkey chose, or whether it managed to maintain neutrality, could reshape the strategic calculus across two entire theatres of war.

The North Sea and the European side of the Atlantic Ocean would also be critical battlegrounds. Norwegian oil and gas feeds several pipelines to countries throughout Europe — pipelines the Axis of Disorder might attempt to disrupt. There is already precedent for such sabotage: in October 2023, a Chinese ship damaged the Balticonnector pipeline between Finland and Estonia, also severing undersea communication cables. Disruptions to these highly crucial connections — which facilitate internet traffic across the Atlantic — could severely impair communications and trigger cascading consequences far beyond the immediate area of damage.

Securing the North Sea and Norwegian Sea with a significant naval presence would therefore be a non-negotiable requirement for the Western coalition, aimed at deterring Russian and Chinese submarines from cutting the undersea arteries that bind Europe and North America together.

The Arctic: The Underreported Northern Theatre

Travelling north from Europe and past the Norwegian Sea brings us to the often-underreported Arctic — a theatre that could prove far more consequential than its low profile suggests. The biggest challenge here for the Western coalition would be the Russian Northern Fleet, one of Moscow’s largest naval formations. Russia possesses a considerable amount of military infrastructure across its Arctic territories, which in peacetime helps facilitate trade routes through the frozen North while bypassing the Suez Canal. Moscow has also invested in newly refurbished bases, Arctic special forces, and a fleet of icebreakers that dwarfs anything the West can currently deploy in the region.

The Arctic offers Russia a potentially easier vector for striking the United States directly, rather than having to project force all the way across the Atlantic or Pacific. Russian fighter jets are known to penetrate Alaskan airspace on a semi-regular basis, and it is not out of the question that Moscow would attempt to use this northern corridor as an avenue of attack — especially given how secure Russia’s Arctic flank is from almost every other direction. Putin himself signed a decree in January hinting that Moscow might want Alaska back, a provocation that, while largely symbolic, underscores the Kremlin’s awareness of the Arctic’s strategic potential.

Canada is an important ally in this theatre, possessing the second-largest Arctic territory after Russia. However, Ottawa has historically neglected its northern defences, leaving the Western coalition unnaturally weak in the region. Canada’s defence spending has been minuscule relative to the challenge, with successive governments seemingly content to rely on the assumption that the United States would pick up the tab when the situation demanded it.

This makes the Arctic a point of genuine vulnerability. Denmark, through its territory in Greenland, could also be pulled into the fight, and the other Nordic nations close to the Arctic — Finland, Iceland, Sweden, and Norway — might all need to contribute to containing Russia’s northern threat.

One critical caveat applies: Russia could be stretched extremely thin if it is simultaneously fighting in Eastern Europe and committing resources to other theatres. While Moscow may have access to North America through the Arctic, that access cuts both ways — those same northern approaches would also give Western nations a route into Russian territory. Russia cannot defend its entire Arctic coastline at once. For this reason, the Arctic theatre might end up being lower intensity and more defensive in character than the others, defined more by submarine warfare, intelligence operations, and strategic positioning than by large-scale conventional engagements — cloak and dagger over missiles and bullets.

Sub-Theatres: The Korean Peninsula, Hawaii, and Cyprus

Beyond the three primary theatres, several smaller but significant sub-theatres would demand attention and resources from both coalitions.

The Korean Peninsula is perhaps the most immediately dangerous. Given that the Korean War never officially ended — the 1953 armistice established a ceasefire, not a peace treaty — Pyongyang and Seoul would have no difficulty picking up where they left off in the 1950s. China and Russia’s support of North Korea could potentially overwhelm the South, with only Japan geographically close enough to provide immediate assistance.

The Philippines and US forces stationed on Guam would take time to reach the peninsula, by which point it could be too late. A crucial counterweight, however, is the presence of approximately 28,500 US troops already stationed in South Korea. In the event that Seoul were attacked, their presence would virtually guarantee a rapid military response from Washington, making any North Korean gamble extraordinarily risky.

Hawaii represents another interesting case as a US state situated in the middle of the Pacific Ocean. The primary concern would be a Chinese or Russian strike reminiscent of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor in 1941. While it is highly unlikely that Hawaii could ever be occupied, it hosts critically important naval bases essential for American power projection across the Pacific. Weakening Hawaii’s military infrastructure could succeed in giving the United States a bloody nose — or it might simply provoke the kind of furious, total mobilisation that Japan’s 1941 attack ultimately triggered.

Cyprus, meanwhile, is a highly contested issue between Greece and Turkey, with the dispute currently mediated by the United Kingdom, which maintains sovereign military bases on the island. A world war could tempt both Athens and Ankara to take advantage of the chaos while other states’ attention is elsewhere, seeking to settle their longstanding differences by force. Given Cyprus’s location in the eastern Mediterranean, so close to the Middle Eastern theatre, conflict there could easily spill across theatre boundaries and mark a dangerous point of escalation.

Russia’s Strategic Overstretch and the Problem of Multi-Front War

A recurring theme across nearly every theatre is the risk of strategic overstretch — particularly for Russia. Moscow would face the daunting prospect of fighting simultaneously in Eastern Europe, defending its Arctic territories, supporting operations in the Middle East through its alliance with Iran, and potentially contributing to Chinese-led efforts in the Pacific. Each of these commitments would drain manpower, equipment, and logistical capacity from the others.

Russia’s experience in Ukraine has already demonstrated the limits of its conventional military power when engaged in a single, sustained conflict. Extending that effort across multiple fronts would magnify every existing weakness: equipment shortages, logistical bottlenecks, and the challenge of maintaining morale among forces fighting far from home. While Russia’s nuclear arsenal provides a deterrent against existential threats, it does not solve the problem of needing boots on the ground in half a dozen places at once.

The same logic applies, to a lesser extent, to China. Beijing’s primary strategic objectives — securing Taiwan, dominating the South and East China Seas, and defending against potential Indian incursions — would consume the vast majority of its military resources. Sending meaningful assistance to Russia in Europe or to North Korea on the peninsula would require diverting forces from these core priorities, something Beijing would be deeply reluctant to do. The Axis of Disorder’s fundamental weakness is that its members’ interests, while broadly aligned against the West, are geographically dispersed and strategically distinct — making coordinated action across theatres far more difficult than it might appear on paper.

The Sobering Bottom Line

Mapping out the alliances, theatres, and sub-theatres of a hypothetical World War Three is, ultimately, an exercise in confronting the fragility of the current international order. The Western coalition’s institutional depth — NATO, the EU, Five Eyes, and a dense web of bilateral relationships — provides a formidable foundation, but its cohesion is not guaranteed. Potential defectors in Turkey and Hungary, fence-sitters across the Global South, and the sheer logistical challenge of fighting across multiple theatres simultaneously would test the alliance to its limits.

The Axis of Disorder’s strength lies in its willingness to disrupt and its combined resource base, but its members are united more by opposition to the US-led order than by any positive shared vision. China’s reluctance to subordinate its own interests to collective goals, Russia’s risk of overstretch, and the volatile unpredictability of actors like North Korea and Iran could prove critical weaknesses.

The undecided nations — India, Saudi Arabia, much of Africa, and large parts of South America and Southeast Asia — hold the balance. Their choices, driven by self-interest, regional rivalries, and the specific circumstances of the conflict’s outbreak, could determine which coalition prevails. In a globalised world where supply chains, energy markets, and information networks span every continent, true neutrality may be the hardest position of all to maintain.

It is important to note that World War Three, while arguably closer than it has been in a long time, remains just one possibility among a whole range of futures for the planet. Conflict may come sooner, it could come later, but the fault lines explored here are not hypothetical — they exist today, shaping the decisions of leaders and the anxieties of populations around the world. Understanding where those fault lines run, and how they might rupture, is not an exercise in fatalism. It is a necessary act of strategic literacy.

Related Coverage

• The UAE is Destabilizing the Entire Middle East
• The UAE’s Regional Ambitions Collapse as Middle East Powers Push Back
• How the UAE’s Regional Meddling Triggered a Historic Realignment Across the Middle East

Frequently Asked Questions

How likely is World War Three according to experts and public opinion?

Former US congresswoman Jane Harman, chair of the bipartisan US Commission on National Defense Strategy, stated in mid-2024 that the US faces the ‘most serious and most challenging’ threats since the end of the Second World War, including a real risk of ‘near-term major war.’ YouGov reported in 2024 that 53 percent of Britons believe another world war is likely within five to ten years, and 51 percent of Americans agreed in a similar survey.

What are the two main coalitions that would likely form in a hypothetical World War Three?

The first is a Western coalition led by the United States, reinforced by NATO, the EU, Five Eyes nations (US, UK, Canada, Australia, New Zealand), and Indo-Pacific allies such as Japan, Taiwan, South Korea, and the Philippines. The second is the ‘Axis of Disorder’ (AOD), anchored by Russia, China, Iran, North Korea, and Belarus, united primarily by a desire to disrupt the US-led international order.

Where would the main fighting take place?

Three primary theatres are identified: the South and East China Seas (control of shipping lanes, Taiwan’s semiconductors, and coastal access), Europe’s eastern flank (where Russia’s ambitions collide with NATO territory, including the Baltics, Finland, and Poland), and the Middle East (energy resources, the density of opposing states, and entrenched rivalries). Additional sub-theatres include the Arctic, the Korean Peninsula, Hawaii, and Cyprus.

Why is the South and East China Sea considered the most strategically critical theatre?

The region is vital because China must keep Western forces from shelling its coastal cities and out of the Yellow Sea (which provides a direct approach to Beijing), while also securing shipping routes to its allies. Taiwan’s semiconductor manufacturing industry — vital to global computing — is located there. Additionally, the combined naval power of the US, Japan, Australia, New Zealand, Taiwan, and the Philippines would challenge China’s control, and China shares land borders with potential Western-aligned nations like Vietnam and India.

What is the ‘Axis of Disorder’s’ main weakness?

The AOD’s fundamental weakness is that its members’ interests, while broadly aligned against the West, are geographically dispersed and strategically distinct. China’s reluctance to subordinate its own interests to collective goals means it may decline to assist partners in theatres that don’t directly serve Chinese interests. Russia risks severe strategic overstretch fighting on multiple fronts simultaneously, and volatile actors like North Korea and Iran add unpredictability.

Sources

• https://www.mirasafety.com/blogs/news/will-there-be-a-world-war-3?srsltid=AfmBOorMbBakr_ex2KhCZkRbschK4bc2QmhqeQ4Eke4M7hNLkzc4LPLa
• https://yougov.co.uk/politics/articles/48527-world-war-3-likely-in-next-5-10-years-think-most-britons
• https://theweek.com/92967/are-we-heading-towards-world-war-3
• https://news.sky.com/story/are-we-heading-for-world-war-three-experts-weigh-up-whether-russia-china-and-the-middle-east-could-lead-us-into-apocalyptic-conflict-13056131
• https://www.willbhurd.com/three-conflicts-that-could-turn-into-world-war-3/
• https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2024-02-11/what-would-america-look-like-if-it-lost-world-war-iii
• https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/06/06/iran-russia-china-qatar-turkey-world-war-three/
• https://globaltaiwan.org/2023/12/the-axis-of-disorder-how-russia-iran-and-china-want-to-remake-the-world/
• https://www.forbes.com/sites/stuartanderson/2024/02/19/putin-unlikely-to-stop-in-russia-and-ukraine/
• https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2024/8/26/why-is-belarus-amassing-troops-along-its-border-with-ukraine
• https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2024/3/12/china-iran-and-russia-stage-joint-naval-drills-in-gulf-of-oman
• https://www.reuters.com/world/india/india-rejects-chinas-renaming-30-places-himalayan-border-state-2024-04-02/
• https://today.yougov.com/politics/articles/48981-most-americans-think-another-world-war-within-the-next-decade
• https://www.brookings.edu/articles/a-brazilian-way-brazils-approach-to-peacebuilding/