In the first weeks of the war between and , if one was on the front line one would hear shouts in Ukrainian and Russian. Today, soldiers on both sides of the conflict line communicate in Spanish, Nepali, Indian, Somali, Serbian and Korean.
As , the foreign languages echoing in the trenches are just one indication of how the war has taken on international dimensions.
In the sky above the battlefield, an Iranian Shahed drone may be intercepted by a US air defense system, while on the ground, German artillery rockets past North Korean missiles. Nearly three years after Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, even the most die-hard isolationists will find it hard to sell the war as a “regional conflict” anymore.
What began in February 2022 as the largest European land war since the Second World War is now vying for the title of the largest global conflict since the Cold War, with dozens of countries directly or indirectly involved.
This internationalization of the war may ultimately determine its outcome, as Ukraine risks losing its biggest supporter – the United States – At the same time, Russia is increasingly attracting allies from Washington’s enemies, most notably the North Korea.
“The last time we saw anything like this was probably the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan,” says Cold War historian Sergei Radchenko. “When there was support for the mujahideen from the West but also from Pakistan, and everyone was involved.”
A proxy war
When Moscow launched its all-out attack on Ukraine in February 2022, the Kremlin and its propagandists justified it as a necessary and defensive move against NATO.
Vladimir Putin reportedly believed the war would be over within days. In fact, based on his previous territorial claims in Ukraine, Moldova and Georgia, he calculated that the West would react with condemnations, but in the end he would accept it.
“It would have been a local conflict if it had ended quickly,” Radchenko says. “But it didn’t happen that way.”
The Ukrainians fought valiantly and Russian forces were delayed long enough for the West to react. Europe worried about its own security, while the US wanted to maintain its prestige as a champion of democracy and European security. Within a few days, Western weapons arrived in Ukraine, giving it the opportunity to fend off Russia’s offensive and internationalizing the conflict.
The international dimension of war
As the war drags on, its international dimension . Today, both sides rely on outside aid: Ukraine to keep fighting, Russia to maintain its supremacy in the sky and on the ground.
Ukraine claims to be fighting for “democracy” while Russia is waging a crusade against American hegemony and the “collective West”. Moscow’s narrative, albeit vaguely worded, has been convincing enough to attract the support of Iran with Shahed drones and North Korea with ballistic missiles, millions of munitions and, recently, thousands of troops.
The so-called “Global South” has also turned towards Russia, finding common ground through the BRICS – an organization of countries reacting to their marginalization by institutions such as the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank.
Moscow’s biggest ally, however, is China. It provides vital support to the Russian economy amid Western sanctions, buying oil and fertilizer while giving it access to much-needed technological tools.
“India and others may do business with Russia, but nothing compares to what China is offering,” commented Alexander Gabuev, director of the Carnegie Russia Eurasia Center.
At the same time, Russia continues its traditional hybrid warfare tactic, looking for ways to hurt the West. This includes interference in elections, arson and other sabotage, as well as providing support to various anti-Western actors and groups, Politico points out.
The reaction of the allies
Meanwhile, Russia’s rivals. The US and Europe have provided Ukraine with over $220 billion in aid, as well as modern weapons, from howitzer ammunition at the start of the war, to F-16 fighter jets and ATACMS missiles.
The European Union, for its part, has advanced the membership requests of Ukraine, Moldova and Georgia, sending a clear geopolitical message to Moscow.
Without Western aid, the war would have ended within the first year with the “catastrophic defeat” of Ukraine, Gabuev stresses. Nevertheless, the West has chosen a strategy of “cautious escalation”, avoiding direct confrontation with Russia.
The West has chosen a more cautious strategy avoiding escalation. For example, and much to the dismay of Kiev, arms deliveries were phased and regulated. For nearly three years, leaders in the US and Europe have turned a deaf ear to Kiev’s calls for permission to use long-range weapons to strike targets inside Russia.
China, too, has respected some of the West’s red lines, ensuring that it does not at least directly violate Western sanctions and, for now, not supplying Russia with any lethal weapons (although it has delivered individual components and according to recent reports, is suspected of delivering drones).
The uncertain sequel
As the war enters its fourth year both sides face shortages. The conflict looks more like a World War I war of attrition than a high-tech World War II.
Russia appears to be losing about 30,000 troops a month while recruiting an equal number to replace them. North Korea, while sending reinforcements, is not offering enough to drastically change the dynamics of the war.
Ukraine is in an even more dire situation as doubts about Western support grow, while its forces face shortages and their morale has plummeted. According to the Pentagon, the country has sufficient forces to continue fighting for another six to twelve months.
The future of the conflict largely depends on the decisions of the main supporters of the two sides – NATO and China. “Without NATO’s support, Ukraine would not exist,” Gabuev noted, and added that “if China withdraws its support for Russia, this could limit Moscow’s ambitions.”
Despite the uncertainties, the reality is that the war remains unchecked, with the possibility of further escalation always present. As Radchenko warns, “as long as the war continues, there is a risk that others will join the battle.”
