Warning: Analysts Say World War III Could Be Inevitable—Are You Prepared?
Forces That Could Ignite Global Conflict
As fractures appear across alliances, markets, and societies, the prospect of a third world war has moved from remote possibility to pressing concern.
At TEDx Lisboa in May 2025, political analyst and strategist Heni Ozi Cukier laid out a four-dimensional framework—social, economic, political, and military—to show how local crises can spiral into global conflagrations.
By tracing each dimension through three pivotal eras—pre-1914, the interwar years, and our present moment—we can spot the structural pressures and missteps that historically tipped the world into catastrophe.
In this post, we unpack Cukier’s insights, layer in Malcolm Nance’s stark North American warning, and highlight the key indicators to monitor as global fault lines deepen.
Heni Ozi Cukier’s Analysis: Accelerating Upheaval
Noted political strategist Heni Ozi Cukier argued that rather than chase historical analogies, we should examine four fundamental dimensions during his TEDx presentation.
They include social, economic, political, and military factors to understand why societies tipped into World War I and II, and how similar forces are at work today.
By comparing each dimension across three critical moments—pre-1914, the interwar years, and the present—we can spot the fault lines that make global catastrophe more likely.
Cukier’s framework helps us see beyond cherry-picked parallels and focus on structural trends.
In each dimension, technological, financial, ideological, and alliance shifts built pressures that elites misread or dismissed, allowing local crises to spin into world wars.
The question now is whether we recognize these warning signs in time to steer away from disaster.
Social Dimension.
Before World War I, the Second Industrial Revolution unleashed electricity, mass production, the automobile, and telephony—transformations celebrated by many but feared by workers displaced by machines and peasants uprooted from rural life.
Established authorities from monarchs to clergy lost legitimacy, and mass movements like labor unions and nationalist leagues flourished amid growing insecurity.
In the interwar years, technological change kept accelerating. The term “robot” appeared in 1921, embodying widespread dread of mechanized unemployment.
New media—radio, newsreels, propaganda cinema—polarized politics and amplified social fears, eroding trust in traditional culture, family, and faith.
Today, the AI revolution, smartphones, and social platforms have reshaped how we work, communicate, and even think. Concerns over job displacement by algorithms, surveillance, data privacy, and digital addiction run deep.
Ideas and anxieties now spread at internet speed, fueling resentment and uncertainty.
History shows that when social transformations outpace institutions’ ability to manage them, societies become vulnerable to extremist ideologies that glorify strength and militarism.
Economic Dimension
In 1914, Britain and Germany were among the world’s leading traders, strongly interdependent, but shared prosperity did not prevent war.
Political ambitions, fear of rivals’ relative gains, and miscalculation trumped economic logic, reminding us that wealth alone cannot guarantee peace.
By the 1930s, Germany and Japan saw themselves falling behind British, French, and American prosperity. Fearing economic dependence, they pursued autarky and resource grabs, setting the stage for World War II.
Supply-chain vulnerabilities and the Great Depression convinced them that territorial expansion trumped trade.
Today, the myth of economic interdependence as a war-preventing force is fraying. The COVID-19 pandemic and Russia’s invasion of Ukraine exposed overreliance on strategic rivals for vaccines, energy, and food.
Governments are reshoring critical industries, erecting trade barriers, and embracing economic nationalism.
Like their predecessors, modern states risk letting relative-power anxieties eclipse the benefits of open markets, resurrecting the zero-sum logic that helped drive the world into war twice.
Political Dimension
Polarization corrodes political orders and can unleash violence when factions lose faith in institutions.
In the Balkans before 1914, nationalist groups waged assassinations and guerrilla attacks against Austro-Hungarian rule, tensions that culminated in the 1914 killing of Archduke Franz Ferdinand by the Black Hand, igniting World War I.
During the Weimar Republic, Germany’s deep ideological splits spawned right- and left-wing militias that assassinated political leaders, paving the way for authoritarianism and World War II.
Once armed factions shadowed every party, compromise became impossible.
Today’s democratic societies face alarming polarization. The January 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol showed how electoral disputes can turn violent.
Multiple assassination attempts against political figures in the United States and over ten thousand attacks on German politicians in recent years reveal that armed extremism is no longer fringe.
When mass polarization gives rise to militias or political violence, the political order teeters on collapse, making large-scale conflict far more likely.
Military Dimension
World wars begin locally but spread globally through alliance commitments. In 1914, Austria-Serbia hostilities activated a web of treaties—Russia backed Serbia, Germany backed Austria, France and Britain were drawn in—transmuting a Balkan crisis into World War I.
In World War II, separate regional conflicts in Europe, Africa, and Asia expanded into a world war once Britain and the United States joined.
Today, we already see multiple regional wars: Russia in Ukraine, Iran through proxies across the Middle East, and China signaling readiness to seize Taiwan.
Cukier warns that a modern “axis of dictatorships”—China, Russia, North Korea, Iran—has deeper integration than the Axis Powers of the 1930s, while democratic alliances like NATO and the “community of democracies” show signs of strain.
If these regional wars intersect and alliances harden rival blocs, a global conflagration could follow the same pattern as a century ago.
Cukier’s Expertise
As a political scientist directing PUC Paraná’s geopolitics program, Heni Ozi Cukier melds scholarship with practice.
With an MA in international peace and conflict resolution and stints at the UN Security Council, the Organization of American States, and the Wilson Center, his succinct analyses illuminate geopolitical risks.
Malcolm Nance’s Warning
Building on Cukier’s analysis, intelligence expert Malcolm Nance has outlined a worst-case scenario focused on North America.
In a March 2025 Substack article, Nance warns of a coordinated campaign by the Trump administration to annex Canada and Greenland through political destabilization, economic warfare, and military aggression.
Political Destabilization and Rhetoric
Nance highlights Trump’s mocking references to Canada as the “51st State” and cabinet officials’ echoes of that slogan. Provocative statements on social media and in speeches aim to delegitimize Canada’s sovereignty and stoke division.
Similar tactics target Greenland, with repeated public questioning of Denmark’s claim and seeded disinformation to foment internal dissent.
Economic Warfare
According to Nance, sudden U.S. tariffs on Canadian goods and backdoor funding of fringe secessionist movements like Wexit are designed to destabilize Canada’s economy and political cohesion.
Parallel measures could undercut Greenland’s finances, creating a pretext for U.S. intervention to control strategic mineral reserves.
Military Aggression
The most alarming phase involves a pretextual Arctic deployment in Greenland followed by a surprise invasion of Canada.
Nance predicts fierce Canadian resistance, devolving into a protracted insurgency with heavy casualties and shattered democratic norms.
Global and Domestic Consequences
Nance argues that Canada’s invocation of NATO’s Article 5 would force allied intervention against the U.S., risking direct conflict with European powers.
Domestically, a U.S. invasion would spark constitutional crises, military refusals to follow orders, and possibly a second civil war as states and service members rebel against federal commands.
Nance’s Expertise
As a decorated former U.S. Navy Senior Chief Petty Officer specializing in intelligence and counterterrorism, Malcolm Nance brings decades of experience to his warnings.
Founder of the Terror Asymmetrics Project on Strategy, Tactics, and Radical Ideologies (TAPSTRI), and author of several national-security books, his analysis underscores the gravity of these potential threats
Conclusion
Cukier’s TEDx Lisboa analysis reminds us that social upheaval, economic rivalry, political polarization, and alliance entanglements combined tragically in 1914 and 1939—and all four dimensions now point in the same dangerous direction.
Likewise, Nance’s North America-focused warning further illustrates how rapid destabilization and aggressive statecraft could ignite conflict where we least expect it.
Recognizing these intertwined trends is the first step toward policy choices that reduce anxiety rather than amplify it, encourage cooperation rather than division, and strengthen institutions before they fracture.
History may not repeat itself exactly, but its rhymes can guide us.
Confronting each dimension head-on—managing technological disruption, preserving the gains of global trade, healing political divides, and reinforcing credible collective security—offers a chance to avert the next world war.
The question is whether we act in time.
Freedom doesn’t defend itself. Join a community of readers committed to understanding the critical battles for democracy—and how we can win them.
Stay informed. Stay engaged.
Funny that now we have to be prepared for ww3. Wasn't the schmuck in wh says if harris won that's what would happen. But he wouldn't do such a thing. SURE!!
I called it but it hasn't happened yet maybe if i say i called that often enough it won't happen