Date: August 8, 2025
World War III: A Question of Survival, Not Victory
The shadows of geopolitical tensions lengthen across the global stage, and a question that once seemed confined to history books or dystopian fiction now occasionally flickers into public discourse: what are the chances of a third World War between the United States and Russia, and, disturbingly, who would emerge victorious? As the Publisher and Chief Editor of The Layalpur Post, based here in Toronto, a city that embodies multiculturalism and a commitment to peace, it is incumbent upon us to address this deeply unsettling query with the gravity it deserves.
The current trajectory of relations between Washington and Moscow is undeniably fraught. The ongoing conflict in Ukraine has dramatically reshaped the global order, pushing US-Russia relations to a state reminiscent of the Cold War. Direct high-level dialogues between the two nuclear powers have become rare, replaced by rhetoric and proxy confrontations.
We have witnessed the alarming erosion of vital arms control treaties, with the Intermediate-range Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF) and START having expired or been terminated, and the last remaining bilateral pact, New START, described as "functionally dead" and set to expire in February 2026. This dismantling of arms control architecture, coupled with statements about new, faster hypersonic missiles and the repositioning of strategic assets, certainly does not make global conflict less likely.
The heightened risk stems from a complex interplay of factors: the sustained conflict in Ukraine, the flow of military aid, divergent geopolitical ambitions, and even domestic political polarization within the United States, which can inadvertently embolden adversaries.
Yet, to ask "who will win" a World War III between these nuclear-armed giants is to fundamentally misunderstand the nature of such a conflict in the 21st century. The concept of "victory" becomes utterly meaningless when confronting the reality of mutually assured destruction (MAD). Both the United States and Russia possess vast nuclear arsenals, capable of inflicting catastrophic damage upon each other and, by extension, the entire planet.
While military comparisons might detail the United States' superior defence budget and technological edge, or Russia's numerical advantage in certain conventional arms like tanks and rocket projectors, these statistics become secondary in a full-scale confrontation involving strategic nuclear weapons.
A direct military engagement between the US and Russia, especially one escalating to nuclear exchanges, would not result in a winner but rather in unprecedented devastation. The consequences would extend far beyond the belligerents, plunging the world into a nuclear winter, destroying global economies, and collapsing societal structures. There would be no victors, only survivors grappling with an uninhabitable, poisoned world. The human cost would be immeasurable, a tragedy of epic proportions that would dwarf all previous conflicts combined.
From Canada's vantage point, as a neighbour to both the United States and a nation with deep ties to Europe, the prospect of such a conflict is profoundly alarming. We would inevitably be caught in the geopolitical fallout, facing immense challenges on every front. Our role, and indeed the role of all nations committed to peace, must be to unequivocally advocate for de-escalation, sustained diplomatic engagement, and the revival of arms control mechanisms.
The focus must shift from the dangerous speculation of victory to the shared imperative of survival. Leaders on all sides must prioritize restraint, re-establish channels of communication, and work towards a world where dialogue, not confrontation, is the default. The alternative is too horrific to contemplate. It is a future where humanity loses, irrevocably.
Munir Ahmed Dar,
Publisher & Chief Editor
The Layalpur Post
Toronto, Canada