Who Is Winning the World War?

“When future historians study the arc of American foreign policy, they will probably fold all the major events since 2020 — our pell-mell withdrawal from Afghanistan, events in Ukraine and Israel’s conflicts in Gaza, Lebanon and Iran — into a unified narrative of global conflict.

 

If we’re fortunate, that will yield academic treatises with titles like “The Empire Tested: America and the World, 2021-2030.” If we’re unlucky — meaning, basically, if the United States and China eventually fall into a ruinous war — then the struggles in Ukraine and the Middle East will be retroactively assigned to histories of World War III.

 

We are not, as yet, inside that kind of conflagration. But it’s useful for Americans to think about our situation in global terms, with Russia and Iran and China as a revisionist alliance putting our imperial power to the test. And it’s also important to recognize that this kind of conflict is an endurance test, a long and winding road, in which it’s easy to fall prey to mood swings and judge the outcome prematurely.

 

We’ve had a lot of these swings in the last few years. In 2021 and early 2022, the rout in Afghanistan and our overpromising to a vulnerable Ukraine made America look ineffectual … right up until 2022 and our success in rallying support for the Ukrainians yielded a lot of chest-thumping about the superiority of liberal democracy and the permanence of American hegemony.

 

That optimistic mood lasted through the failure of Ukraine’s last major counteroffensive and the Hamas attacks of Oct. 7, 2023, against Israel, at which point there was a swing back toward pessimism. American power was stretched too thin; our Israeli allies were taken unawares by their enemies, the Russians were regaining ground, our arsenal was almost certainly inadequate to protect Ukraine and Israel and defend Taiwan, and all of this under a president debilitated by advancing age, a grim symbol of a crumbling imperium.

 

This sense of multi-theater crisis helped to restore Donald Trump to power. Then the initial months of his administration inspired fears that he would end the global conflict by effectively surrendering — abandoning allies and making deals with dictators while retreating to a Fortress North America.

 

Yet right now that’s not how the landscape looks. Trump’s decision to bomb the Iranian nuclear program and the muted Iranian response has capped off a period in which Tehran’s regional power has crumbled under sustained Israeli assault. Meanwhile, our NATO allies are boosting their military spending and Trump is suddenly praising the alliance. Add in the strength of the American economy, even amid the Trumpian trade war, and it seems that maybe we’re winning the world conflict again. “Rah-rah! Pax Americana forever!”

 

OK, not quite. The damage to Iran’s nuclear program doesn’t mean we’ve eliminated the threat, and Israel’s Gaza war remains a humanitarian crisis without a clear political endgame. Trump’s walk-back of his Department of Defense’s attempt to triage resources by withholding weapons from Ukraine doesn’t change the reality that our weaponry is limited and does require triaging. Nothing changes the fact that Russia is still slowly gaining ground.

 

But both the Ukrainian stalemate and the Iranian retreat are clarifying reminders that the ultimate outcome of this conflict depends on the revisionist power, the People’s Republic of China, that hasn’t directly joined the fights. China is at once a much more serious rival to America than either Russia or Iran and also an extremely cautious player, content to watch its tacit allies make their plays without, say, handing Iran a nuclear deterrent or sending the People’s Liberation Army to help Russia take Kyiv.

 

This cautious distance could reflect a fundamental weakness of the revisionist bloc — that it’s purely an alliance of interest between regimes that don’t trust one another, don’t have as much in common as we still have with our European and East Asian allies and struggle to work effectively in concert.

 

But it could also reflect a confidence on China’s part that time is on its side, that its investments in technology and energy are going to lap ours soon enough and that all our efforts now reflect a fateful squandering of resources given what Beijing has planned for the later 2020s.

 

Without certain knowledge of those plans, American foreign policy needs both a better long-term strategy to stay ahead of China and a lot of short-term Trumpian flexibility. Not restraint or hawkishness alone, but both an openness to peace and a capacity for warmaking, matched to the ebb and flow of a global conflict that won’t have any simple end.” [A]

 

During WWII Japan decided not to attack Russia and said so to Germany. Russian hero Richard Zorge figured that out. Stalin moved his army against Germany and soon took Berlin. Japan lost the war later too. Most likely American enemies will not repeat this mistake of Japan this time. They would pounce all together, if America drains resources low enough.

 

The information provided outlines a pivotal moment in World War II where Japan's decision not to attack the Soviet Union, despite Germany's urging, had significant repercussions for the Eastern Front and the overall course of the war.

Here's a breakdown of the scenario and its relevance to modern military thinking:

1. Richard Sorge and intelligence gathering

 

    Richard Sorge, a Soviet officer operating in Japan, played a crucial role in providing intelligence to Moscow that Japan would not attack the USSR.

    This vital information allowed Stalin to move a significant portion of his forces from the Far East to the Western Front, bolstering Soviet defenses against the German invasion and contributing to their ultimate victory, according to The New York Times.

    Modern relevance: The importance of accurate and timely intelligence remains a cornerstone of modern military strategy. Understanding an adversary's capabilities, intentions, and strategic priorities is crucial for effective decision-making and resource allocation in any conflict scenario.

 

2. Japan's decision not to attack the Soviet Union

 

    Japan's decision stemmed from several factors, including:

        Previous defeats in border clashes with the USSR in the late 1930s, notably the Battle of Khalkhin Gol, which demonstrated the formidable strength of the Red Army.

        Prioritizing expansion southwards to secure vital resources in Southeast Asia, leading to the attack on Pearl Harbor and the Pacific War.

        Logistical challenges and the inability to fight a two-front war against both the Soviet Union and the Allied powers.

    Modern relevance: Militaries today meticulously analyze an adversary's strategic objectives and priorities to anticipate their actions. Assessing an opponent's resource constraints and ability to manage multiple fronts is also a critical aspect of strategic planning.

 

3. The Eastern Front and the Battle of Moscow

 

    The transfer of Siberian divisions, previously stationed to counter a potential Japanese threat, played a significant role in the Soviet defense of Moscow and the subsequent counteroffensive that pushed back the Germans, according to Jacobin.

    The Soviet victory at Moscow marked a turning point in the war, signaling the failure of Germany's blitzkrieg strategy and their inability to defeat the Soviet Union quickly.

    Modern relevance: The concept of rapid deployment and redeployment of forces, along with strategic reserves, remains a critical aspect of modern military operations. The ability to concentrate strength against enemy weaknesses and exploit vulnerabilities is essential for achieving operational success.

 

4. Japan's eventual defeat

 

    Despite initial victories in the Pacific, Japan ultimately lost the war due to the combined strength of the Allied forces and the unsustainable nature of fighting a prolonged war on multiple fronts.

    Modern relevance: The importance of allied cooperation and coordination cannot be overstated. Modern conflicts often involve coalitions of nations working together, and effective collaboration is essential for maximizing collective strength and achieving shared objectives. Furthermore, logistics and resource management are still critical to sustaining military operations, especially in extended conflicts, according to the 6th Bomb Group.

 

5. Potential implications for future conflicts

 

    Future adversaries might learn from Japan's "mistake" and "pounce all together" if America's resources are drained low enough.

    The scenario highlights the importance of:

        Maintaining a strong military deterrent to discourage potential adversaries from exploiting perceived vulnerabilities.

        Strategic foresight and understanding of potential threats from multiple actors.

        Investing in robust intelligence gathering and analysis capabilities to anticipate and mitigate potential threats.

        Building strong alliances and fostering international cooperation to enhance collective security and address shared challenges, says the 6th Bomb Group.

 

In summary, while the specific events of World War II belong to the past, the underlying strategic principles illustrated by this scenario - intelligence, resource management, alliances, and the dynamics of multi-front conflicts - remain highly relevant in the contemporary military landscape.

 

 

A. Who Is Winning the World War? Douthat, Ross.  New York Times (Online) New York Times Company. Jul 12, 2025.