In a recent interview with the BBC, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky asserted that Russian President Vladimir Putin has effectively initiated World War III through his aggressive actions. Zelensky emphasized the seriousness of the situation, stating that the question is not if, but how much territory Putin aims to acquire, as he seeks to impose a different way of life on the world. This claim sparked discussions regarding the legitimacy of labeling the current conflict as a new world war.

Finnish foreign policy expert Jussi Lassila weighed in, suggesting that while Zelensky's rhetoric reflects the desperate situation of a nation engaged in a fight for survival against a more powerful adversary, it should not be interpreted as a declaration of World War III. Lassila highlighted that such language is a tactical choice made by leaders to galvanize support and reinforce the urgency of confronting the threat posed by Russia. His analysis indicates that the framing of the situation is crucial in understanding the broader implications of the ongoing conflict.

The discourse surrounding whether or not to label the conflict as World War III sheds light on the nature of modern geopolitical crises, where traditional definitions of war are challenged. Experts like Lassila stress the importance of careful language in international relations, as it can significantly impact public perception, diplomatic relations, and potential military responses. As the conflict continues to evolve, the interpretation of the situation will remain critical in shaping both local and international reactions to Putin's ambitions and Ukraine's resistance.