This book is an interpretive essay on how the war in Ukraine has become a global conflict and a catalyst for systemic change in the international order. It distills arguments and evidence developed over more than forty years of work on the Soviet Union, Russia, and Europe into a focused analysis accessible to readers seeking to understand why Ukraine has moved from the periphery of world politics to the crucible in which the emerging order is being forged.
The genesis of this work lies in a much larger project, a comprehensive examination of more than 350 pages that traces the evolution of the Ukraine conflict from regional crisis to global confrontation. I have published that book separately under the title of The Global War in Ukraine: 2021-2025.
The book contains all of the endnotes and citations which this book does not have. There are no endnotes in this book but for the reader interested in pursuing sourcing the larger book will more than meet your needs.
That book represents the culmination of decades studying Soviet and post-Soviet affairs, Russian strategic culture, and European security architecture. Yet as the manuscript took shape, it became clear that the fundamental dynamics driving this transformation, the collapse of post-Cold War assumptions, the rise of coordinated authoritarian power, and the forced reinvention of democratic resilience, demanded a more concentrated treatment. This essay is the result: a distillation of that broader work, designed to illuminate the war’s global dimensions without sacrificing analytical depth.
The war in Ukraine has shattered the comfortable illusions of the post-1991 era. For three decades, Western policymakers operated on the premise that economic interdependence would moderate authoritarian behavior, that territorial conquest had become obsolete in Europe, and that the democratic peace would gradually expand through integration and prosperity. Russia’s full-scale invasion in February 2022 demolished these assumptions with brutal finality.
What began as Vladimir Putin’s attempt to erase Ukrainian sovereignty has metastasized into something far more consequential: a fundamental challenge to the principles undergirding international order since 1945.
This is not simply another territorial conflict in Europe’s troubled borderlands. Ukraine has become the testing ground for competing visions of how power should be organized in the 21st century.
On one side stands an axis of authoritarian states—Russia, China, Iran, and North Korea that reject the constraints of international law and seek to establish spheres of influence based on military coercion and economic dependence.
On the other stands a coalition of democratic nations forced to rediscover the hard truths about deterrence, industrial mobilization, and the defense of principle that their predecessors understood in earlier confrontations with totalitarian power.
The global dimensions of the conflict have become impossible to ignore. North Korean artillery shells fired in Donetsk, Iranian drones striking Ukrainian cities, Chinese dual-use technology enabling Russian weapons production, and Western precision munitions defending Ukrainian sovereignty, all testify to how thoroughly this war has transcended its nominal geography.
The consequences ripple across every domain of international politics: energy markets, food security, nuclear proliferation, alliance cohesion, and the very possibility of a rules-based international system.
Our work as a team over the past several years has focused on a common thread running through these developments: the reshaping of global order under pressure from multi-polar authoritarianism. This theme connects multiple projects. A forthcoming volume co-authored with Kenneth Maxwell examines how middle powers, Australia and Brazil in their relationships with China—are repositioning themselves as the old certainties dissolve.
Another study explores what it means to govern in an age of chaos, when the stable crisis management frameworks of the Cold War have given way to an environment of persistent instability and cascading disruptions.
The present work stands at the center of this constellation, analyzing the Ukraine war as the pivot point where theoretical possibilities became operational realities.
The emergence of middle powers as consequential actors represents one of the war’s most significant strategic developments. These nations understand that the Ukraine conflict has exposed uncomfortable truths about great power reliability and the fragility of extended deterrence. They are hedging, innovating, and seeking strategic autonomy in ways that would have seemed unnecessary five years ago. The coalitions being recomposed from Europe to the Indo-Pacific reflect this shift: less hierarchical, more networked, built around specific capabilities rather than formal treaty structures.
The authoritarian axis revealed by the Ukraine war operates with a coherence that Western analysts consistently underestimated. Russia provides energy and raw materials; China supplies manufacturing capacity and financial infrastructure; Iran contributes asymmetric warfare expertise and weapons systems; North Korea offers artillery ammunition and ballistic missiles.
This is not a formal alliance bound by treaty obligations, but a transaction-based coalition united by shared opposition to Western dominance and democratic expansion. Each member pursues distinct interests, yet their convergence has created a formidable challenge to democratic nations still adjusting to the reality of sustained great power competition.
Ukraine itself has become the laboratory for military transformation. The integration of commercial drones with artillery fire, the fusion of open-source intelligence with targeting networks, the adaptation of civilian technology for battlefield applications, these innovations are being studied by defense establishments worldwide.
The Ukrainian military’s evolution from a Soviet-model force into something approaching a network-centric organization has profound implications for how future conflicts will be fought. Equally significant is Ukraine’s success in mobilizing international support through strategic communication, demonstrating that narrative warfare and diplomatic coalition-building matter as much as kinetic operations.
The democratic response to Russian aggression has been halting and inconsistent, but ultimately consequential. NATO has rediscovered its core purpose; European nations have begun serious rearmament; the transatlantic alliance has proven more resilient than skeptics predicted. Yet these achievements came slowly and incompletely. The initial reluctance to provide advanced weapons systems, the persistent fear of escalation, the endless debates over red lines, all revealed deep ambivalence about defending the principles Western leaders routinely invoke. The gap between rhetorical commitment to Ukrainian sovereignty and the actual provision of decisive military support has been one of the war’s defining features.
Industrial capacity has emerged as perhaps the most critical strategic variable. Russia’s ability to sustain high-intensity combat operations despite sanctions depends substantially on mobilizing its defense industrial base and securing external support from China and Iran. Ukraine’s survival depends on Western munitions production, which has proven inadequate to meet wartime demand. The United States and European nations are belatedly recognizing that precision weapons and advanced platforms matter little without the industrial depth to sustain prolonged conflict. This realization is forcing a fundamental reassessment of defense acquisition, stockpiling policies, and the relationship between civilian and military production capacity.
The concept of resilience, once primarily associated with infrastructure protection and disaster response, has taken on strategic significance. Ukraine has demonstrated that military resistance alone cannot defeat a larger adversary; societal resilience, governmental continuity, economic adaptation, and international solidarity all matter. Democratic nations are learning that resilience requires preparation, redundancy, and the willingness to accept short-term costs for long-term security.
The exposure of critical dependencies on Russian energy, Chinese manufacturing, vulnerable communication networks has prompted overdue discussions about strategic autonomy and acceptable risk.
This book does not attempt to predict the war’s outcome or prescribe specific policies. Rather, it seeks to establish a framework for understanding the conflict’s global dimensions and systemic implications. It examines how assumptions formed in one era have collided with realities that demand different concepts: from crisis management to chaos management, from deterrence through punishment to deterrence through denial, from platform-centric to network-centric operations, from economic interdependence as a peace strategy to economic interdependence as a vulnerability.
The analysis draws on extensive engagement with military leaders, defense officials, and strategic thinkers across multiple continents. My work studying Coast Guard transformation, USMC transformation, the evolution of the kill web approach to naval power, the emergence of fifth generation AirPower, NATO adaptation, and Indo-Pacific security architecture provides comparative perspective on how institutions evolve under pressure. The intellectual foundation established decades ago studying under Zbigniew Brzezinski understanding how great power competition shapes regional dynamics, how domestic politics constrains strategic choice, how historical memory influences contemporary decisions remains relevant to interpreting the current moment.
What makes the Ukraine war a global conflict is not merely the participation of multiple nations or the geographic spread of its consequences. It is global because the principles at stake, sovereignty, territorial integrity, the legitimacy of force, the meaning of international law, define the basic structure of relations among states.
It is global because the outcomes will determine whether revisionist powers can successfully overturn established borders through military aggression, whether authoritarian and democratic systems can coexist within a single international order, and whether collective defense commitments retain credibility when tested.
This is an essay in the classical sense: an attempt to probe, interpret, and illuminate rather than to provide definitive answers. The war continues to evolve, and any analysis offered today may require revision tomorrow. Yet certain dynamics have become clear enough to warrant examination.
The post-Cold War interregnum has ended. A new era of sustained competition has begun. How democratic nations navigate this transition, whether they can combine principle with pragmatism, unity with flexibility, strength with restraint, will determine not only Ukraine’s fate but the broader contours of international order for decades to come.
Ukraine stands at the intersection of these profound transformations. Its resistance has exposed authoritarian vulnerabilities and democratic weaknesses in equal measure. Its struggle has forced long-deferred reckonings about deterrence, industrial capacity, and alliance solidarity.
Its ultimate disposition will signal whether the post-1945 system retains enough vitality to defend its core principles, or whether those principles will be progressively hollowed out by states willing to use force unconstrained by international norms.
Understanding the global war in Ukraine means understanding how the world is being remade in response to the most serious challenge to international order since World War II.
Lt. Gen. (ret.) Pasquale Preziosa presents The Global War in Ukraine: 2021–2025 as essential reading for anyone seeking to understand how a seemingly regional conflict has become a system‑defining war that is reshaping European defense and the global order. He highlights the book’s unsentimental core lesson that what the post–Cold War order refused to resolve has returned as a structural crisis and praises Laird’s ability to trace how misread signals, strategic amnesia, and institutional complacency helped make war more likely.
For Preziosa, the book’s strength lies in privileging structure over mood, showing how Putin’s grievance‑driven threat inflation produced the very unified, militarized NATO he claimed to fear, from Finland and Sweden’s accession to Germany’s rearmament and a revitalized Anglo‑French nuclear dialogue. He commends the analysis of Russia’s wartime political economy and “yuanization,” the asymmetric relationship with China, and the clear-eyed treatment of an authoritarian axis that is transactional and brittle rather than monolithic. Equally, he underscores the book’s treatment of technology and industrial policy, Ukraine’s rapid move to drone‑centric doctrine, Operation Spider Web, the fusion of commercial and military ISR, and the axiom that industrial policy is deterrence—as reasons why this volume should guide how democracies think about war, innovation, and resilience.
Brian J. Morra recommends the book as required reading for the U.S. foreign‑policy establishment and allied governments precisely because it makes clear that Russia’s war in Ukraine is global in nature, embedded in a new geopolitical age where traditional east–west and north–south labels no longer explain state behavior.He emphasizes Laird’s explanation of how Asian powers, China, North Korea, Japan, South Korea, and key middle powers like India, Brazil, Turkey, Iran, the Gulf States, and South Africa are all entangled in the conflict, from North Korean artillery and troops on the European battlefield to Indo‑Pacific democracies underwriting Ukraine and authoritarian partners supplying Moscow. Morra sees particular value in the book’s framing of a “free‑for‑all square dance” of shifting coalitions and its insistence that Western institutions must start by truly grasping the global, polycentric character of the war rather than treating it as an isolated regional problem. For him, Laird provides the conceptual map policymakers need to understand how Ukraine sits at the intersection of European security, Indo‑Pacific strategy, and the emerging competition among overlapping coalitions.
Dr. Holger Mey endorses the book as a rigorous, uncomfortable, and indispensable analysis at a “critical juncture,” arguing that Laird forces readers to confront hard truths about Western illusions, Russian imperatives, and the structural forces that made this war likely. He values the way the book links the Cold War’s nuclear/“zones of influence” equilibrium to the post‑1990 abandonment of those concepts, showing how NATO expansion, European disarmament, and the neglect of power politics created a strategically incoherent environment in which a resurgent Russia would eventually react.
Mey stresses Laird’s contribution in putting Ukraine back into its proper systemic frame: not a local war but a conflict about rival models of order, spheres of influence, and the credibility of Western security guarantees from Europe to the Indo‑Pacific. He recommends the book for its clear exposition of how power vacuums, weakness, and forgotten lessons about military force and deterrence have returned “with a vengeance,” and for its sober assessment that this war, lacking easy off‑ramps for any side, will shape great‑power relations and the architecture of international order for decades to come.
For a podcast discussing the book, see the following:
For a video discussing the book see the following:
