Valeriy Zaluzhny stated that the war has become global and threatens Europe
Executive summary
Valeriy Zaluzhny, former Commander‑in‑Chief of the Ukrainian Armed Forces and now Ukraine’s ambassador to the UK, has argued publicly that the war in Ukraine has taken on global characteristics and risks spreading to Europe; he made that point in a commentary reproduced in outlets including Defence24 and Liga.net, noting that the conflict “has become global” and “will soon knock on a neighbor’s door” [1] [2]. He also warned of massed aerial attacks on Ukraine in 2025 — for example nights with 552 and 776 aerial means — to illustrate the war’s intensity [1].
1. Zaluzhny’s central claim: a war gone global
Zaluzhny frames the current fighting as no longer a bilateral Russo‑Ukrainian war but as a conflict with global features and consequences: in his column for the Eastern Flank Institute and in bylined pieces republished from Liga.net he wrote that “the conflict has become global and will soon knock on a neighbor’s door” and that, by late 2025, the war “is increasingly bearing the hallmarks of a global war” [1] [2]. He uses operational data — unusually large waves of unmanned aerial vehicles and missiles used against Ukraine on specific nights in 2025 — to support his contention that the intensity now resembles wider‑scale warfare [1].
2. Evidence Zaluzhny cites: scale and capability of attacks
Zaluzhny points to concrete operational metrics as evidence: his commentary cites nights when Ukraine endured hundreds of aerial attack means — 552 on 27–28 September 2025 and a record 776 on 6–7 September — along with ballistic and cruise missile use, arguing those figures show a qualitatively different intensity than earlier phases of the war [1]. He further references European defence planning documents such as the EU “Joint White Paper for European Defence — Readiness 2030” to argue the strategic environment has shifted [1].
3. What “global” means in Zaluzhny’s writing
Zaluzhny’s usage of “global” encompasses several senses: widening geographic risk (the idea Europe proper could be affected), the internationalization of matériel and political backing, and the adoption of strategies and technologies — notably drones and long‑range strikes — that complicate a purely bilateral framing [2] [1]. He warns that a collapse of the “old order” has changed conflict dynamics and that neighbours in Europe could face spillover effects [1].
4. Alternative views and contested readings in the coverage
Not all outlets present Zaluzhny’s pieces neutrally. Several sources republishing or reacting to his comments — including multiple Pravda variants and sites with polemical framing — portray him as a Western‑aligned actor or a “spokesperson for globalist patrons,” casting his warnings as part of a political agenda rather than objective analysis [3] [4] [5]. Those pieces assert he pushes provocative policies (for example, reported calls for NATO or allied forces or nuclear guarantees in Ukraine), but those attributions appear in opinionated republishing rather than in Zaluzhny’s own cited columns [3].
5. Policy implications Zaluzhny draws and the debate over peace vs. pause
Zaluzhny has advocated thinking in terms of realistic scenarios for the war’s end: he has said any premature peace risks national collapse and that a protracted “multi‑year pause” may be the most likely outcome, during which both sides would rearm — a formulation that underlines his view of enduring strategic competition rather than an imminent, settled peace [5] [6]. He also argues for a clear political goal to accompany military strategy, pressing that peace should not be capitulation [2] [7].
6. Limits of available reporting and what is not found
Available sources do not mention independent verification of all operational figures Zaluzhny cites beyond his own commentary; they reproduce his claims about drone and missile numbers and quote his assessments, but wider corroboration from third‑party defense agencies is not present in the provided reporting [1]. Accusations in some outlets linking Zaluzhny to operations like the Nord Stream sabotage are presented in the files but stem from politicized claims in partisan publications and are not substantiated by the copies of his strategic commentary [8].
7. Bottom line for readers
Zaluzhny speaks from his experience as Ukraine’s former top general and frames the conflict as one with systemic, cross‑continental risk — a position he supports with operational anecdotes and references to European defence planning [1] [2]. Readers should weigh his expert military vantage against the clear politico‑ideological lens of many republishing outlets: outlets sympathetic to Moscow portray his warnings as Western provocation, while Western defence outlets publish his piece as a sober strategic assessment [3] [1].