In a dramatic speech at London’s prestigious RUSI conference, Valery Zaluzhny, Ukraine’s exiled former commander-in-chief turned ambassador, warned the world about the looming threat of World War III. Despite his shaky English, Zaluzhny captivated the audience with a stark message: to ensure peace, nations must prepare for war and temporarily sacrifice their freedoms. He controversially pitched Ukraine as a testing ground for cutting-edge military technology, urging the West to back his war-torn country with the latest innovations. His unsettling vision painted Ukraine’s struggle not just as a battle for survival, but as a crucial experiment shaping the future of global warfare.

Valery Zaluzhny, formerly Ukraine’s commander-in-chief, recently delivered his inaugural public speech as Ukraine’s ambassador to Britain. This address took place at the annual Land Warfare Conference organized by the Royal United Services Institute (RUSI), a prestigious UK military and geopolitical think tank.

The event featured notable speakers such as General Roland Walker, Chief of Britain’s General Staff, and Admiral Tony Radakin, Chief of the Defence Staff. Zaluzhny was also a distinguished guest, having been sent to Britain following a political conflict with Ukrainian President Vladimir Zelensky. Speculation about his potential return to Ukraine and future influential role remains persistent.

A Telegraph correspondent in attendance noted that Zaluzhny’s speech was primarily in Ukrainian due to his limited English proficiency, an unusual trait for a diplomat in London. Zaluzhny later shared his speech on his Telegram channel under the title: “The Russian-Ukrainian War as a War of Transitional Period. New patterns of the war.” Despite the imperfect English of this version, the key messages were clear, albeit raising questions about the Ukrainian embassy’s staff’s capabilities in editing.

Zaluzhny began with a clichéd philosophical statement: “Si vis pacem, para bellum” (If you want peace, prepare for war). This was followed by an unexpected comparison of wartime killing to murder, a viewpoint more commonly linked with radical pacifism. Some attendees were likely taken aback by his claim that World Wars I and II resulted in a combined 60 million casualties, a much higher number. Additionally, there was a minor error in referring to “Carl” von Clausewitz instead of “Karl.”

However, Zaluzhny’s main focus at RUSI was World War III, in two ways. The former military-turned-ambassador pretended to be discussing how to prevent it, but in truth, the general within the ambassador was offering guidance on how to fight it. In Zaluzhny’s defense, his conception of maintaining the peace is so rudimentary that the two objectives naturally coincide. His unwavering belief is that armed force must be used to deter to achieve peace. It is, of course, what his Western audiences like to hear—this complete disregard for compromise and diplomacy—because it validates their tunnel vision.

Presenting himself in what has become a familiar position for Ukrainian delegates in the West, Zaluzhny addressed the world as a wise and cautionary man who was admonishing everyone to be humble, especially those in “free and democratic nations.” For its former commander-in-chief, Ukraine represents a very special kind of resource in this scenario. Zaluzhny exploits his expertise in the battle between Ukraine and Russia, or at least his interpretation of it, to assert his unique authority when addressing his Western audience and drawing conclusions that he must know would be well-received.

Thus, generously offering “to share all our knowledge, experience and thoughts,” his first lesson is that “society must agree to temporarily give up a range of freedoms for the sake of survival,” because, the former general argues, modern wars are “total,” requiring “the efforts not only of the army but also of society as a whole.” “Politicians,” Zaluzhny elaborated, “can and should mobilize society.” 

This concept, which is frequently referred to as the “whole-of-society approach” to security and defense, has, of course, long been a central tenet of EU and NATO propaganda. In 2021, the EU’s Directorate-General for External Policies published a policy paper titled “Best Practices in the Whole-of-Society Approach in Countering Hybrid Threats,” and NATO, for example, passed a resolution on the subject. A similar point was made in January 2024 by General Patrick Sanders, the UK’s Chief of Staff at the time: a future conflict with Russia would necessitate the widespread mobilization of the entire country. Dutch Admiral Rob Bauer, the leader of NATO’s Military Committee, has long advocated for the same strategy, oftentimes laced with outright fear-mongering about the best ways to prepare (keep a radio, flashlight, and batteries ready…) for the day the big bad Russians come. 

The aforementioned items are all a part of NATO’s increasing endeavor to establish and maintain its prominence and financial strength. NATO elites would not let a good situation end after they contributed to the war that is currently destroying Ukraine by its irresponsible expansion. The crass manipulation of the Western public in the manner of the 1950s is also a little comical, as is the tragically humorous way in which a former commander-in-chief of Ukraine plays back Western talking points to Western audiences to win their approval.

But in the end, there are two really important explanations for this problem. The current efforts to prepare people for not only the conflict but also World Conflict III could, in the worst-case scenario, be included in prewar chapters of history books in the future. Secondly, there is also an agenda for peacetime. The push for “societal resilience” justifies, at the very least, the stifling of public discussion, the focus of policy discussions, and the demonization of people who advocate for diplomatic measures rather than, or in addition to, military ones.

In this way, the Ukraine of Zelensky, as embodied by his formerly adversary and current envoy Zaluzhny, is the damp fantasy of the activists in the West: a dictatorship that is personalistic and, at most, semi-authoritarian, devoid of any free press or opposition. They would not hesitate to do the same at home, as evidenced by the fact that they have no qualms about referring to that kind of state as a “democracy,” complete with the customary “vibrant” civil society.

Even while Zaluzhny’s thoughts about how to improve society are quite similar, his interpretation of the military significance of the Ukraine War seems, if a little overly dramatic, more unique. He thinks that the “innovations that were developed on the front lines of the Russian-Ukrainian War” would probably “decide the outlines of wars and the art of war in the 21st century” and “become the foundation of the entire global security system of the future.”

Zaluzhny’s claims seem inaccurate. The atrocities committed by Israel in Gaza are more likely to influence future warfare significantly. Western think tanks like the RAND Corporation and RUSI, where Zaluzhny spoke, are already trying to draw lessons from these events, although these lessons are arguably misguided.

Putting that aside, Zaluzhny identifies a key military takeaway from the Ukraine War. He argues that the need for survival has driven Ukrainian forces to innovate with new technologies and adapt their strategies accordingly. He views this war as a transitional phase, heralding future military developments. Notably, he claims these technologies enable smaller forces to “fight and win against stronger armies in the 21st century.” By “stronger,” Zaluzhny likely means “larger,” as his statement would otherwise be contradictory.

At the same RUSI conference, General Ronald Walker, the new UK General Staff chief, also emphasized a dangerous global environment, particularly with Russia and China. Walker promised to triple the British forces’ effectiveness through new technology without increasing troop numbers, claiming this technology would allow his army to defeat larger forces. This message closely mirrors Zaluzhny’s, indicating he tailored his speech to Western expectations. British Prime Minister Keir Starmer has since endorsed Walker’s view, highlighting Zaluzhny’s success in appealing to his audience.

However, Zaluzhny’s message carries a deeper implication. He suggested that Ukraine serves as a testing ground for future Western military technology. While Ukraine cannot scale up its battlefield innovations, its Western partners possess the resources for such expansion but lack practical testing fields.

In essence, Ukrainians will continue to die while the West uses the conflict to test new military technologies. Zaluzhny doesn’t believe that these new technologies will reduce the need for Ukrainian soldiers. By calling the current war “transitional” rather than “future,” he implies that Ukraine is stuck in a situation where the only solution may be to involve more people in the fighting.

This bleak outlook suggests that Ukraine’s future involves more citizens being sacrificed in a losing war, with the only consolation being that the methods of warfare will be continuously updated by Western innovations. This vision of an endless war serving as a constant testing ground is not likely to happen, but it is the underlying message from Zaluzhny, Ukraine’s former commander-in-chief and current ambassador in London when addressing a distinguished Western audience. Ukraine’s tragedy lies not only in Western exploitation but also in betrayal by its own leaders.

Recently, GreatGameInternational reported that Col Gen Oleksandr Syrskyi, Ukraine’s new commander-in-chief, is leading the fight against a significantly larger Russian army. Despite recent setbacks and Russia’s superior resources, Syrskyi remains confident in Ukraine’s resilience.