What are the supposed definitions of a World War?
Seems to me that first dimension is 'Unlimited war'. This isn't.
No fully strategic bombing. No firm and fully committed alliances involving 'boots on the ground' beyond mercenary forces and very limited deployment. Only two countries on an economic war footing. Global trade largely continuing as normal, and diplomatic and sporting functions continuing largely as normal.
If those trying to hype this into WW3 are using the current situation as what defines a 'world war', then it seems to me that Korea or Gulf #1 would also pretty much qualify?
To add to the list, World Wars have multiple theatres of operation and are pan-continental. The Ukraine war doesn't. It is a strictly local theatre - and even the Russians have been careful to do no more than hint about escalation with the occasional sabre rattling or act of plausibly deniable sabotage. The best comparison as things stand as far as I can see, is Korea - as is the most likely conclusion.
Cyber warfare isn't really much different in many respects in strategy and intention than aggressive diplomacy, espionage and economic machinations. That aspect is all rather business as usual, tbh. As conducted to date, its an inconvenience - and much of it is by hackers and non state agents. Yes, it has huge potential for the future as we blindly continue to remove hard cash, paper and 20th century telephony from our national networks (criminal short-sightedness in my opinion), but its still hasn't had the political or social impact of a single conventional bomb or missile hitting a capital city.
People talk about 'lines being drawn'. Ordinarily, I'd agree. But the trouble with that strategy now is that we already have one brinksman too many already in the form of Putin. Once someone else has their feet up on the oak desk, there will be two. Personally, I don't want to see ANY more lines for the time being, because we'll have two individuals who have a proven track record of completely ignoring them. That simply invites both rapid escalation and the danger of things running out of control. Then WW3 will become something of an inevitable self-fulfilling prophesy. No thanks - I like my molecules attached, thank you very much.
My ideal would be to see the status quo maintained viz a viz material support to Ukraine: I'd also like to see Europe step up to the plate and to mandate ALL member nations of the EU and NATO to deliver the 2.5% GDP defence spending commitment as a direct condition of membership, in return for some meaningful continued US support to both Ukraine and the concept of NATO. Tragically, the war is going to have to run its bloody course until there's an internal regime change in either belligerent country, or some kind of uneasy truce.
Alas, in what looks to me like a largely apathetic and misinformed world full of conspiracy theory and confirmation bias, I feel like something of a loner on that front. People and politicians want clean and convenient conclusions. But in a world of nuclear weapons and despots, life isn't like that - and glib words and policy leading to wider war could ensure that death could be 'widely encompassing', to put it mildly.
www.politico.eu
