“Only the dead will see the end of the war”: from Ukraine to the Middle East: – why Ukrainian General Zaluzhny warns of a big war — and why this signal will be heard especially acutely in Israel

The war in Ukraine and the war in the Middle East increasingly sound not like two separate crises, but as parts of one dangerous era. This is how Valeriy Zaluzhny formulates the problem in the article “Only the Dead Will See the End of War” in his new column for NV, published on March 22, 2026: the former Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces of Ukraine, now the Ambassador of Ukraine to the United Kingdom, writes that the world has already reached a point where local wars can either merge into a global confrontation or bring the international system to a state almost indistinguishable from a world war in terms of tension and consequences.

For the Israeli audience, this thesis does not sound like an abstract theory. Israel lives in a reality where regional war has long ceased to be just a regional topic. Ukraine also knows this state too well: one front, one aggressor, one line of attack — and the consequences spread far beyond the borders of the map.

Why Zaluzhny places Ukraine and the Middle East side by side

It’s not about the coincidence of plots, but about the coincidence of mechanics

Zaluzhny writes not that the war in Ukraine and the combat conflicts in the Middle East are identical. His thought is harsher and more important: both wars became possible in a world lacking political will, responsibility, and readiness to make big, unpleasant, but necessary decisions. According to his logic, international platforms continue to discuss threats, but are increasingly failing at what they were created for — developing solutions that stop the expansion of war.

This is a key point. Not the absence of conversations. There are plenty of conversations. Not the absence of conferences. There are enough conferences too. The problem is different: the global system reacts as if it can still stretch, wait, postpone, hope for someone else’s caution. History, according to Zaluzhny, usually punishes precisely for this.

For the Israeli reader, there is nothing foreign here. Israeli society has long perceived security not as a beautiful formula, but as a daily practice of survival. Therefore, Zaluzhny’s warning is read in Israel especially directly: when aggression is not stopped in time in one place, it almost inevitably changes the balance in another.

The war in Europe has already changed the rules far beyond Europe

One of Zaluzhny’s main conclusions is that Russia’s war against Ukraine destroys not only Ukrainian cities and lives. It erodes the very notion of international law as a system that actually works, not just exists in texts, reports, and statements. In his logic, the disruption of balance in one region creates the temptation to break the balance in others.

This is where the Ukrainian plot begins to directly intersect with the Middle Eastern one. If the world shows that forceful pressure, revanchism, terror, or war of attrition can remain without a clear global response for a long time, this is perceived not only in Moscow. It is perceived by everyone who tests the boundaries of the permissible.

In the middle of this conversation, it becomes clear why such a topic is important not only to Kyiv or London but also to the Israeli media space. NAnews — News of Israel | Nikk.Agency in this context speaks not just about two wars, but about a single logic of an era in which the weakness of international reaction quickly turns into a new round of violence — first local, then regional, and then almost without geography.

Why his historical comparison should be taken seriously

Zaluzhny returns the conversation to the 20th century not for effect

In his column, he reminds of an old, unpleasant thing: any war has not only an immediate result — victory, defeat, truce — but also a long shadow of consequences. It is this shadow that often becomes the ground for the next war. As an example, he refers to the outcomes of the First World War and how the decisions after 1918 eventually created conditions for a new catastrophe in Europe.

This is an important turn of thought. Zaluzhny essentially warns not only about how wars end but also about how dangerous it is to end them incorrectly. Not to press the source of the threat. Not to create a sustainable post-war order. Not to think a generation ahead.

For Israel, this is read especially clearly. Here they understand too well the price of illusions, the price of underestimating the enemy, and the price of international recipes that sound beautiful on a forum panel but fall apart at the first real blow.

Russia in his interpretation is not just a participant in the war, but a revanchist center of pressure

Another important line in Zaluzhny’s text concerns Russia. He describes current Russian policy as an attempt at forceful revenge after the defeat in the Cold War and the collapse of the Soviet empire. It is essentially about the desire to regain a dominant role in Europe and maintain or expand influence in other regions, including the Middle East.

For the Israeli audience, this is especially significant because the Middle East has long lived not only in the mode of local conflicts. It is a space where the interests of Iran, Russia, the USA, Turkey, Gulf countries, proxy structures, and global players intersect. Therefore, Zaluzhny’s view is important not as a Ukrainian comment “about us,” but as a warning: the same geopolitical weakness allows different centers of power to test the world for strength on several fronts at once.

And here his formula sounds without unnecessary rhetoric. If global-level decisions are not made in time, the world does not necessarily receive one formally declared world war. It can receive dozens of interconnected conflicts that, in their cumulative destructiveness, will work like one.

Why it is important for the Israeli reader to understand who Zaluzhny is

He is not just a commentator and not another former general

For the Israeli reader, Valeriy Zaluzhny is a figure to be perceived in two capacities at once. On one hand, he is the former Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces of Ukraine during one of the most difficult periods of full-scale war. On the other hand, since May 2024, he officially represents Ukraine in London as the Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary Ambassador to the United Kingdom. That is, today he is a person who is simultaneously connected with military practice and the diplomatic level of decision-making.

His words are therefore weighty not only as the opinion of a popular military man. This is the position of a person who has seen the war from the inside, commanded the army, and now works in one of the key capitals of the Western world, where security, supplies, alliances, and post-war order are discussed.

To Israeli society, such a figure is understandable. Here they know how to distinguish cabinet analytics from the words of a person who has experienced real command under fire. That is why Zaluzhny’s warning about the risk of a large global confrontation is perceived not as a journalistic exaggeration, but as a serious signal.

What exactly he wants to convey

The main idea of his article boils down to a simple, unpleasant conclusion: the world needs not another round of comfortable discussions, but decisions capable of stopping the spread of war. For Ukraine, this is a question of the future of children and the very right to a safe world. For Israel — too. The only difference is in geography. The meaning, alas, is the same.

When such words come from a person who first commanded an army and then found himself in diplomacy, it is difficult to dismiss them as emotions. This is no longer just a Ukrainian warning. This is a warning of the era.