There is a viewpoint that there was only one World War in the last century. According to that view, World War II was merely a continuation of World War I and it began as a result of the many unresolved issues. It should also be noted that during World War I, Germany, unlike in World War II, did not capitulate unconditionally, but surrendered under certain conditions and maintained most of its military potential.
This is a valid viewhaving a right to exist, and if we follow its logic, we can consider that the world order established in 1945 was a similar "big break", and the geopolitical tensions between the superpowers today are nothing but previously frozen or neglected issues, and unresolved claims among neighboring countries that had opened up as old, unhealed wounds as a result of the shaking of US hegemonic positions.
More precisely, there is an opinion that World War III is underway now. Merely there is no direct collision due to the presence of nuclear countries. Nonetheless, the imposed economic sanctions, the information war, the attempts to create the image of the enemy, and the mediated conflicts in the third countries imply the existence of World War III.
Eventually, what does it imply and what are its perils? It means that the whole world is turning into a conflict zone, and the 44-day war in Artsakh was only its prelude, the beginning. It was an example of how disputes can be resolved henceforth. That is why the results of the Artsakh war were enthusiastically accepted by the Ukrainian society. Thinking that it was a good precedent for solving their problem, and considering that the Bayraktars - Unmanned Aerial Vehicles were the main reason for Azerbaijan's success, Ukraine began to buy large quantities of those weapons, as well as get closer to Turkey, hoping that the latter would help it as it helped Azerbaijan, of course, keeping in mind the option of British support.
This is a mindset based on precedents, and now some countries, already "keeping in mind" the example of Russia, may be tempted to solve their contentious problems through war. The West sees such a threat in the case of Taiwan.The behavior of Germany and Japan is interesting here.Being the third and fourth largest economies in the world, they have begun to boost their military might, which also shows that the status quo created since 1945 is being violated, and the socio-economic and political restrictions imposed on those countries do not seem to affect their military progress.Turkey's more independent and aggressive policy is also evident.
The dependence of small countries, like Armenia, on superpowers is growing, so that not only their state sovereignty but also the question of their existence is at stake. It is up to the small countries to pay close attention to the global turmoil, as well as the logic of the emergence of new coalitions and new dividing lines.In such conditions, diplomacy and the ability to predict events come to the fore.
Against this backdrop, they should not naturally forget about the increasing military capabilities.