The world is witnessing an unprecedented surge in armed conflicts, with over 120 active battles involving more than 60 nations and 120 non-state groups. Most of these armed conflicts are of international characters, which has tripled since the turn of the millennium.
Numerous armed conflicts across the globe—from the Democratic Republic of the Congo to Israel and the occupied territories, Myanmar, Russia and Ukraine, and Sudan—have become epicenters of profound suffering and humanitarian crises. These conflicts are intensified by escalating geopolitical tensions that continue to reshape global dynamics.
Since the war in Ukraine erupted, the world has been hovering on the edge of catastrophe. This crisis is more than a fleeting episode; it mirrors the tense preludes to the World Wars. Yet, today’s crises are intertwined in a complex web, posing a serious threat to the global order established since the Cold War’s end.
Imagine the world as a vast mosaic, with each fragment symbolizing a volatile crisis. From China and Taiwan to North Korea and Japan, India and Pakistan, and throughout the Middle East and North Africa, tensions stretch across continents. Yet, at the center of this mosaic lies Ukraine, a linchpin whose instability threatens to unravel the entire structure.
On August 6, 2024, Ukrainian forces crossed into the Russian border, pushing several kilometers into the Kursk region. This advance goes beyond military success; it’s a geopolitical tremor that shakes the global order. Speculation abounds that Russia may have allowed this incursion to lure Ukrainian forces into a trap, setting the stage for President Putin to unleash a devastating counterattack. By potentially invoking a scorched earth strategy, Russia could aim to decimate Ukrainian troops on its soil, sidestepping international condemnation.
One wonders how Putin might have reacted to news of Ukrainian forces in Russian villages. Would he mirror Hitler’s dread as Soviet forces approached Berlin, or channel Stalin’s resolve at Stalingrad, prepared to turn the tide at all costs? The real threat is not the incursion itself, but Russia’s possible response. When cornered, the Russian bear becomes more aggressive—a provocation that may justify showcasing its might, possibly with tactical nuclear arms.
Meanwhile, the Taiwan Strait presents another dangerous flashpoint. China, which considers Taiwan a “renegade province,” is ramping up its military drills in an unprecedented display of force. This is no ordinary training; it’s a clear signal to the world that China is ready to reclaim what it sees as its own—by force, if necessary.
The United States is escalating its military presence in the region to levels unseen since the Vietnam War. Yet, the pressing question remains: does traditional military deterrence hold any efficacy in an age dominated by hybrid warfare and intertwined economies?
In the Middle East, a scenario reminiscent of both the Cuban Missile Crisis and the Six-Day War is unfolding. Iran stands on the brink of nuclear capability, while Israel conducts an extensive offensive in Lebanon that could last for weeks, potentially leaving Lebanon in a condition worse than it endured during the 2006 war.
Iran’s response to the bombing of its consulate, the assassination of Haniyeh nearby, and the targeting of Hassan Nasrallah along with key Hezbollah leaders in Lebanon marks a pivotal shift in the rules of engagement. Iran’s prior drone attack on Israel, although limited in military impact, signifies a strategic transformation in the conflict. Are we approaching a point of no return, where confrontation becomes inevitable?
The escalating Houthi attacks in the Red Sea and their symbolic strikes on Israel introduce a fresh layer to this crisis. These strikes go beyond military action; they pose a direct threat to the arteries of global trade.
A new factor, absent in previous conflicts, further complicates the scene: the global web of economic interdependence. The BRICS coalition, bolstered by emerging powers like India and Brazil, is challenging the dominance of the US dollar. This goes beyond economic rivalry; it signals a potential restructuring of the global order.
Yet, can economic interdependence serve as a shield against war? History reminds us that interdependence alone does not guarantee peace. Before World War I, Europe enjoyed a peak in economic globalization—yet it did nothing to prevent the impending catastrophe.
A transformative element emerges that alters the very rules of engagement: artificial intelligence, autonomous military systems, drones, and electronic warfare. These technologies not only redefine the nature of warfare but also raise profound ethical questions.
In uncertain times, historical analogies provide context. After September 11, the George W. Bush administration drew comparisons with Pearl Harbor to understand the intelligence failures that preceded the attacks. Today, the prevalent analogy is the Cold War, but our current situation is even more perilous. Unlike the isolated Soviet Union, China now stands as a formidable power, allied with Russia—a nuclear-armed successor to the former superpower—and bolstered by a coalition of nations weary of sanctions and Western dominance.
As we navigate this grim landscape, it becomes clear that traditional political diplomacy, even when combined with economic and military pressure, has often proven insufficient to diffuse crises. This is akin to trying to extinguish a towering inferno with a single cup of water. We face the challenges of the twenty-first century with outdated tools from the twentieth. In international politics, true wisdom lies not in avoiding mistakes but in avoiding the repetition of the same mistakes. Time moves forward, history awaits, and we must reflect on what the future may hold.
Adaptation doesn’t mean reinventing the wheel. Recognizing change is as essential as acknowledging that most rules, particularly those governing classification and declassification, remain unchanged. In an increasingly polarized world, where terms like “hybrid threats” and “proxy wars” are often loosely used, political discourse mustn’t obscure the legal distinctions of armed conflict classification.
Building, re-building, and fortifying trust remain critical to creating durable resilience in the face of hybrid threats that acutely imperil security at the state and societal levels. Trust-building within and across communities ought to be the linchpin of efforts to neutralize hybrid warfare and threats. This requires sustained efforts at the structural and policy levels to develop strong links between the state and the people that are underpinned by meaningful transparency, ownership, and inclusiveness.