Global conflicts and geopolitics have entered one of their most volatile and structurally complex periods since the end of the Cold War. According to the World Economic Forum’s Global Risks Report 2026, geoeconomic confrontation now ranks as the single most likely trigger of a global crisis — rising eight positions to claim the top spot and rated first for severity over the next two years. Furthermore, state-based armed conflict ranks second in the WEF’s near-term risk assessment, as wars in Ukraine, Sudan, Gaza, and across the Sahel continue to reshape international alliances, supply chains, and the global humanitarian order.
The world is not simply more dangerous — it is more structurally fragmented. When the WEF surveyed leaders and experts, 68% expected a multipolar or fragmented world order over the next decade, up four points from the previous year. Half of all respondents anticipated a turbulent or stormy two-year outlook, up 14 percentage points from the prior survey. Moreover, the Council on Foreign Relations’ 2026 Preventive Priorities Survey identified 30 active conflict contingencies that could harm US national interests — the broadest conflict watchlist in the survey’s eighteen-year history. The International Crisis Group, meanwhile, warned plainly that 2026 promises little better than the blood-soaked year that preceded it.
This analysis examines the major theatres of global conflict and geopolitical competition as of early 2026 — from the Russia-Ukraine war and the fragile ceasefire in Gaza, to Sudan’s unfolding catastrophe, the Sahel’s descent into jihadist encirclement, the South China Sea’s simmering disputes, and the broader restructuring of great-power competition between the United States, China, and Russia.
The Russia-Ukraine War: Towards a Negotiated Ending?
Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine, launched in February 2022, entered its fourth year in 2026 as the most consequential land conflict in Europe since the Second World War. The war has killed more than a million people according to Al Jazeera, displaced tens of millions, and fundamentally realigned the European security order. As of March 2026, fighting continues along an active front line, with both sides claiming tactical advances while comprehensive ceasefire negotiations remain unresolved.
The diplomatic landscape shifted significantly following Donald Trump’s return to the US presidency in January 2025. Trump, who had pledged on the campaign trail to end the war within 24 hours, has been unable to fulfil that promise — but his administration has driven the most sustained diplomatic engagement of the conflict. In January 2026, a summit of the Coalition of the Willing — a group of 35 nations — convened in Paris, where France and the UK pledged to establish military hubs across Ukraine in the event of a ceasefire. The Paris Declaration committed allies to binding security guarantees, a US-led ceasefire monitoring mechanism, and continued long-term military assistance to Kyiv.
Trilateral talks between US, Russian, and Ukrainian envoys took place in Abu Dhabi in late January 2026. According to reporting by the Financial Times and sourced by Modern Diplomacy, Western and Ukrainian officials described a peace framework as 90 percent complete. However, the Kremlin’s position remained far from the draft terms agreed by US, European, and Ukrainian negotiators. Furthermore, the Jamestown Foundation analysis noted that Putin has employed deliberate stalling tactics — including fabricating a Ukrainian drone attack on his residence — to avoid direct confrontation with Trump while buying military time on the battlefield.
On the ground, as of 10 March 2026, Euronews reported that Russia and Ukraine were both claiming front-line progress, with Putin telling Trump that Russian forces were advancing in the Donbas region. Ukraine’s air force said it had downed 122 of 137 Russian drones launched in a single overnight attack. Meanwhile, the UN General Assembly adopted a resolution demanding an immediate ceasefire by 107 votes to 12, with 51 abstentions — including the United States, which cautioned that some language in the resolution risked distracting from ongoing negotiations.
| Key Development | Date | Outcome / Status |
| Russia’s full-scale invasion begins | Feb 2022 | War enters 4th year in 2026 |
| Paris Coalition of the Willing summit | Jan 6, 2026 | 35 nations pledge security guarantees |
| Paris Declaration signed | Jan 6, 2026 | UK & France pledge military hubs in Ukraine |
| First Abu Dhabi trilateral talks | Jan 23, 2026 | Little progress on territory |
| UN GA ceasefire resolution | Feb 24, 2026 | 107-12 vote; US abstains |
| Second Abu Dhabi talks scheduled | Feb 2026 | Delayed by US-Iran crisis |
| Front-line fighting continues | March 10, 2026 | Russia claims gains; Ukraine pushes back |
| Peace deal described as 90% complete | Early 2026 | Kremlin position remains distant |
The Middle East: Gaza, Iran, and a Region in Limbo
Gaza: A Fragile Ceasefire and Unresolved Questions
A ceasefire agreement in Gaza took effect in October 2025, ending more than two years of war that began with Hamas’s attack on southern Israel on 7 October 2023. The International Crisis Group described the ceasefire as bringing the longest and bloodiest war in a century of Arab-Israeli conflict to a tenuous halt, with Israel having left more than one in ten of Gaza’s Palestinians killed or injured and the vast majority homeless.
However, the ceasefire remains deeply contested in practice. As the Middle East Eye reported in January 2026, the ceasefire has allowed Israel and its allies to avoid accountability while daily violence against Palestinians continues. Israel has killed approximately 400 Palestinians since the ceasefire nominally began, according to Crisis Group data. Gaza remains de facto partitioned, with Israel controlling more than half of the territory and reconstruction blocked. In the occupied West Bank, Israel’s government has accelerated land seizures and institutional changes that international observers describe as steps toward de facto annexation.
Furthermore, Hamas has refused to disarm and has reasserted its military and political presence in the parts of Gaza it controls. Trump’s peace plan assigns him to head a Board of Peace overseeing a yet-to-be-established technocratic government in Gaza. The Stimson Center warned in its Top Ten Global Risks report that Trump’s designs for Gaza are getting mugged by reality, with the US considering redeveloping the Israeli-controlled half while the path to any political solution remains deeply unclear.
Iran: The Escalation Risk
Iran remains the most significant wildcard in Middle Eastern geopolitics. The Soufan Center’s 2026 Middle East forecast identified Iran as a potential bright spot if expanding domestic protests unexpectedly destabilised the regime — but also as the most dangerous flashpoint if the US and Israel pursue regime-change ambitions through military means. The Atlantic Council similarly listed Israel-Iran tensions and the question of whether the US and Israel would pursue regime change in Tehran as the critical scenario to watch throughout 2026.
Moreover, the Stimson Center noted that US-Iran confrontation intensified in early 2026, raising fears of a wider regional conflict. The Strait of Hormuz — through which approximately 20% of global oil supply passes — remained at the centre of tensions, with energy markets reacting sharply to geopolitical instability in the Gulf region.
Yemen, Syria, and Lebanon
Yemen’s Houthis remain a significant destabilising force, positioned to resume attacks on commercial shipping in the Red Sea if Gaza fighting flares again. The Soufan Center confirmed that Iran-backed Houthis are almost certain to restart Red Sea shipping strikes under that condition. Given that over 10% of global trade passes annually through the Bab-al-Mandab and the Suez Canal, Houthi activity represents a direct threat to global supply chains and commodity prices.
In Syria, the fall of Bashar al-Assad in late 2024 opened a new and uncertain political chapter. The Trump administration brokered a joint mechanism for intelligence-sharing and military de-escalation between Israel and the post-Assad government of Ahmad al-Sharaa in Damascus — a limited but meaningful diplomatic achievement. However, Lebanon’s situation remains volatile, with Israel continuing near-daily strikes on Hezbollah positions despite a November 2024 ceasefire, generating international condemnation and legal challenge.
Africa: Sudan, the Sahel, and the Horn
Sudan: The World’s Worst Humanitarian Crisis
Sudan’s civil war, which erupted in April 2023 between the Sudanese Armed Forces and the Rapid Support Forces paramilitary group, has become what the United Nations describes as the world’s worst humanitarian crisis for women and girls. According to Brookings Institution’s Foresight Africa 2026 report, more than 12 million people have been displaced — the largest displacement crisis on the planet. Women and girls account for more than half of those displaced and are being deliberately targeted with sexual violence.
The conflict has produced a de facto partition of Sudan, with the RSF controlling Darfur and much of Kordofan in the west, and the Sudanese Armed Forces holding the centre and east including Port Sudan. In late 2025, the RSF overran El Fasher — the army’s last redoubt in western Sudan — killing thousands of civilians in what Crisis Group described as a killing spree that should spur greater global efforts.
The international response remains fragmented. The UAE has been extensively documented as an arms supplier to the RSF, while Egypt and Turkey back the SAF. Saudi Arabia has played a largely neutral mediating role through a US-led Quartet process involving Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and the UAE. UK Foreign Secretary David Lammy convened meetings in Addis Ababa in February 2026 with foreign ministers from Ethiopia, Kenya, South Sudan, Chad, and African Union representatives to build momentum for a ceasefire — noting that the UK holds the UN Security Council presidency and would press for humanitarian access and accountability. The Brookings roadmap calls for an AU-led mediated ceasefire, an inclusive civilian-led transitional government, unified international pressure for an arms embargo, and a transitional justice process.
The Sahel: Jihadist Advance and Regime Fragility
Since September 2025, jihadist militants linked to al-Qaeda have imposed a partial blockade on Bamako, Mali’s capital, signalling a dangerous new phase in the Sahel’s long-running insurgency. The International Crisis Group warned that the risk of regime collapse and further chaos is growing in both Mali and neighbouring Burkina Faso. Military governments in both countries expelled French forces and turned to Russian mercenaries under the Wagner Group umbrella, but this has not stabilised the security situation.
Furthermore, Crisis Group analysts noted that militants likely aim to consolidate their hold on rural areas and economically squeeze Mali’s military authorities rather than immediately seize the capital. The window for diplomacy is narrowing. In Mali, the fuel crisis has highlighted the country’s dependence on cordial relations with West African neighbours, and military leaders need to contemplate dialogue with insurgents — however painful that process may be.
Horn of Africa: Ethiopia, Eritrea, and the Red Sea
Africa’s Arguments journal identified the Horn of Africa as increasingly integrated into broader geopolitical competition spanning the Indo-Pacific, Mediterranean, and the Middle East. Ethiopia and Eritrea have been trading barbs for months and may be edging toward war, according to Crisis Group’s 2026 watchlist. Ethiopian Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed has accused Eritrea of training and arming anti-government militias, while Eritrea alleges Ethiopian aggression — with the underlying question of Ethiopia’s access to the sea sitting at the centre of the dispute.
Meanwhile, Israel’s recognition of Somaliland in early 2026 triggered sharp regional opposition. Egypt and Turkey jointly rejected the move as a violation of international law, while Saudi Arabia, Djibouti, China, and Turkey attended a diplomatic gathering inside Somalia to oppose the development. The possibility of proxy or direct conflict along the Gulf of Aden, African Arguments warned, has never been more imminent.
The South China Sea and Indo-Pacific Competition
US-China great-power competition remains the defining structural tension of the current geopolitical order. Wellington Management’s Geopolitical Strategist described US-China rivalry, a rapidly fragmenting global order, and climate change as painting a negative structural geopolitical picture for the decade ahead. The WEF’s Global Risks Report similarly noted that 68% of respondents expect a multipolar or fragmented world order over the next ten years.
However, the Stimson Center assessed that China and Taiwan are not among the top geopolitical risks for 2026 specifically, judging that direct conflict is unlikely in the near term following the Trump-Xi summit. Nonetheless, Beijing’s military coercion of Taiwan and its assertive activities in the South China Sea — including grey zone naval operations, contested energy exploration in disputed waters, and construction on reclaimed land — continue to generate friction with the US, Japan, Australia, South Korea, the Philippines, and other regional powers.
Crisis24’s Global Risk Forecast 2026 noted that while a major or sustained conflict over Taiwan is unlikely in 2026, triggers of limited escalation include assertive joint maritime patrols by the US and Indo-Pacific middle powers, perceived military infrastructure buildups on reclaimed land, and unilateral energy exploration in disputed waters. Additionally, Trump’s tariff policies and Chinese manufacturing overcapacity pose dual threats to Asian economies, undermining regional production networks built on the China-plus-one diversification strategy.
| Region | Primary Conflict / Risk | Status (March 2026) | Key Actors |
| Eastern Europe | Russia-Ukraine War | Active; peace talks ongoing | Russia, Ukraine, USA, EU, UK, France |
| Middle East | Gaza ceasefire / Iran tensions | Fragile ceasefire; Iran risk high | Israel, Hamas, Iran, USA, Qatar, Egypt |
| Middle East | Yemen / Red Sea shipping | Houthi threat remains live | Houthis, Iran, Saudi Arabia, USA |
| Middle East | Syria / Lebanon | Post-Assad transition; volatile | Israel, Hezbollah, USA, Turkey |
| Africa | Sudan civil war | World’s worst humanitarian crisis | SAF, RSF, UAE, Egypt, Turkey, Saudi Arabia |
| Africa | Sahel insurgency | Jihadist blockade of Mali capital | JNIM, Mali/Burkina Faso juntas, Russia (Wagner) |
| Africa | Horn of Africa | Ethiopia-Eritrea tensions escalating | Ethiopia, Eritrea, Somalia, UAE, Israel, Turkey |
| Asia-Pacific | South China Sea | Grey-zone; no imminent hot war | China, USA, Philippines, Vietnam, Japan |
| Asia-Pacific | India-Pakistan | Post-exchange tensions high | India, Pakistan, nuclear risk |
| Americas | Venezuela | US-led operation vs Maduro begun Jan 2026 | USA, Venezuela, Russia, China |
Great Power Competition: The New World Order
The overarching framework shaping global conflicts and geopolitics in 2026 is the collapse of the post-Cold War unipolar order and its replacement by an increasingly contested multipolar system. The WEF’s Global Risks Report captured this shift with unusual bluntness: a new competitive order is taking shape as major powers seek to secure their spheres of interest. The Eurasia Group’s Top Risks 2026 described the world as operating under deglobalisation, spheres of influence, and transactionalism as organising principles — a dramatic departure from the rules-based international order that defined the 1990s and 2000s.
The United States under Trump has made this shift explicit. The new US National Security Strategy declares that the days of the United States propping up the entire world order like Atlas are over, as quoted by the Stimson Center. Furthermore, Eurasia Group observed that Trump is attempting to assert direct control over America’s own backyard while retreating from traditional alliance commitments in Europe and the Middle East. This retreat creates a structural vacuum that Russia, China, and regional powers are actively working to fill.
Europe faces its own crisis of coherence. Eurasia Group warned that the political centre is collapsing in all three major European powers simultaneously — Germany, France, and the UK — leaving the continent unable to fill the security vacuum left by America’s partial withdrawal. The most dangerous front in Europe in 2026, the group assessed, is shifting from the trenches in Donetsk to a hybrid war between Russia and NATO in the Baltic states, Scandinavia, and across critical infrastructure.
Moreover, EY’s 2026 Geostrategic Outlook identified three core themes shaping business and government decisions: persistent trade policy volatility, the weaponisation of economic tools for national security purposes, and the rise of sovereign AI as both a competitive asset and a source of cyber conflict. Governments are increasingly treating AI capabilities as national security infrastructure — and AI is serving as a force multiplier for cyber operations between rival states.
The Impact of Global Conflicts on the UK and USA
For British citizens and policymakers, global conflicts and geopolitics carry direct domestic consequences. The Russia-Ukraine war has contributed to sustained energy price pressure across Europe, with the UK’s reliance on global LNG markets leaving households and businesses exposed to commodity volatility driven by geopolitical events thousands of miles away. Furthermore, the UK’s commitment to the Coalition of the Willing — including the pledge to establish military hubs in Ukraine — represents a significant expansion of British overseas security commitments at a time of tight defence budgets.
UK Foreign Secretary David Lammy’s personal engagement in Sudan diplomacy, his use of the UK’s February 2026 UN Security Council presidency to press for humanitarian access, and British co-leadership of a planned Sudan donor conference with Germany all reflect a foreign policy strategy that seeks to maintain global influence through multilateral engagement and humanitarian leadership. The UK has reached over 2.5 million people in Sudan through humanitarian assistance since the conflict began.
For American citizens, the consequences are equally direct. The Russia-Ukraine war has reshaped US-European alliance dynamics, created fresh debate about NATO commitments and defence spending, and injected volatility into global energy and grain markets. The Gaza conflict has generated unprecedented domestic political polarisation, with AIPAC facing significant backlash and US citizens becoming more critical of Israeli policy than at any prior point in polling history, according to Arab Center DC analysis. Furthermore, Trump’s Venezuela operation, his tariff policies, and the intensifying US-China technology competition are all reshaping American trade, investment, and economic conditions in real time.
Geopolitics, Technology, and the New Battlespace
Technology has emerged as a defining dimension of global conflicts and geopolitics in 2026. Ukraine’s war has served as the world’s most intense live laboratory for drone warfare, electronic warfare, satellite-guided precision strikes, and AI-assisted targeting — producing tactical and strategic lessons that every major military on the planet is studying and incorporating. The widespread use of inexpensive commercial drones by both sides has fundamentally altered the economics and tactics of land warfare.
Cyber conflict has simultaneously expanded beyond discrete operations into a persistent, structural feature of great-power rivalry. EY confirmed that AI will serve as a force multiplier for cyber conflicts, with governments treating AI infrastructure as critical national security assets. Russia has continued to drive cyber and hybrid operations against NATO members — with the Eurasia Group assessing that the hybrid war between Russia and NATO represents the most dangerous front in Europe in 2026.
Moreover, the race for critical minerals — lithium, cobalt, rare earths, and other materials essential for clean energy, advanced electronics, and military systems — has become a geopolitical competition in its own right. Control of these resources in Africa, South America, and Central Asia is increasingly a driver of foreign policy, proxy conflict, and bilateral deal-making between major powers, with China, the US, and the EU all actively competing to secure supply chains.
Frequently Asked Questions About Global Conflicts and Geopolitics
Q1. What is the biggest geopolitical risk in 2026?
According to the World Economic Forum’s Global Risks Report 2026, geoeconomic confrontation is the top-ranked risk — described as the threat most likely to trigger a global crisis. It climbed eight positions to claim first place and was ranked number one for severity over the next two years. State-based armed conflict ranks second. The weaponisation of trade, technology, finance, and energy as instruments of geopolitical competition now poses systemic risks to global economic stability, supply chains, and international cooperation.
Q2. Is the Russia-Ukraine war likely to end in 2026?
A ceasefire remains possible but not certain. Western and Ukrainian officials described a peace framework as 90% complete in early 2026, but the Kremlin’s negotiating position — which demands recognition of Russian territorial gains and a prohibition on NATO membership for Ukraine — remains far from the US-European-Ukrainian position. Russia continued military operations through March 2026 as talks proceeded, with both sides claiming front-line advances. A durable peace remains elusive; an unstable ceasefire is a more plausible near-term outcome.
Q3. Why is Sudan considered the world’s worst humanitarian crisis?
The United Nations has designated Sudan’s conflict as the world’s worst humanitarian crisis specifically for women and girls. Since the war began in April 2023, more than 12 million people have been displaced — the largest displacement crisis on earth. Women and girls make up more than half of those displaced and are being deliberately targeted with sexual violence. Sudan is Africa’s third-largest country and shares borders with seven nations, meaning the conflict’s humanitarian and security spillover effects extend across the entire region.
Q4. How does the Gaza conflict affect global geopolitics?
The Gaza conflict has reshaped global alliances, strained Western unity, damaged the international credibility of the rules-based order, and fuelled regional instability across the Middle East. It enabled Iran-backed Houthi groups to resume attacks on Red Sea shipping, threatening global trade through the Suez Canal. It generated unprecedented fractures between the United States and traditional allies in Europe, Canada, and Australia over Palestinian recognition and arms exports. Furthermore, the ICJ genocide case brought by South Africa against Israel has triggered ongoing legal and diplomatic consequences that will define international humanitarian law for years.
Q5. What is the Coalition of the Willing and what has it agreed?
The Coalition of the Willing is a group of 35 nations that have pledged support for Ukraine against Russian aggression. At the Paris summit of January 2026, members agreed to a US-led ceasefire monitoring and verification mechanism, long-term military assistance to Ukraine, and the deployment of a multinational European force in the event of a ceasefire. The UK and France specifically pledged to establish military hubs across Ukraine and build protected facilities for weapons and military equipment. The coalition also agreed to establish a US-Ukraine-Coalition coordination cell at coalition operational headquarters in Paris.
Q6. What role is China playing in global conflicts in 2026?
China is maintaining strategic ambiguity across most active conflict zones. It has supported Russia economically while formally calling for Ukrainian sovereignty and territorial integrity. It proposed a 12-point peace plan for Ukraine that was criticised by Western allies for failing to acknowledge Russian aggression. In the South China Sea, China continues grey-zone military coercion against Taiwan and Southeast Asian neighbours without escalating to open conflict. China also abstained on the UN General Assembly ceasefire resolution on Ukraine. Eurasia Group assessed that US-China ties will remain relatively steady through 2026, with Beijing focused on managing domestic economic challenges rather than expanding military adventurism.
Q7. How do global conflicts affect everyday people in the UK and USA?
Global conflicts affect UK and US citizens through energy price volatility, food price inflation, disruption to trade supply chains, defence spending pressures, and the domestic political polarisation that foreign policy debates generate. The Russia-Ukraine war has sustained elevated gas prices across Europe. Red Sea shipping disruptions from Houthi attacks increased freight costs globally. The Gaza conflict has generated significant political divisions in both countries. Furthermore, both nations face increased defence spending pressures: the UK committed to military hubs in Ukraine, while the US debates the cost and scope of its global security commitments under a transactional foreign policy doctrine.
Conclusion: A World Defined by Fragmentation and Persistent Conflict
Global conflicts and geopolitics in 2026 are defined by three structural realities: the collapse of the post-Cold War unipolar order, the failure of comprehensive peace agreements across multiple active war zones, and the weaponisation of economics, technology, and information as tools of interstate competition. The WEF’s finding that 68% of global leaders expect a multipolar or fragmented world order over the next decade reflects a broad consensus that the old rules no longer hold — and new ones have not yet emerged to replace them.
Moreover, the wars in Ukraine, Sudan, Gaza, and the Sahel share a common feature identified by the International Crisis Group: in a moment of global flux, few belligerents will make lasting compromises with rivals when geopolitical winds might change and an opportunity to finish them off may arise. This dynamic makes comprehensive peace agreements elusive — and unstable ceasefires, frozen conflicts, and grinding attrition the more likely outcomes across multiple theatres.
For citizens in the UK and USA, and for people everywhere, global conflicts and geopolitics are not abstract phenomena. They shape energy prices, food costs, immigration flows, defence budgets, and the domestic political climate in direct and measurable ways. Therefore, understanding the forces driving conflict and the prospects for peace is not merely an academic exercise — it is essential context for navigating an increasingly uncertain world. The choices made by governments, international institutions, and civil societies in 2026 will define the geopolitical landscape for decades to come.
