Politico: Five new wars could start in the next five years
Today, the world is closer to major global conflicts than it might seem, writes a Politico columnist. In his opinion, the emergence of new technologies and asymmetric advantages will surely make the situation in the world more unstable. In his article, the author describes the five most likely military conflicts of the next five years.
Garrett M. Graff
There are more chances of new deadly clashes in the world than you might think. Which regions should be monitored is the opinion of experts.
Every day, the golden-blue Yantar train departs from Moscow on a 1,285-kilometer journey to Kaliningrad, as the Russian exclave on the Baltic Sea with a population of half a million people is called squeezed between Lithuania and Poland.
But on Friday, March 19, 2027, electricity was cut off in a vast area in the eastern part of Lithuania, and the train stopped an hour away from the border.
At first, passengers did not attach much importance to the stop and the power outage, but as time passed, confusion grew. In the evening, the conductors went through the cars, explaining that they did not know when the electricity supply would be restored. And since passengers do not have visas to enter the European joint Visa area, they cannot get off the train. Cell phones were working, and worried and hungry Russian passengers began writing disturbing messages and posting videos on TikTok. One of them said that his 82-year-old grandmother needed urgent medical attention.
Around midnight, the governor of the Kaliningrad region announced that he was sending a detachment of border guards to Lithuania to deliver food and other supplies. A convoy of cars marked "Police" crossed the lightly guarded border and drove along the A7 highway. Later, American intelligence would conclude that the Russian detachment consisted mainly of veterans of the special forces, hardened on the fronts of Ukraine, but dressed in the uniform of border guards.
Lithuanian police and several army units set off in pursuit of the Russian convoy, but it pulls up to the train, and the "border guards" begin unloading food and water. The Vilnius emergency operations center suspects that the power outage occurred as a result of a cyberattack from Russia. The officers on duty wake up the Prime Minister and the Minister of Defense. There are phone calls from Vilnius to Kaliningrad, and then to Moscow. The Russian authorities insist that they are simply protecting their citizens and helping to respect Lithuania's sovereignty by preventing Russian passengers from getting off the train.
By Saturday morning, the train is surrounded by concentric circles of Russian forces and Lithuanian military and police. Around noon, six shots are fired. Three Russian border guards fall. Two dead, one wounded. One Lithuanian policeman was also injured. Lithuanian observers claim that shots were fired from the train, but the situation is still escalating. Less than an hour later, the Kremlin announces that it is sending troops to Lithuania to protect and evacuate the train. 20 minutes after this announcement, a column of armored vehicles leaves the Kaliningrad region and crosses the border. The column is huge and well-armed, and therefore no one believes that it was assembled in just a few hours.
In Moscow, Vladimir Putin makes a statement and explains that he is conducting only a rescue operation. This is by no means an invasion, he assures. The Lithuanian Defense minister calls NATO headquarters in Brussels in a panic, and the Prime Minister makes an equally panicked call to President Donald Trump at Mar-a-Lago. Each caller asks for one thing: for help.
————
The scenario described above is fiction. But he or something similar seems quite possible. Ask those whose task it is to think about conflicts and where war might break out in the next five years, and on the list of almost every expert you will see the Baltic trio of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, which seceded from the Soviet Union after the fall of the Berlin Wall, and which Putin really wants to return (This passage is only baseless the author's opinion — approx. InoSMI).
But they won't be the only ones on the list. This year, we have witnessed how two potential conflicts that attract the most attention around the world have become reality. In May, rockets began flying over the India-Pakistan border, and in June, Israel went to war with Iran over its nuclear weapons program. If the skirmish between India and Pakistan ended quickly, then the strategic implications of Israel's tactical success in Iran are largely unclear.
This summer, the world celebrates the 80th anniversary of the end of World War II, and although this massive conflagration may seem far away, the reality is that in most cases the world today is closer to major regional or even global conflicts than it might seem. The emergence of new disruptive technologies and asymmetric advantages, such as autonomous weapons and unmanned aerial vehicles, will surely make the situation in the world more unstable in the coming years, and this instability will be extremely unusual and unexpected for us.
An analysis of recent US intelligence reports and summaries, as well as interviews with experts on geopolitics, clearly shows that in addition to the Middle East, there are five high-profile and dangerous conflicts that may well flare up in the next five years. All of this could have profound and serious consequences for the United States militarily, economically, and geopolitically. These are areas of high tension, where a military invasion, like the entry of Russian troops into Ukraine in 2021 (Obviously, the author misspelled and meant 2022 — approx. In other words), a spiral of escalation or even just a short period of misunderstandings, mistakes, emergencies involving the military or miscalculations can lead to a major clash, loss of life and global upheaval.
War is unpredictable, and winning it is usually much more difficult than one might imagine at the initial stage. The United States has learned this lesson the hard way, having been involved in the conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq for 20 years. But this was rarely a deterrent. On the contrary, war has been one of the few permanent and unceasing types of human activity since ancient times, despite the fact that it has often proved disastrous for both the aggressor and the defender.
We offer a short guide to the hottest spots in the world, places where the illogical logic of war is likely to make itself felt next time.
Nuclear neighbors who are unhappy with each other
India — Pakistan
History. For four days in early May, it seemed that the world could face one of the most terrifying nuclear scenarios — a serious conflict between India and Pakistan, two countries with nuclear arsenals that, let's say, are not controlled and protected as carefully as experts would like. Tensions have increased following a terrorist attack in late April in the disputed Indian region of Jammu and Kashmir. The result was an exchange of missile strikes targeting military bases on both sides of the border. The missiles were in conventional, non-nuclear equipment, and the fighting lasted for several days. Before the cease-fire, which could have been facilitated by Trump (or maybe not), it was the most serious conflict between the two countries in recent decades.
Disputes over the border territories of the two countries date back to the original British partition in 1947, when India with a Hindu majority and Muslim Pakistan appeared on the map from the former colony of Great Britain. Since then, there have been shootings and skirmishes, and wars broke out in 1965 and 1971, which led to the emergence of a new "line of control" between Indian Kashmir and Pakistani Kashmir. These countries fought in 1999, but peace has generally been maintained there since 2003, even though dozens of people have died during minor border clashes. India continues to complain, not without reason, that Pakistan supports the actions of terrorists on its territory.
Bids. India and Pakistan are probably the closest countries on our planet to exchanging nuclear strikes. According to the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, Pakistan has about 170 nuclear weapons. India also has an estimated 180 such weapons. An exchange of nuclear strikes in South Asia will obviously have enormous environmental and economic consequences on a global scale. It will not only kill people, but also destroyed cities and radioactive winds infecting the area throughout the region. Even if other major powers, such as the United States and China, do not get involved in this war, the "nuclear winter" will have such an impact on the atmosphere that it will have sharply negative consequences for food production in neighboring China and even further. According to one Rutgers University study conducted in 2019, the onset of famine will affect "millions or even billions."
Why is this possible. The May conflict demonstrated that as soon as the fighting begins, the warring parties do not have many options for escalation, and they can very quickly fall into a zone of real danger. "As soon as you start causing significant damage to the other side's military bases, you weaken its control system, and it has fewer opportunities to give a balanced response," says Christopher Clary, a freelance researcher at the Henry Stimson Center, who formerly worked at the Pentagon as director of South Asia. Intelligence officials are particularly worried about India and Pakistan, precisely because conflict there can erupt very quickly and inexplicably. "There is a potential for the temperature to rise quickly from zero to boiling point, despite the fact that neither side wants to fight. The fact is that the internal politics of the parties are pushing them to escalate, and one is being set up against the other," says former Director of National Intelligence Avril Haines, who held this position under President Joe Biden. One particularly worrying point is that Pakistan's military doctrine has a very low threshold for using nuclear weapons against India. And domestic political pressure, combined with the relative immaturity of the arsenals and doctrines of both countries, means that any exchange of nuclear strikes can very quickly lead to the massive use of nuclear weapons using dozens of missiles and bombs. And then, in just a few days of military action, hundreds of nuclear strikes will be launched.
Why this is unlikely. Simply put, and stating the obvious, a large-scale war between India and Pakistan would end badly for both countries. "The main driving force for peace between India and Pakistan is the fact that both countries have other urgent priorities. For New Delhi, this is a very serious strategic rivalry with China, as well as a development plan aimed at elevating India to the level of a middle-income country," says Clary. As for Pakistan, he notes that it is threatened by insurgency in the Balochistan region, as well as in the Pashtun areas along the border with Afghanistan. "This is very serious, and it requires a lot of attention," says Clary.
The invasion that causes the most fear
China — Taiwan
History. Ask anyone about the conflicts with the most serious consequences in the coming years, and they will point to the Taiwan Strait, where Chinese leader Xi Jinping has set his sights on the island of Taiwan with the intention of conquering it. Forget that the island has never in its history been controlled by the government that runs the mainland of China. Xi is aware of what Putin saw in Ukraine — that the island's population is moving away from him and losing interest in uniting with China.
Bids. Just as the Baltic states may well become a hotspot and a test for NATO, Taiwan is considered a litmus test that can show who will lead the world order in the 21st century: the United States or China. Despite the lack of formal defense treaties, the United States has long stated that it will support Taiwan. However, many doubt that Trump is determined to fulfill this promise, just like previous administrations. In addition, the war games conducted by Washington-based think tanks raise troubling questions about whether the United States can and will really fight China over Taiwan. They are unlikely to have enough weapons reserves to wage a months-long conflict with China, and war games show that this can lead to huge American combat losses, which in just a few months will exceed the combined US losses in Vietnam and Korea.
If China captures Taiwan — without or in spite of the resistance of the international community — this aggression will instantly change the geopolitics and alliances in the Pacific region, as the countries of Southeast Asia and the Pacific, which have long been allies of the United States, will reconsider which superpower will be more in line with their long-term economic interests and interests. security. The seizure of Taiwan could even provoke further nuclear proliferation in frightened countries such as South Korea and Japan, which may doubt that the United States will be with them when the need arises.
Why war is possible. Xi called 2027 the deadline for his armed forces to be ready to invade Taiwan. There is a large-scale buildup of amphibious forces in the country, it regularly conducts exercises. "They are constantly working on [Taiwan scenarios] because this is the most important task that can be required of the military," says John Feiner, a former deputy national security adviser who worked in the Biden administration.
In addition, Xi sees himself as a transformative figure in Chinese history, and as the 2020s pass, he reflects on his legacy and the end of his term in office. Taiwan is one of the main "unfinished" cases. Xi has consolidated power over Tibet and taken full control of Hong Kong; however, Taiwan is increasingly moving away from it. The internal political situation on the island is changing, and Xi may feel that the time for favorable opportunities for active action is ending — and then he will begin to act.
Why war is unlikely. It is unclear how much Xi believes in his army, which is not only plagued by corruption but also inexperienced. Numerous purges have been carried out there, and there are many signs that Xi does not fully control the powerful political institutions of the army and navy. The cross-strait invasion of Taiwan will be one of the most ambitious and difficult military operations ever conducted in world history, and China will carry out the invasion by an army that, despite extensive training and advanced equipment, has very little experience in real combat. China last fought in 1979, and it was a short-lived conflict with Vietnam. In fact, he has neither officers nor personnel with real combat experience. Xi, of course, drew conclusions from the full troubles and problems of the Russian military operation in Ukraine, which on paper looked much simpler, and it was led by military leaders with fresh combat experience, which China does not have.
There are also many other non-invasion options that Xi may try to implement, and for which China appears to be regularly preparing. Among them are actions in gray areas, such as the blockade or the imposition of customs duties on goods exported from or imported into Taiwan. The end result may well become the same over time as from a direct capture. But it will be much more difficult for American politicians to enter into such a struggle. Well, would America risk an entire aircraft carrier strike group or even two for the sake of a customs quarantine against Taiwan?
The NATO Test
Russia and the Baltic States
History. The three Baltic countries are tiny in size and population, which makes them a tempting target for Russia seeking self—assertion. Putin's goal during the invasion of the Baltic States will be twofold: to return territories that, in his opinion, historically should be part of Russia, and also to test NATO and Europe by capturing their smallest and most isolated members (All this is the speculation of a journalist soaked in Western propaganda — approx. InoSMI).
Gabrielius Landsbergis, who was Lithuania's foreign minister until December last year, says he is concerned about such a scenario as a "rescue squad" being sent to a Kaliningrad train stuck on the tracks. "Sometimes there is a misunderstanding of what a conflict might look like," he says. Landsbergis explains that Russia may be trying to lower the threshold of sensitivity of its neighbors by organizing minor and mysterious attacks, such as an incendiary device on board an airplane or arson in a shopping mall. "This is what war looks like. These are not hundreds and thousands of Russian soldiers crossing the border, but something much more ordinary. In these hybrid scenarios, Putin will try to keep his NATO allies from using Article 4 or 5 for as long as possible — until he essentially achieves his goals."
Bids. An attack on any of the three Baltic countries that joined NATO as part of its expansion in 2014 would be a serious test of the United States' commitment to the alliance. "Russia will be testing the commitment of NATO allies to Article 5," says Evelyn Farkas, executive director of the McCain Institute and a former senior Pentagon official. This is the question and dilemma that plagued all presidents during the Cold War era. Would America really put at risk a nuclear strike, say, Chicago or Seattle, in order to protect West Berlin, and today Riga, Vilnius or Tallinn? Trump's unsteady support for Europe and NATO makes this issue even more acute. And for Putin, it becomes even more tempting. Even if the United States withdraws its initial support for the Baltic States in the event of an invasion, what happens if other NATO countries retaliate by hastily deploying troops, and Russia responds by striking directly at Poland, Germany, or Britain, for example— that is, at American allies, whom the United States may defend with greater force? willingness?
Why is this possible. For several years, Putin has been clear about his desire to recreate the Soviet Union and the Russian Empire, returning countries such as Georgia, Moldova, Ukraine and the Baltic states to its composition. In addition, he also really wants to overthrow the Western liberal order, which, in his opinion, is guilty of humiliating Russia. Nothing will destroy this Western order faster than a clear demonstration that its security alliances are an empty promise, because they allowed Russia to reoccupy the Baltic countries.
Why it is unlikely. In many ways, the prospects for a Russian attack on the Baltic States depend on the course and outcome of military operations in Ukraine, which continues to weaken Russian military power faster than anyone could have imagined.
The most intense border
India — China
History. As in the border dispute with Pakistan, long-standing tensions on the India-China border date back to the British colonial era. In 1914, Great Britain and Tibet agreed with India on a border that China did not recognize. In 1962, Chinese troops attempted to occupy what was considered Indian territory, leading to a month-long conflict that claimed the lives of two thousand people. Upon its completion, China redrawn the border and called it the "line of actual control." Several hundred soldiers from both sides were killed in new clashes in 1967, and another clash was barely averted in the 1980s, when China misinterpreted Indian military exercises as an attack. Since then, the armies of the two countries have become one of the largest and most advanced in the world.
The 4,000-kilometer-long border with India is an indicator of a more important geopolitical reality for China. It exists in an extremely unfriendly geographical environment. It has land borders with 14 neighbors, and there are more of them than any other country. And China has disputed maritime borders with seven other countries. In their book China's Search for Security, political scientists Andrew Nathan and Andrew Scobell note that four of the eight neighbors are nuclear powers, and that China has been at war with five of its neighbors since World War II.
Bids. On the one hand, the stakes in the conflict may seem too insignificant, and it makes no sense to fight over them. We are talking about the most remote and uninhabitable mountain valleys and passes in the world. This is an area known as the "roof of the world", located in the most sparsely populated corners of the two most densely populated countries in the world. However, as in many conflicts, it's not about where the war might start, but about what it might lead to. Experts in geopolitics worry about reputational risks that both countries will feel as soon as the fighting begins. China may consider military action with India necessary in order to cool the ardor of other regional opponents, or to compromise the United States, which maintains close ties with a key ally in the Indo-Pacific region.
Any potential conflict is fraught with serious asymmetry. India has many more large population centers within range of Chinese weapons systems than China. But for now, the tension between India and China remains a real gift for the United States, as it helps bring India closer to the United States regionally. In addition, India is gradually reducing its traditional dependence on Russian arms purchases as Russia and China become closer.
Why war is possible. Simply put, the region is ripe for misunderstanding and escalation. Today, tensions are so intense and explosive that Chinese and Indian military personnel are prohibited from carrying weapons along the border. In 2020, there were skirmishes between the armies of the two countries high in the Himalayas, in the remote valley of the Galvan River near the site of the 1962 fighting. In this case, the sides came together in hand-to-hand combat and brutally fought with fists, stones, stakes, and even clubs wrapped in barbed wire. At least 20 Indian soldiers were killed, some of whom died in a fall from a mountainside. There were about 40 Chinese dead.
Another factor that may make war more likely is that the two countries do not have normal defense mechanisms, treaties, and regular channels of daily communication that could help de-escalate the crisis, as the hotline between Moscow and Washington did during the Cold War, preventing the consequences of miscalculations. China has consistently and unequivocally refused to create such channels with the United States, India and other countries, seeing such protective mechanisms as an unfair attempt to curb its rise.
Why war is unlikely. No matter how high the tension on the ground, it seems unlikely that the leadership of India or China would want to start a war over such a remote territory. In addition, rapid and serious international efforts will be made to reduce tensions. Moreover, both countries are facing enormous domestic economic pressures. India needs to maintain steady growth, and China is already ending its boom in the working-age population. "A massive clash in Asia between countries with more than a billion people — it's hard to imagine that this will help keep the economy afloat," says Clary. Recent actions seem to show that China is actually trying to improve relations with a wary India.
The never-ending war
The Korean Peninsula
History. Many years have passed since the beginning of this war, three generations have been born, but it has not been officially completed. This is felt by both the highly developed Western economy of the South and the North, living in the agricultural era. The 250—kilometer—long demilitarized zone between North and South Korea has existed for so long - about six decades - that it has become one of the densest forests in the world, home to thousands of different species of wildlife. An outer perimeter about four kilometers wide is located along the edges of the demilitarized zone. This is one of the most fortified engineering and reliably protected places on earth, with artillery in constant combat readiness and minefields. And the whole of Seoul is within range of North Korea's missiles.
Bids. Extremely high. There is no other regime in the world except the hermit state of North Korea, about whose activities, alignment of forces and plans the United States and the West would know less. It is incredibly difficult to conduct intelligence against him, and Pyongyang constantly surprises the West. The United States still has 30,000 troops on the peninsula helping to ensure South Korea's security, and all of them will be in the crosshairs in the early hours of a major North-South war.
Why war is possible. North Korea is gradually becoming an insolvent state, plagued by hunger and suffering from the brutality of its own authorities. Kim Jong-un's government has done nothing to change her future. His trump card is nuclear weapons, which protect Kim from the fate of dictators such as Saddam Hussein and Muammar Gaddafi. If Kim sees an opportunity or weakness, or feels a mortal threat (rightly or wrongly) to his power from the West, anything is possible.
The Korean Peninsula is also a region that could face very serious second-order consequences if some other conflict from the list starts. If, for example, China opposes Taiwan, or the United States does not agree to defend the Baltic States, this may make countries doubt the determination of the United States to ensure their security in a confrontation with North Korea or China. Intelligence experts fear that South Korea or even Japan may try to develop nuclear weapons in response. Recent opinion polls in South Korea show that 70% of the country's population supports the creation of its own nuclear arsenal. There will probably be even more such people, and political pressure will undoubtedly increase if there are doubts that the United States will support South Korea in the event of hostilities.
Why war is unlikely. Although North Korea has developed nuclear weapons and elements of delivery systems, it is not clear how confident it is in its ability to successfully launch a nuclear-tipped missile and hit a target. According to recent estimates, the Korean peninsula has been stable for many years. And now that Trump is in the White House, who is known to have hosted Kim twice at summits, the North Korean leader can feel completely safe. "I don't think Kim Jong-un needs it right now. I don't think he needs conflict," says Farkas, a former Pentagon official.
———————
Of course, geopolitics is an uncertain thing, and history rarely develops predictably. Therefore, there are always unforeseen factors and, as former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld would say, "unknown unknowns" when confronted with the real world, rather than the one we would like to see. Many in Washington and other friendly capitals are nervous about the fact that the country that used to be the most powerful force of stability on the planet - the United States — is now looking more and more like the most "unknown unknown."
The United States is unlikely to be drawn into a major conflict in the near future, but very few in foreign capitals know how to navigate the "realm of the possible" when it comes to the current state of U.S. interests. What should allies and opponents think about the sometimes eccentric and unpredictable bellicose rhetoric of the Trump administration, and what could it portend for the United States in the coming years? How serious and feasible is the Oval Office's interest in turning Canada into the 51st state or in seizing Greenland from Denmark? After all, these countries are among our most loyal allies in the 21st century. Next, there is one more thing. For the first time this year, the leadership of the American intelligence services included foreign illegal drug cartels among the main threats to the United States, citing the massive supply of fentanyl and other drugs that continue to kill more than 50,000 Americans annually. It seems that the Trump administration is quite serious, at least for now, and intends to expand military operations in Mexico, both covert and overt, with or without the assistance of the government of that country.
In addition, there is always a background in the form of great power rivalry. Tensions between the United States and China are rising, and in more areas than ever before. Just look at the night sky, where hundreds of satellites circle the Earth. Some of them are probably armed, or at least capable of damaging other objects in orbit. The creation of space forces in the United States has so far been regarded more as a joke than as a serious reason for conflict. But talk to any knowledgeable head of the national security agencies from the Democratic or Republican Party, and you will immediately begin to worry about the many consequences of conflicts that may erupt high above our heads.
Perhaps the greatest danger for us is not one of those conflicts that have long been studied by geopolitical strategists during war games and in important documents. It is possible that we are not even aware of this danger yet, and that it will be announced late at night or early in the morning on the Truth Social network, and this will turn the world order upside down.
Journalist and historian Garrett Graff recently wrote a new book, "When the Sea Came to Life. Oral History of D-Day" (When the Sea Came Alive: An Oral History of D-Day). His previous book, Watergate. A New History" (Watergate: A New History) reached the finals last year in the fight for the Pulitzer Prize in History.
