As this year marks the 80th anniversary of the end of the Second World War, questions are being raised as to whether we may be on the verge of another major regional or even global conflict. The media have published a list of the five most sensitive hotspots in the world where local conflicts could quickly turn into international crises.
Two of the most closely monitored potential conflicts have already materialized this year – in May, rockets crossed the border between India and Pakistan, and in June, the “12-day war” broke out between Israel and Iran over Iran’s nuclear program. Although the dispute between India and Pakistan ended quickly, the consequences of Israel’s success in Iran remain unclear.
This summer, as we mark the 80th anniversary of the end of the Second World War, brings a warning: the world is closer to major regional or even global conflicts than it seems. Tensions are further heightened by new military technologies – from autonomous weapons to drones – which blur the boundaries between classical and modern warfare.
According to analyses by United States (U.S.) intelligence services and geopolitical experts, aside from the Middle East, there are five other crisis hotspots where conflicts with serious consequences could erupt within the next five years.
Feuding neighbors with nuclear weapons: India and Pakistan
At the beginning of May, the world held its breath over one of the most dangerous nuclear scenarios ever threatened – a major conflict between India and Pakistan. A terrorist attack in late April in the disputed region of Kashmir was followed by days of rocket attacks on military bases on both sides of the border. Before a ceasefire was reached, reportedly through the mediation of Donald Trump’s administration, this was the worst escalation in relations between the two countries in decades.
What’s at stake:
India and Pakistan are among the countries closest to the actual use of nuclear weapons. According to the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, Pakistan has about 170 nuclear warheads, while India has about 180. Any nuclear exchange in South Asia would be catastrophic – the devastating consequences for people and the environment in the region would quickly spread globally. In addition to economic turmoil and radioactive winds, the so-called nuclear winter would threaten food production, first in China, and then in other parts of the world.
Why this could happen:
The May incident highlighted how quickly conflict between India and Pakistan can spiral out of control. Attacks on military bases disrupt command infrastructure and reduce the ability to respond in a controlled way, warns Christopher Clary of the Henry Stimson Center. Experts add that conflict between the two countries is extremely unpredictable, especially given Pakistan’s low threshold for nuclear use, domestic political pressures, and flawed nuclear strategies on both sides.
Why conflict is unlikely:
A full-scale war between India and Pakistan would be devastating for both countries. As Clary explained, both New Delhi and Islamabad are already facing a series of other challenges. India is, above all, facing strategic competition with China, while Pakistan is struggling with insurgents in Balochistan province and areas along the Afghan border.
Worrying invasion: China and Taiwan
Chinese President Xi Jinping openly advocates for the annexation of Taiwan by China, the media report, noting that Taiwan and mainland China have never in history been under the control of the same government. Xi is also aware that the Taiwanese population is increasingly moving away from any interest in unification with China.
What’s at stake:
Taiwan is now the litmus test for who will lead the world order in the 21st century – the U.S. or China. Although Washington has no formal defense treaty with Taiwan, it has long provided assistance, but there are doubts whether Trump’s administration would offer it as strongly as previous ones.
U.S. military simulations show that in a conflict with China, the U.S. would quickly exhaust its weapons stockpiles and suffer enormous losses, perhaps even greater than in the Vietnam and Korean wars combined, and this in just the first few months.
The conquest of Taiwan would disrupt the balance of power in the region – Southeast Asian countries, as well as Japan and South Korea, could, losing trust in the U.S., begin seeking security elsewhere or even developing their own nuclear weapons.
Why this could happen:
According to some estimates, Xi has set the goal for China’s armed forces to be ready for a possible invasion of Taiwan by 2027. China, therefore, increasingly conducts military exercises.
At the same time, Xi sees himself as a turning point in Chinese history, who wants to leave a clear legacy. He strengthened control over Tibet, completely subdued Hong Kong, but Taiwan continues to elude him.
Why conflict is unlikely:
It is unclear how much confidence Xi Jinping has in his military, which experts say is corrupt and inexperienced and in recent years has been shaken by numerous purges, suggesting Xi does not have full control over its top leadership.
An invasion across the Taiwan Strait would be one of the most demanding military operations of the modern age, and China would carry it out with an army that, despite modern equipment, has almost no combat experience.
Beijing also has alternatives that do not involve direct invasion, such as a naval blockade or imposing tariffs on cargo. Such tactics could ultimately achieve a similar result as military occupation, but would make it much harder for U.S. policymakers to justify entering a conflict, especially if it were only about control of trade flows.
NATO’s test: Russia and the Baltic states
If Vladimir Putin decided to attack the three small Baltic states, he could achieve two goals: gain territory he considers historically Russian, while at the same time testing NATO’s and Europe’s commitment.
Former Lithuanian foreign minister Gabrielius Landsbergis warned that Russia could use covert, less visible attacks to gradually destabilize its neighbors.
What’s at stake:
An attack on any of the three Baltic states would be a direct test of the U.S.’s commitment to NATO. Donald Trump’s uncertain support for NATO and Europe makes this scenario even more attractive to Putin.
Even if the U.S. avoided an immediate response, the question remains: what if other NATO members intervened, and Russia responded by attacking Poland, Germany, or the United Kingdom (UK) – countries the U.S. might be more willing to defend than the Baltic states.
Why this could happen:
Putin has long openly sought to restore the Soviet Union, or rather the borders of the former Russian Empire – from Georgia and Moldova to Ukraine and the Baltic states. In doing so, he has sought to undermine the Western liberal order, which he sees as the main reason for the decline of Russian influence.
The strongest proof of Western impotence would be if it were shown that security alliances are empty promises and that the West allows the re-occupation of the Baltic states.
Why conflict is unlikely:
The possibility of a Russian attack on the Baltics is strongly linked to the outcome of the war in Ukraine, where the Russian army, according to Ukrainian estimates, in three years has lost about a million people-dead, wounded, and missing – and a large part of its weapons and machinery. In such circumstances, a new conflict on the Baltic front would be extremely risky for Moscow.
Border tensions: China and India
Like Pakistan, India has long-standing border tensions with China, dating back to the time of UK colonial rule. In 1914, the UK and Tibet demarcated the border with India, but China never recognized it.
In 1962, Chinese troops tried to seize territory claimed by India, leading to a one-month war in which thousands of people were killed. After the fighting, Beijing unilaterally withdrew a new border called the “Line of Actual Control.”
Tensions escalated in the following decades. In 1967, hundreds of soldiers on both sides were killed, and in the 1980s, another conflict was barely avoided when China misinterpreted Indian military exercises as preparations for an attack.
What’s at stake:
Any potential conflict on this border involves a dangerous asymmetry. India has much more densely populated areas within range of Chinese weapons than China has on its side.
Why this could happen:
The region is extremely vulnerable to miscalculations and rapid escalation. Tensions are so high that Indian and Chinese soldiers are even banned from carrying firearms on the border. But this has not prevented violence. High in the Himalayas in 2020, soldiers clashed with bare fists, stones, iron rods, and sticks wrapped in barbed wire. At least 20 Indian soldiers were killed in the clashes, and Chinese casualties are likely higher.
An additional risk factor is the absence of crisis mechanisms, as there are no regular diplomatic contacts or agreements to prevent incidents. China deliberately avoids such agreements, which it considers limiting for its rise, not only in relations with India, but also with the U.S. and other countries.
Why conflict is unlikely:
Despite tensions, it seems unlikely that Beijing or New Delhi would risk war over a remote and strategically limited area, especially given the expected international pressure to de-escalate the situation.
Both countries are also facing urgent domestic challenges. India needs stable economic growth, while China is facing a shrinking working-age population. Some recent Chinese signals even suggest that Beijing is looking for ways to improve relations with distrustful India, rather than further exacerbate them.
Endless war: North and South Korea
The Korean War was never officially ended, a fact still felt today by both highly developed South Korea and isolated North Korea.
For more than six decades, the two countries have had a 250-kilometer-long demilitarized zone (DMZ). Along its edges, about 4 kilometers wide, lies one of the most fortified and militarized zones on the planet – with artillery, mines, and the entire capital Seoul within direct range of North Korean rockets.
What’s at stake:
Enormous. North Korea remains one of the least understood countries in the world. Western intelligence agencies are often kept in the dark, making it difficult to predict regime moves in time. About 30.000 U.S. troops are permanently stationed on the peninsula, who would be among the first targets in the event of conflict.
Why this could happen:
North Korea is a country in collapse, affected by famine, economic isolation, and a repressive regime. Kim Jong Un relies on a nuclear arsenal that has so far protected him from the fate of other dictators like Saddam Hussein and Muammar Gaddafi. If he saw an opportunity or a threat to his rule, he could react unpredictably and without hesitation.
The Korean peninsula could also become an indirect victim of wider global crises. A possible Chinese attack on Taiwan or a weakened U.S. commitment to defending Europe could undermine confidence in U.S. security guarantees. Polls show that as many as 70 percent of South Koreans support developing their own nuclear weapons.
Why conflict is unlikely:
Despite advanced nuclear capabilities, questions remain about how reliable the North Korean arsenal is and whether it can be used precisely and effectively. Some analysts believe that the Korean peninsula is currently in its most stable period in recent years. Kim Jong Un may feel safer than he otherwise would with Donald Trump’s return to the White House – a president he personally hosted twice at summits.
The U.S. is the biggest global joker
The geopolitical future is inherently unpredictable – history rarely goes according to plan and always brings unknowns. But what is particularly worrying today for Washington and its allies is the fact that the country once considered the greatest pillar of global stability – the U.S. – now appears as the biggest global “joker.”
The greatest threat may not arise from conflicts that strategic analysts have been simulating in war games for decades. The disruption of the world order could come completely unexpectedly – for example, through a tweet in the middle of the night or a post on Truth Social that would shake the international community, N1 writes.
