
Without a doubt, recent unprecedented geopolitical tensions seem to overshadow efforts to address global threats, including climate change, technological misuse, and the proliferation of nuclear weapons, which should demand the world’s attention. The world is already reeling from the devastating impact of wars in Eastern Europe (Russia and Ukraine) and the Middle East (Israel and Palestine). These conflicts have caused significant damage to the global economy, setting back growth by several years. The recent 8-day brief but alarming confrontation between Israel and Iran could have been more damaging, but the swift ceasefire agreement reached between them. There are many global conflict hotspots where ceasefire talks have failed.
These escalating geopolitical tensions not only divert attention but also weaken multilateral efforts to tackle these challenges. Sadly, this inertia could prove costly, given the scale of potential harm to humanity. For example, it is estimated that the symbolic 1.5°C warming threshold could be breached within the next three years, based on current carbon dioxide emission levels. Additionally, cybercrimes are on the rise as the world becomes increasingly interconnected through the internet. The FBI has reported that in 2024, roughly US$16 billion was lost solely to internet crimes.
The world has undeniably become more vulnerable to war as nations grow increasingly intolerant of one another. We continue to witness blatant abuse and disregard for international protocols on the global stage by powerful nations. The actions and/or inactions of the so-called “powerful nations” signal the imminent collapse of the carefully constructed global order since World War II. The United Nations Security Council, once a symbol of unity, now seems paralysed by veto politics and competing interests. A contest of narratives is replacing the rules-based order, and in this uncharted terrain, there are clear beneficiaries.
Recognising that the rise in geopolitical conflicts weakens global stability and hampers efforts to resolve international crises, why are nations becoming more inclined towards conflict, and who ultimately benefits from the chaos? Of course, human lives lost to wars cannot be quantified, not to mention the massive infrastructure destruction. That notwithstanding, we must investigate to uncover the deeper motives behind the recent surge in global conflicts if the world hopes to chart a sustainable path to peace. Below are some of the reasons we suggest for the recent developments in the geopolitical landscape.
Firstly, there is a school of thought that firmly believes the numerous conflicts reflect a weakness in multilateralism. It also reflects the decline of the United States’ hegemonic power, as the current administration has focused its resources towards addressing internal issues. The current state of the global order is worrying, creating opportunities for despots and rogue leaders to emerge, even in unexpected places. However, importantly, with American global influence waning, the vacuum will need to be filled by others. Some argue that the era of unipolarity has ended, and the increasing number of conflicts could lead to the rise of Chinese hegemony alongside other powers, such as Russia, despite China’s recent economic slowdown. Could the rapid spread of conflicts ultimately shift global power to China, and what kind of leadership should the world expect from Beijing? Will Beijing uphold global norms or contribute further to their erosion?
Again, without a doubt, the global economy will contract due to numerous conflicts. The IMF forecasts GDP growth of 3.3 percent for both 2025 and 2026, which is below the historical average of 3.7 per cent recorded from 2000 to 2019. Sadly, the effects will not be equally felt by all countries, especially between developing and developed nations, as growth contraction is expected to be much greater in developing countries compared to advanced ones. Developing nations will face reduced fiscal space and stifled investment flows. The defense and security infrastructure sectors are likely to be the main beneficiaries, as they sell more weaponry to conflict zones.
Additionally, sectors such as technology and surveillance are likely to profit considerably from the deployment of technological infrastructure that supports modern warfare. The United States, China, Russia, and certain European countries are among the leading arms exporters. The ongoing conflicts have spurred record spending on military hardware, advanced surveillance systems, and AI-driven defense tools. These aren’t mere shifts in national budgets but represent economic lifelines for defense and security industries. The United States, for instance, continue to lead the global arms exports. Its advancements in battery technology, crucial for modern drone and missile systems, position it strategically in a future where warfare is becoming increasingly automated. It will be interesting to observe the contribution of the defense and security industry to GDP growth in these countries following these conflicts.
Another group of beneficiaries in times of conflict are non-state actors who seize conflict situations to advance their malicious activities. These actors include warlords, arms dealers, organised crime syndicates and extremist groups. They exploit institutional decay to plunder local resources, traffic arms and humans, and use war-torn states as gateways for illicit trade. They intensify conflicts by adding a layer of complexities and uncertainties. They often seek to infiltrate the domestic political landscape and exert greater influence on policymaking. They continually perpetuate insecurity to maintain control. For such groups, wars are profitable while peace is costly.
Conflicts, particularly in strategic areas rich in global commodity reserves such as crude oil and gold, have a significant impact on worldwide commodity and capital markets. These markets are far from insulated; in fact, they often thrive on uncertainty. Market speculators capitalise on conflicts to generate profits and drive up commodity prices, ultimately benefiting themselves. For instance, we have seen many times that crude oil prices rise whenever there is a conflict in the Middle East. Fund managers use advanced market derivatives to boost their portfolios at the expense of other market participants. However, the profits are not distributed equally. While fund managers in New York and London record impressive gains, developing nations bear the brunt of the cost through inflation, currency depreciation, and mounting fiscal pressures.
It is clearly evident that although conflicts generate some benefits for a small group of actors, their consequences for the wider world are severe. The planet does not gain from the chaos caused by geopolitical conflicts, nor do the millions fighting poverty, food insecurity, or climate threats. Small states suffer disproportionately; capital flight and nearby conflicts derail their development. The real beneficiaries are those who profit from the fog of war, including financial speculators, arms manufacturers, digital surveillance companies, authoritarian rulers, and violent entrepreneurs of failed states. Unless the world reorients towards cooperation and accountability, the future may be dominated by them, not by chance, but by intention.
Henry, KYEREMEH
[email protected]