No sooner had 2026 begun than dramatic events in world politics followed one after another. The problem is not even the speed of these events but the difficulty of systematizing them. Forecasting is a thankless task. And the issue is not only the high probability of error. The conditions of the current transitional international system and the turbulent world make forecasting a process far from scientific. We lack the necessary tools, theory, and sufficient input information. It is very difficult to predict which events will be of central importance, which regions will be at the center of world attention, and where conflicts will begin and end.
Despite the enormous attention focused on the conflict in Ukraine and the events surrounding Iran, Palestine, and Venezuela, it can be assumed that the center of Eurasia will be one of the key regions in terms of conflict potential and world politics. Important political processes and, possibly, various actions should be expected due to the high conflict potential between India and Pakistan and the increased tensions between the United States and Taliban-controlled Afghanistan.
Anarchical Year? The brilliant Oxford University professor Hedley Bull published his book “The Anarchical Society” in 1977, arguing that “international society is a society without government, and in this respect it resembles primitive or archaic societies.”
One can expect an obvious archaization of international life. Classical realists, theorists of international relations, have led us to believe that the world is in a state of eternal and unchanging anarchy. Unlike domestic relations, there is no policeman in the world of global politics. The monopoly on force belongs to the state, but only within the borders of that state. This restrains members of society from using force for their own interests. In relations between countries, there is no such policeman. Liberal theorists believed that anarchy is a negative thing and should be combated through collective methods, especially through the use of various international organizations. They believed it was possible to create an international system in which a global policeman could emerge.
But what is to be done when a potential contender for the role of world policeman does not want such a fate, and the others do not possess sufficient resources and capabilities? What is to be done when the world has become so complex and the number of ambitious, influential powers has become so high that there is no single powerful force capable of restraining everyone? And what if the great military powers themselves have concluded that expanding the field of anarchy is beneficial to them?
Symbolically, in the prestigious Anglosphere journal International Organization, Alexander Wendt suggested that the level of anarchy will be determined by the great powers themselves. That is, he refuted the liberal view that anarchy is something that has a beginning and an end: “Anarchy is what the great powers make of it.”
It can be assumed that 2026 will be a year of expanding anarchy. Trumpist America will be the leading political actor whose actions will expand the field of anarchy and, in parallel, break down what remains (and much remains) of the current international system. Powers will be self-serving. The very concept of alliances will be rethought. Militarization processes will be widespread. Everyone who can afford it will arm themselves. The increase in the sphere of anarchy will lead to an expansion of conflict potential. There will be many conflicts. Military potential will determine the balance of power in international life. The technological race will reach a new level, blurring the line between the military and civilian spheres. Apparently, diplomatic agreements will remain overshadowed by military capabilities. It can be assumed that 2026 will break records for spending on armaments.
South and Central Asia
As I have already said, the Central and South Asian region will remain in the focus of world media attention. The conflict potential between the leading players in the political and economic life of the region is too high.
The US National Security Strategy, published at the end of 2025, pays extremely limited attention to the South and Central Asian regions. The document, developed during Donald Trump’s second presidential term, represents, in many ways, an atypical and, to a certain extent, innovative approach to strategic planning. It is noteworthy that Afghanistan is not mentioned at all in Trump’s strategy, and Pakistan is mentioned only once, exclusively in the context of the Indo-Pakistani settlement. Nevertheless, this arrangement of priorities is difficult to interpret as evidence of Washington’s withdrawal from an active role in the region.
Donald Trump, in turn, quite clearly and unambiguously outlined the priority interest of the United States—the Bagram airbase. In September 2025, Trump stated that if Afghanistan refused to return the Bagram airbase, the United States, which built it, would face “bad consequences.” A legitimate question arises: why does this facility remain so important to the US? Bagram has exceptional strategic and symbolic significance. According to Afghan legends, it was founded by Alexander the Great and is located near the Afghan-Chinese border, essentially in the geographical center of Eurasia. Trump himself emphasized that one of the key reasons for interest in the base is its proximity to facilities connected with China.
Another potential conflict is linked to the “eternal” military, political, and economic confrontation between two hostile countries—India and Pakistan. In May 2025, a real war broke out between Delhi and Islamabad, lasting several days. Indian artillery and air force struck military targets in Pakistan on May 7. The operation, codenamed “Sindhur,” was allegedly aimed at the “terrorist infrastructure” of pro-Pakistani terrorist groups that have certain ties to some military circles. Pakistan, in turn, denied all these accusations and launched a military operation in response to India’s actions.
The reason for the conflict was a horrific terrorist attack in the Indian part of the disputed territory of Kashmir on April 22. Islamists from a Pakistani terrorist organization opened fire on tourists in Pahalgam, killing several dozen people. Indian authorities claimed Pakistan’s involvement in the attack. Donald Trump stated that he was the one who managed to stop the conflict between the two warring countries. Furthermore, many observers and analysts believe that a significant recalibration of U.S. strategy in South Asia is signaling a deliberate warming of relations with Pakistan after years of prioritizing ties with India.
Thus, 2026 is unlikely to be a year of universal peace, cooperation, and prosperity. Unfortunately, we may face a very tense year with a number of complex conflicts.