What key military lessons from 2025 are still going to matter or stay relevant heading into 2026? This question can be addressed in two parts.
One part may address the likelihood of the current wars continuing and the possibility of new wars arising during the year. The second part could explore the types of arms and weapons that will predominate in the wars, on the one hand, and the domains of the wars, ranging from traditional land, sea, and air to include space and cyberspace, on the other.
According to the Brussels-based International Crisis Group, an independent organization that works toward preventing wars, there are 10 conflicts to watch in 2026.
These include the United States-Venezuela (started); Russia-Ukraine; the involvement of Middle Eastern countries and Turkey in Sudan’s civil war; Ethiopia-Eritrea; Mali-Burkina Faso; Syria-Israel-ISIS; Israel-Palestine; Israel and the United States vs. Iran and the Houthis; the civil war in Myanmar; and Afghanistan-Pakistan.
There is also an assessment from the New York-based Council on Foreign Relations’ 2026 Preventive Priorities Survey, which highlights a highly fragmented landscape with several overlapping flashpoints worldwide. It has graded them in the following manner:
Tier I: High Likelihood & High Impact
These contingencies are considered the most dangerous because they could draw in major powers or cause global disruption.
-
The Middle East Triangle (Israel–Iran–Lebanon): Direct or indirect confrontation between Israel and Iran, alongside escalation with Hezbollah, remains the most dangerous theater.
-
Russia–Ukraine War: The conflict is expected to continue into 2026 as a grinding war, with pressure on both sides toward a ceasefire that may lock in territorial gains.
-
North Korea: Nuclear and missile activity carries catastrophic potential for conflict involving the U.S., South Korea, and Japan.
-
U.S.–Venezuela Tensions: There is a high-impact risk of direct military escalation or internal collapse in Venezuela.
-
Cyber Warfare: A severe cyberattack on U.S. critical infrastructure (power, finance, or communications) is a top-tier concern for 2026.
-
U.S. Domestic Unrest: Experts warn of rising potential for political violence and popular unrest within the United States.
Tier II: Moderate Likelihood & Impact
These conflicts are significant regional threats that could destabilize global markets or alliances.
-
India–Pakistan: A “dangerous possibility” of renewed military confrontation in 2026, likely triggered by a terrorist incident.
-
Taiwan Strait: Analysts give a crisis in the Taiwan Strait an “even chance” of occurring as China continues to pressure the island.
-
South China Sea: Tensions between China and U.S. partners, particularly the Philippines, remain high-impact but are assessed as having a lower likelihood for 2026.
-
Haiti & Mexico: Internal violence and governance collapse in these nations near the U.S. borders present risks related to migration and criminal activity.
FILE IMAGE: Via: AFP
Emerging Flashpoints For 2026
Several new or resurgent risks have been identified by the CFR :
-
Pakistan–Afghanistan: Armed clashes over border tensions (the Durand Line) and the harboring of militant groups like the TTP.
-
Sudan Civil War: Ranked as the most likely conflict to escalate in 2026, though with limited direct strategic impact on the U.S..
-
Syria: A resurgence of civil war and sectarian violence, potentially involving Israeli or Turkish intervention.
-
Arctic Confrontation: Increased Russian and Chinese military activity in the Arctic could trigger a confrontation with NATO.
-
Cambodia–Thailand: Renewed border clashes over unresolved territorial claims.
The likelihood of these wars is based on the developments in 2025.
Naturally, therefore, 2025 also provides the lessons on how future wars are likely to be fought. And here, the ongoing war in Ukraine, wars involving Israel in the Middle East (Hamas, Lebanon, Syria, and Iran) for most parts of 2025, and China’s recent military-like activities in the Indo-Pacific provide critical insight. And that is the fact that there is now a fundamental shift toward integrating high-tech innovation with industrial resilience for fighting multi-domain wars.
The most important development is the widespread use of unmanned systems (UAVs, UGVs, UUVs), which has made control of the electromagnetic spectrum a critical battleground.
Air superiority no longer relies solely on aircraft count but on control of the electromagnetic spectrum. Traditional air defense systems are not cost-effective for countering massed drone threats. Access to reliable communication channels and effective electronic countermeasures (jamming/spoofing) is now the deciding factor in drone-saturated environments.
Therefore, 2026 is likely to see a focus on dedicated Counter-Small Unmanned Aerial Systems (C-sUAS) batteries and Directed Energy Weapons (DEWs) to provide a sustainable defense against drone saturation, according to leading military experts.
Leading military powers are expected to continue intensifying their efforts to build advanced, multi-layered homeland air defense architectures (such as the U.S. “Golden Dome” or European Sky Shield) designed to counter ballistic, hypersonic, and cruise missile threats. This will go alongside their simultaneous development and testing of hypersonic missiles (traveling at over Mach 5) to reshape strategic deterrence.
In all this, faster decision-making, predictive analytics, and autonomous systems are likely to be important features, which, in turn, will be dominated by the phenomenon of Artificial Intelligence ( AI).
Future operations are likely to be defined by interconnected systems, demanding proficiency in network-centric strategies to ensure seamless communication and coordination.
As it is, both space-based technologies and robust cybersecurity have become core security requirements. Disruptions to satellite communications or cyberattacks can cripple logistics and command systems, highlighting the need for strong defensive and offensive capabilities in these domains.
In fact, space is going to become a more active and militarized domain.
If President Trump is talking of the Golden Dome, Germany, France, and the UK have already announced that they will spend billions of Euros and Pounds to secure their space and develop satellites. Both China and India are also investing significantly in their respective military space capabilities.
Similarly, the underwater domain is assuming high importance. Undersea communication cables are increasingly considered potential military targets in modern hybrid and gray-zone warfare, given their critical role as the backbone of global communication and finance.
After all, they account for over 99% of international digital traffic and facilitate trillions of dollars in daily financial transactions, making them strategically vital assets.
Because these cables are often laid in known locations on the ocean floor and are difficult to monitor continuously, they are seen as vulnerable targets for state and non-state actors seeking to disrupt adversary nations’ economies and military communications without engaging in overt acts of war.
Multiple such incidents have been seen, particularly in the Baltic Sea and around Taiwan and in the Red Sea, where cables have been damaged by vessels with alleged links to Russia or China.
Military lessons from 2025 also include structural reforms in the armed forces that many countries are planning. There will be increased debates, as in India, on the need for Integrated Theatre Commands (ITCs) under a single commander, or on the jointness of Army, Navy, and Air Force operations to ensure a multi-domain strategy. Also, military education is being, or is likely to be, overhauled to train “techno-commanders” proficient in AI, cyber warfare, and space-based systems.
Two other important trends will gain increasing momentum this year on the global military front. One is the Civil-Military Fusion (CMF) that is increasingly becoming a central pillar of national power, driven by the shift toward “intelligentized” warfare and the blurring of boundaries between peacetime governance and wartime security.
China initiated the trend, but it is increasingly becoming global, evolving from a transactional relationship into a strategic enabler of technological self-reliance and rapid crisis response.
Many disruptive technologies (e.g., AI, robotics, big data, quantum computing, space tech, cybersecurity) are now being developed in the civilian sector. Fusion enables the military to leverage civilian expertise and innovation to modernize its capabilities and achieve technological self-reliance.
In any case, modern threats, including hybrid warfare, asymmetric threats, natural disasters, and internal security scenarios, require a cohesive, inter-agency response that transcends traditional military boundaries. Besides, integrating a nation’s military, economic, technological, and intellectual capital creates layers of strength that enhance deterrence against adversaries.
Fusion promotes the sharing of resources, infrastructure (e.g., dual-use ports and communication networks), and talent between the civil and military domains, leading to more efficient use of national assets.
To put it differently, civil-military fusion is no longer an optional approach but a strategic imperative for nations to effectively address the complex and evolving security landscape of 2026 and beyond.
The second trend, which also originated from China, happens to be what is called “weaponized interdependence.”
Learning the lesson from China, many countries are now showing their willingness to exploit economic linkages and supply-chain vulnerabilities as instruments of coercion and geopolitical leverage.
They are exploiting their central positions in global networks (finance, data, trade) to gain power, coercing others by controlling essential flows, gathering data, or cutting access, shifting from cooperation to geoeconomic competition.
China has weaponized its control over global rare-earth supplies and processing capabilities by restricting exports – critical to almost all high-end manufacturing, including many weapon systems. For instance, in September last year, Beijing imposed a temporary export ban on drone components, vital for Ukraine’s war effort. In October, another ban on low-end Nexperia chip exports threatened to bring the European car industry to a halt.
The US and allies’ control over financial networks (such as SWIFT) and insurance markets to freeze assets and impede Russian oil sales, thereby forcing compliance with price caps, may be viewed similarly. It is a strategic leverage for policy change or deterrence.
The US is also using its control over major tech platforms (such as cloud services) to access data or influence digital flows, challenging rivals like China. And many Western countries that dominate maritime insurance are not hesitating to enforce policies on global shipping, as seen in sanctions on Iran and India.
This sort of weaponization challenges the traditional view of globalization, creating a new force of coercion to achieve objectives without resorting to war.
Countries that have long relied on openness and interconnectedness in global supply chains find themselves increasingly vulnerable. Many are now investing in developing their own sovereign capabilities and reducing their reliance on others – efforts which could also be a source of friction and tension in 2026.
- Author and veteran journalist Prakash Nanda is Chairman of the Editorial Board of the EurAsian Times and has been commenting on politics, foreign policy, and strategic affairs for nearly three decades. He is a former National Fellow of the Indian Council for Historical Research and a recipient of the Seoul Peace Prize Scholarship.
- CONTACT: prakash.nanda (at) hotmail.com
