You know Herman, I was looking out over the valley toward the Old City this morning, and it was one of those rare, quiet moments where the birds were the only thing you could hear. It felt incredibly peaceful. But then I checked my phone, and it was just a barrage of headlines. Gaza, Ukraine, the latest from the Sahel, Myanmar. It’s such a jarring contrast. It makes you feel like the world is literally on fire, even when your immediate surroundings are still.
It’s the paradox of the modern age, Corn. We live in the most informed era in human history, but that information is often a catalog of our failures as a species. And by the way, for those just joining us, I’m Herman Poppleberry. We’re sitting here in Jerusalem, and our housemate Daniel actually sent us a prompt about this very feeling. He was saying that because we’re so close to the conflict here in Israel, his bandwidth for tracking the rest of the world has been pretty limited.
It’s understandable. When you’re living in a conflict zone, or even just adjacent to one, your focus narrows for survival. But Daniel was asking a really profound question. He noted that the full-scale invasion of Ukraine has been going on for four years now, since February twenty twenty-two. And he wanted to know if the world is actually becoming more war-torn, or if we’re just hearing about it more because of better information sharing. He wanted numbers, trendlines, and a sense of where we actually stand in February twenty twenty-six.
It’s a massive topic, and honestly, it’s one where the data often contradicts the public perception. Or, more accurately, the data shows a very specific kind of shift that people feel but might not be able to articulate. To answer Daniel’s question, we have to look at how we even define a conflict. Because if you ask five different research institutes, you might get five different numbers.
Right, because a border skirmish isn’t the same as a full-scale invasion, and a gang war in a major city isn't usually classified as an international conflict, even if the death toll is higher. So, let’s start there. How do the experts actually categorize these things?
The gold standard for this is usually the Uppsala Conflict Data Program, or the U-C-D-P. They’ve been tracking this since the nineteen seventies. They define a state-based armed conflict as a contested incompatibility that concerns government and or territory where the use of armed force between two parties, of which at least one is the government of a state, results in at least twenty-five battle-related deaths in a calendar year.
Twenty-five deaths. That’s actually a pretty low bar, isn't it? I mean, in the grand scheme of global violence, twenty-five deaths sounds like a localized tragedy, not necessarily a war.
Exactly. That’s why they have a secondary tier. They distinguish between a conflict and a war. For them, a war is a conflict that results in at least one thousand battle-related deaths in a single year. So, when we talk about the number of conflicts happening right now, we’re looking at dozens. But when we talk about wars, that number is much smaller, though still tragically high.
So, looking at the board right now, in February twenty twenty-six, what does that tally look like? If we use that one thousand death threshold for a war, how many are we talking about?
Currently, we are looking at around nine major wars. Obviously, Ukraine and Gaza are the ones dominating the Western media cycle. Ukraine is entering its fifth year of the full-scale invasion, and the trench warfare there has become this grueling, high-tech war of attrition. Then you have the situation in Gaza, which has been intense for over two years now. But beyond those, you have the civil war in Sudan, which is approaching its third year and has been absolutely catastrophic. You have the ongoing conflict in Myanmar, where the resistance against the military junta has captured more territory in the last year than anyone predicted. You have the eastern Democratic Republic of the Congo, which is a perennial conflict involving the M-twenty-three rebels that has flared up significantly. And then there’s the situation in Ethiopia, particularly in the Amhara and Oromo regions, which often gets overshadowed by the Tigray war that preceded it.
It’s a lot. And that’s not even counting the Sahel region in Africa—Mali, Burkina Faso, Niger—where you’ve had a string of coups and a massive surge in extremist violence.
Precisely. If you count every state-based conflict—using that twenty-five death threshold—we’re likely looking at over fifty-nine active conflicts globally right now. That is the highest number of active conflicts since the end of World War Two.
So, let’s dig into that trendline Daniel asked about. If we look back five, ten, or twenty years, are we in a more violent period? There was this big idea a few years ago, popularized by people like Steven Pinker, that we were living in the Long Peace. The idea was that violence was on a long-term downward trend since the end of the Second World War. Does that still hold up in twenty twenty-six?
That’s the big debate in peace and conflict studies right now. If you look at the twenty-year trend, from say, two thousand six to today, it’s a bit of a roller coaster. In the mid-two thousands, we actually were in a relatively low period for state-based conflict deaths. The post-Cold War era had seen a lot of civil wars wrap up. But then you hit twenty eleven, the Arab Spring, and the Syrian Civil War. That caused a massive spike.
I remember that. Syria was the first time in a while that we saw those massive, industrial-scale death tolls again.
It was. Then it dipped slightly in the late twenty-teens, but then twenty twenty-two happened. The invasion of Ukraine changed everything. It brought back large-scale, interstate conventional warfare between two major powers. And then twenty twenty-three was even worse. According to the data, twenty twenty-three was actually the deadliest year for organized violence since the Rwandan genocide in nineteen ninety-four.
Wait, really? Deadlier than the height of the Iraq war or the Syrian war?
In terms of total battle-related deaths, yes. The combination of the high-intensity fighting in Ukraine, the massive death toll in the Tigray war in Ethiopia—which people often forget killed hundreds of thousands of people—and then the start of the conflict in Gaza and the war in Sudan. It created a perfect storm of violence. So, if Daniel is asking if the world feels more war-torn, the answer is yes, because statistically, it actually is more war-torn than it was ten or twenty years ago.
That’s a sobering thought. But I want to go back to the second part of his question. Is it possible we just see it more? I mean, everyone in these conflict zones has a smartphone. We see drone footage of trench warfare in Ukraine in real-time. We see live streams from Gaza. Does the transparency of modern conflict inflate our perception of how much of it is happening?
It’s a bit of both. There is definitely an information bias. In the nineteen eighties, if there was a civil war in a remote part of Central Africa, you might not hear about it for weeks, if at all, unless it hit a major wire service. Now, you’ll see it on X or Telegram within minutes. But researchers are very careful about this. They don't just rely on social media; they use hospital records, N-G-O reports, and satellite imagery. And even when you account for the better reporting, the trend is still upward.
So why? What’s changed in the last decade to reverse that downward trend we were so proud of?
There are a few major factors. One of the biggest is what we call the internationalization of internal conflicts. In the past, a civil war was usually a government versus a rebel group. Now, almost every civil war involves outside powers. Look at Syria, Libya, or Yemen. You have regional and global powers picking sides, sending drones, and providing funding. This makes conflicts last longer and become much more violent because the local parties don't run out of resources as quickly.
It’s like a proxy war on steroids. Instead of the Cold War dynamic of two superpowers, you have a dozen middle powers all trying to exert influence.
Exactly. Turkey, the United Arab Emirates, Iran, Russia, and even private military companies. They all play a role. The other factor is the breakdown of the international consensus on border integrity. For decades after World War Two, the idea that you could just invade a neighbor and seize territory was largely taboo. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine shattered that norm on a global stage. When a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council does that, it sends a signal to every other regional power that the rules are shifting.
It’s the return of might-makes-right. But let’s look at the nature of the violence. Daniel asked if wars are becoming less frequent but more violent, or vice versa. What does the data say about the intensity?
This is where it gets interesting. We actually have more conflicts now than we did in the nineties, but for a long time, they were lower intensity. Lots of small-scale insurgencies. But in the last five years, we’ve seen the return of the big war. Ukraine is a high-intensity conflict. Gaza is incredibly high-intensity in terms of urban destruction and civilian impact. Sudan is a massive, conventional-style civil war. So we’re seeing a shift where we have both a high number of conflicts and a return to very high-intensity violence in a few of them.
And the technology must be a factor too. I’ve been reading about how drones have completely changed the cost-benefit analysis for some of these groups. You don't need an air force if you can buy a thousand-dollar F-P-V drone and fly it into a tank.
It democratizes destruction. And it makes it harder to reach a peace agreement. If you can keep harassing your enemy with cheap technology indefinitely, you might be less inclined to sit at the negotiating table. Also, we have to talk about the impact of climate change and food insecurity. A lot of the conflicts in the Sahel and parts of East Africa are driven by disappearing grazing lands and water scarcity. These aren't just political disagreements; they’re existential struggles for resources.
It feels like we’re in a transition period. We had that post-Cold War optimism, then the war on terror era which was violent but focused on non-state actors, and now we’re back to great power competition and regional wars. It’s a much more complex map than it was twenty years ago.
It really is. And to Daniel’s point about living in Israel—when you’re in the middle of it, the global trendline almost feels irrelevant. But it’s connected. The weapons being tested in one conflict show up in another six months later. The diplomatic maneuvers in the United Nations over one war affect the leverage available for another. Everything is interconnected now.
You know, Herman, thinking about what you said regarding the internationalization of these conflicts, it really changes how we think about peace. It’s no longer just about getting two local groups to stop shooting. You have to get five different foreign capitals to agree to stop sending the bullets.
That’s the tragedy of modern diplomacy. The complexity has scaled faster than our institutions’ ability to manage it. The United Nations Security Council is basically paralyzed because the major powers involved in these conflicts are the ones with the veto power. It’s a systemic failure.
So, if we’re looking at February twenty twenty-six, and we’re trying to give Daniel a clear picture... if he were to look at a map of the world right now, where are the biggest red zones that people might be missing because they’re so focused on the big two?
Sudan is the biggest one. It’s arguably the largest humanitarian crisis on the planet right now, but it gets a fraction of the coverage. You have over ten million people displaced, the capital city Khartoum is a battlefield, and there are credible reports of ethnic cleansing in Darfur again. It’s a total collapse of a major state.
And Myanmar. I feel like people in the West have almost completely forgotten that a whole country is in a state of full-blown revolution.
Myanmar is fascinating from a military perspective, actually. The resistance groups have actually started winning significant territory, which is rare for a decentralized insurgency against a professional military. But the cost to the civilian population has been enormous. Then you have the Sahel, like we mentioned. It’s a belt of instability stretching across Africa. If those states continue to fail, the ripple effects for Europe in terms of migration and for Africa in terms of regional stability are going to be massive.
It’s interesting that a lot of these are internal. Daniel was asking about international conflicts. Do we distinguish much between a civil war and an international one anymore?
The line is incredibly blurry. Most researchers now use the term internationalized internal conflict. This is a civil war where at least one side receives troop support from a foreign government. These are now the most common type of high-intensity conflict. Pure interstate wars—like Russia versus Ukraine—are actually still quite rare. But when they happen, they are devastating because they involve the full industrial might of nations.
So, to summarize the trend for Daniel: we have more active conflicts now than at any point in the last thirty years. The death tolls in the last three years have been the highest since the nineteen nineties. And while we do see more of it because of the internet, the actual reality on the ground is that the world has become significantly more violent since around twenty eleven, with a massive acceleration in the last four years.
That’s the data-driven reality. It’s not just your imagination, and it’s not just your social media feed. The world is in a period of heightened instability. The question is whether this is a temporary spike or the beginning of a new, more violent era of global history.
That’s the part that keeps me up at night. Is this the new normal? Or are we seeing the death throes of an old system before something else takes its place? It’s hard to tell when you’re in the middle of it.
It’s always hard to see the shape of history while you’re living through it. But I think it’s important to remember that even in this period of high conflict, the vast majority of the world is not at war. That doesn't minimize the suffering in the places that are, but it’s a necessary counter-perspective. Most people, most of the time, are still trying to build things rather than tear them down.
That’s a good point. We focus on the red zones on the map because they’re the places where things are going wrong. But the gray areas—the places where people are just living their lives—that’s still most of the planet. Even if it doesn't feel like it when you’re scrolling through the news in Jerusalem.
Exactly. And Daniel, I hope that gives you a bit of the bandwidth you were looking for. It’s a lot to take in, especially when you’re already dealing with the local reality here. But understanding the scale of it can sometimes help put things in perspective.
Yeah, it’s like zooming out on the map. It doesn't make the local situation any easier, but it helps you understand the forces at play. Herman, I’m curious about one more thing before we move on to the practical side of this. When we look at the historical data, like from the early nineteen hundreds, how does our current era compare? I mean, we talk about twenty twenty-three being the deadliest year since nineteen ninety-four, but in the context of the whole twentieth century, are we still relatively peaceful?
Oh, absolutely. If you look at the first half of the twentieth century, the numbers are just incomparable. The First and Second World Wars killed tens of millions of people. Even the Korean War and the Vietnam War had death tolls that dwarf most of what we’re seeing today, with the possible exception of the total loss of life in the Tigray conflict. So, in the very long-term view, we are still much less violent than our grandparents’ generation. The concern isn't that we’re back at World War Two levels; it’s that the progress we made in the late twentieth century is being rolled back.
Right, it’s the direction of the trend that’s worrying, not necessarily the absolute number compared to nineteen forty-four. We’re heading the wrong way.
Exactly. We’re seeing a reversal of a trend that many people thought was permanent. It turns out peace isn't a destination you reach and then just stay there. It’s a state that has to be actively maintained by institutions, norms, and diplomacy. And right now, those maintenance tools are looking pretty rusty.
So, what do we do with this information? For someone like Daniel, or for our listeners who feel overwhelmed by this global state of affairs, how do you process this without just falling into despair?
Well, the first thing is to be a conscious consumer of information. Recognize that the headlines are designed to grab your attention, which means they focus on the most dramatic and violent events. That doesn't mean those events aren't real, but they aren't the whole story.
I also think there’s a value in supporting the organizations that actually do the work of tracking and mitigating these conflicts. Groups like the International Crisis Group or the Red Cross. They operate in that gap between the headlines and the reality on the ground.
And on a more personal level, I think it’s about maintaining your own humanity. When we talk about these numbers—one thousand deaths here, twenty-five deaths there—it’s easy for them to become just statistics. Daniel mentioned his bandwidth is limited, and that’s a natural defense mechanism. It’s okay to look away sometimes to preserve your own mental health. You can't carry the weight of every global conflict on your shoulders.
That’s a really important point. Compassion fatigue is real. If you try to care about everything at maximum intensity, you end up being unable to care about anything. You have to prioritize. For us, living here, the local situation has to take priority. But keeping an eye on the global trend helps us understand that we’re not alone in this instability. It’s a global phenomenon.
It really is. And you know, Corn, despite the grim numbers, there have been some successes. We’ve seen some long-running conflicts actually move toward resolution in the last few years. The peace process in Colombia, while fragile, is still moving forward. We’ve seen some de-escalation in parts of the Balkans that people were worried about. It’s not all bad news, even if the bad news is louder.
That’s the nature of news, isn't it? Peace is quiet. War is loud. You don't get a headline that says, Today, two countries that haven't fought in fifty years continued to not fight.
Exactly. No one reports on the war that didn't happen because a diplomat spent three weeks in a windowless room in Geneva. But those moments happen every day.
Well, Herman, this has been a bit of a heavy one, but I think it’s necessary. Daniel, thanks for sending that in. It forced us to look at the big picture, which is something we all need to do once in a while, even when it’s uncomfortable.
Definitely. It’s easy to get lost in our own little bubble here in Jerusalem. It’s good to remember there’s a whole world out there, and it’s struggling with a lot of the same questions we are.
Before we wrap up, I just want to say to everyone listening—if you’re finding value in these deep dives, we’d really appreciate it if you could leave us a review on your podcast app or on Spotify. It genuinely helps the show reach more people, and we love hearing what you think.
Yeah, it makes a huge difference. We’ve been doing this for over six hundred episodes now, and the community that’s grown around the show is really what keeps us going.
Absolutely. You can find all of our past episodes, including the ones where we’ve touched on geopolitics before, at myweirdprompts dot com. We’ve got a search bar there, so you can look up specific topics or regions we’ve covered in the past.
And if you have a prompt of your own—something that’s been on your mind, whether it’s about global trends or something completely different—there’s a contact form on the website. We’d love to hear from you.
Well, I think that’s it for today. We’re going to go enjoy the rest of this quiet morning before the news cycle catches up with us.
Sounds like a plan. This has been My Weird Prompts.
Thanks for listening, everyone. We’ll talk to you next time.
Goodbye!
