Global Conflict Intelligence Index Mid Year 2025

Global Conflict Intelligence Index Mid Year 2025

The global conflict landscape in 2025 is characterized by an escalating number of active conflicts and a deepening of their complexity. Analysis from the Uppsala Conflict Data Program (UCDP) indicates that 2024 saw the highest number of state-based armed conflicts since 1946, a trend that has continued into 2025.¹ The World Economic Forum has correspondingly identified state-based armed conflict as the top global risk for the current year, reflecting a consensus on the growing instability of the international order.²

This mid-year assessment identifies three dominant meta-trends shaping the global battlespace. First is the intensification of major power competition, which is no longer confined to diplomatic or economic spheres but is manifesting directly in high-intensity proxy and interstate wars, most notably in Ukraine and across the Middle East. Second is the pervasive fragmentation of conflict theaters; civil wars in nations like Sudan and Myanmar are defined by a multitude of armed actors with shifting alliances, rendering traditional state-centric peace processes largely ineffective. The third trend is the comprehensive weaponization of non-kinetic domains. Economic statecraft, through systemic sanctions and trade restrictions, and cyber warfare, targeting critical infrastructure and intellectual property, are now fully integrated and co-equal instruments of national power, blurring the lines between peace and war.

This report provides a comprehensive analysis of these trends across the world’s key conflict theaters, categorized by the Global Conflict Intelligence Index (GCII) classification system. It delivers actionable intelligence by decoding the strategic objectives of belligerents, assessing recent tactical developments, and projecting future trajectories.

Table 1: Global Conflict Intelligence Index (GCII) Summary – July 2025

Section I: 🔴 CRITICAL Threat Theaters

1.1 Russo-Ukrainian War

• GCII Classification: 🔴 CRITICAL
• Conflict Type: Interstate War
• Belligerents & Objectives:
  • Russian Federation: The primary strategic objective is to secure full administrative control over the four Ukrainian oblasts it claimed to annex in 2022 (Donetsk, Luhansk, Kherson, Zaporizhzhia) as a precondition for any negotiations.⁴ To achieve this, Russia employs a strategy of high-cost attrition, aiming to grind down Ukrainian military capabilities and exhaust the societal will to resist.⁴
  • Ukraine: The core objective remains the defense of national sovereignty and the restoration of its territorial integrity. The war effort is critically dependent on a consistent flow of advanced military hardware and financial aid from Western partners.²
• Geographical Scope: The conflict is concentrated in eastern and southern Ukraine, with major fronts in the Donetsk, Kharkiv, Kherson, and Sumy oblasts. Hostilities frequently spill across the border into Russia’s Belgorod and Kursk regions, and the Black Sea remains a contested maritime theater.⁴
• Recent Tactical & Strategic Developments (Q2-Q3 2025):Russian forces currently hold the operational initiative, executing a slow but steady advance in eastern Ukraine. This advance comes at an immense cost in personnel and materiel.
• 4 Concurrently, Russia has systematically intensified its long-range strike campaign against Ukraine’s critical energy infrastructure, a clear effort to degrade the country’s economic and societal resilience ahead of the winter months.4 A notable evolution in this campaign is the specific targeting of Ukrainian military recruitment centers with drones. This tactic is designed to disrupt mobilization efforts by destroying conscription data and instilling fear in the populace, directly attacking Ukraine’s ability to replenish its forces.8
• While Ukraine faces immense pressure, its forces continue to hold a salient within Russia’s Kursk oblast, a remnant of a surprise offensive in 2024 that Russian forces have so far failed to dislodge.⁴ Diplomatic efforts have been largely fruitless. A temporary 30-day ceasefire brokered in March 2025 collapsed within hours. A subsequent, more limited agreement mediated by the United States on March 25 to halt attacks on Black Sea shipping and energy infrastructure has partially held, but intense ground combat continues unabated.² The geopolitical calculus has been significantly altered by the new US administration under President Trump, which has signaled a desire to curtail military aid and has questioned US commitments to NATO, placing greater pressure on Ukraine and its European allies.⁴
• Casualty Assessment & Humanitarian Impact (July 2025):The war remains the world’s deadliest kinetic conflict. The UCDP recorded approximately 76,000 battle-related deaths in 2024 alone.1 Projections for July 2025 from the ACLED Conflict Alert System (CAST) forecast 6,301 organized political violence events in Ukraine and another 1,245 in Russia, indicating continued high-intensity operations.10 Daily casualty reports for Russian forces published by the General Staff of the Armed Forces of Ukraine in July 2025 consistently claim over 1,000 casualties per day, with the cumulative total approaching 1,041,990 by July 20.11 This staggering burn rate underscores the attritional nature of Russia’s strategy.
• Strategic Intelligence Vector:The conflict has matured into a state of dual attrition. Russia is leveraging its larger population and defense-industrial base to absorb massive casualties in exchange for incremental territorial gains. Simultaneously, it is conducting a strategic campaign to degrade Ukraine’s ability to generate new forces and sustain its economy. The critical variable determining the conflict’s outcome is the endurance of Western political will and materiel support versus the Russian regime’s ability to manage the political and social consequences of its high casualty rates. Moscow’s strategy is not simply about battlefield victory; it is a calculated effort to attack Ukraine’s societal center of gravity. By targeting recruitment centers, Russia aims to sever the link between the state and its people, complementing non-kinetic influence operations designed to exploit public war-fatigue.4 This demonstrates a sophisticated understanding of modern warfare where victory is defined by breaking the enemy’s societal capacity to resist, not just its military forces. A Russian success under these terms would establish a grim new template for great power warfare in the 21st century.

1.2 Middle East Conflagration

• GCII Classification: 🔴 CRITICAL
• Conflict Type: Interstate War, Proxy Conflict, Insurgency, Terrorist Campaign
• Belligerents & Objectives:
  • Israel: Pursuing the strategic destruction of Hamas’s military and governing capabilities in Gaza, securing its northern border against Hezbollah, and actively countering Iran’s regional influence and nuclear ambitions through kinetic action.²
  • Hamas: Focused on organizational survival and continued armed resistance. It seeks to leverage hostage negotiations to secure a permanent cessation of hostilities and a complete Israeli withdrawal from Gaza.¹⁴
  • Hezbollah: Aims to deter a full-scale Israeli invasion of Lebanon while providing material support to Hamas and preserving its own strategic position as a dominant force in Lebanon.⁴
  • Iran & Regional Proxies: Engaged in a broad campaign of regional power projection to erode US and Israeli influence. This includes Houthi attacks on maritime shipping in the Red Sea and strikes by Iraqi militias on US and Israeli interests.⁴
• Geographical Scope: This is a multi-theater conflict encompassing the Gaza Strip, the West Bank, the Israel-Lebanon border, Syria, Iraq, Yemen, the Red Sea, and direct exchanges between Israel and Iran.¹⁶
• Recent Tactical & Strategic Developments (Q2-Q3 2025):The region is a web of interconnected, high-intensity conflicts. In Gaza, a ceasefire mediated by the US, Egypt, and Qatar, which began on January 19, 2025, and facilitated several hostage-prisoner exchanges, collapsed on March 18. Israel immediately resumed a major offensive across the territory, including in Gaza City, Khan Yunis, and Rafah.2 June 2025 was the deadliest month in Gaza since November 2024, with violence surging around poorly secured humanitarian aid distribution sites.15 In a significant strategic development, the Israeli government has instructed its military to prepare for the relocation of all remaining Palestinians in Gaza into a designated “humanitarian zone” in Rafah.14The conflict has repeatedly escalated to direct state-on-state confrontation. Following direct strikes between Iran and Israel in late 2024 and early 2025, a highly fragile, US-mediated ceasefire was established on June 24, 2025. This truce followed an intense 12-day war that saw Iran strike the Al Udeid Air Base in Qatar, a major US military hub.¹⁸ On other fronts, Israel’s major offensive against Hezbollah in Lebanon, launched in 2024, continues.² In Syria, the spillover has been significant, including an Israeli invasion in 2024. A separate US-brokered ceasefire between Israel and Syria’s new government under Ahmed al-Sharaa was announced on July 18, 2025, following Israeli strikes in response to local clashes.²⁰
• Casualty Assessment & Humanitarian Impact (July 2025):The human cost is catastrophic. As of July 20, 2025, total fatalities in the Gaza war since October 2023 exceed 61,200, including 59,220 Palestinians and 1,983 Israelis.22 The Palestinian death toll reported by the Gaza Health Ministry is nearing 59,000.23 July has seen continued high daily casualty rates, with one incident on July 20 resulting in 73 Palestinian deaths during an aid distribution event.23 Gaza is experiencing famine-like conditions, with the UN criticizing Israel’s aid system as a violation of humanitarian principles.14 Aid delivery sites have themselves become deadly conflict zones.15
• Strategic Intelligence Vector:The regional situation illustrates a fundamental shift in conflict diplomacy. The era of protracted, process-driven peace negotiations has been supplanted by transactional, leader-driven “fire-brigade diplomacy.” This became evident as the Gaza war threatened to ignite a full-scale regional conflagration involving Iran and its proxies. Traditional diplomatic mechanisms proved too slow and ineffective to manage the rapid escalation. In response, the US administration intervened directly and forcefully, using a combination of threats and inducements to broker tactical ceasefires, such as the ones between Iran and Israel, and Israel and Syria.9 These agreements are not components of a broader peace framework but are emergency measures designed to cap escalation and prevent a wider war that would be calamitous for regional stability and US interests. This approach prioritizes immediate de-escalation over resolving the underlying drivers of conflict, leaving the core disputes, military capabilities, and escalatory potential fully intact. Consequently, the region exists in a state of high-risk, fragile stability, where conflicts can reignite with minimal warning.

1.3 Sudanese Civil War

• GCII Classification: 🔴 CRITICAL
• Conflict Type: Civil War, Proxy Conflict
• Belligerents & Objectives:
  • Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF): Led by General Abdel Fattah al-Burhan, the SAF relies heavily on its airpower, including foreign-supplied drones, and an array of allied militias. Its objective is the total defeat of the RSF and the restoration of its own central authority.⁵
  • Rapid Support Forces (RSF): Led by General Mohamed “Hemedti” Hamdan Dagalo, the RSF employs a fast-paced, mobile fighting style suited to offensive operations. It aims to seize state power and control Sudan’s key economic nodes, supported by external patrons like the UAE, which supplies weapons via Chad.⁵
• Geographical Scope: The war has engulfed vast swathes of the country, with epicenters of violence in the capital, Khartoum, and the expansive Darfur and Kordofan regions.⁵
• Recent Tactical & Strategic Developments (Q2-Q3 2025):Entering its third year in 2025, the war is locked in a brutal stalemate where neither faction can achieve a decisive victory.2 The momentum on the battlefield has swung between the two sides, but the overarching trajectory is one of national disintegration.5 In late March 2025, the SAF managed to retake parts of the capital, Khartoum, but this did not alter the strategic balance, as fighting has only intensified elsewhere.2 July 2025 has witnessed a severe escalation of violence in the Kordofan and Darfur regions, with credible reports of mass civilian killings, systematic sexual violence, and the razing of entire villages.25 The conflict is also becoming increasingly fragmented, with a growing number of local armed groups and foreign backers pursuing their own agendas, further complicating any potential peace process.2
• Casualty Assessment & Humanitarian Impact (July 2025):Sudan is the site of the world’s largest and fastest-growing displacement crisis. As of July 2025, an estimated 12 million people—more than a third of the pre-war population—have been forced from their homes.5 The death toll is immense, with estimates of at least 40,000 killed, and some reports suggesting the true number reached 150,000 by mid-2024.25 The violence in July 2025 has been particularly horrific; in a single weekend around July 12, attacks in the villages surrounding Bara in North Kordofan reportedly killed more than 450 civilians, including at least 35 children.25 Famine has been officially declared in parts of Darfur, and UN officials have described the rates of conflict-related sexual violence against women and girls as “staggering”.5
• Strategic Intelligence Vector:Sudan is on a clear trajectory toward violent fracture and state collapse. The conflict is no longer simply a power struggle between two generals but has devolved into a self-sustaining vortex of violence, fueled by a constant flow of external arms and driven by complex internal ethnic and political fragmentation. The primary outcome is a humanitarian catastrophe of historic proportions. However, the secondary strategic threat is the profound regional destabilization. The war is actively roiling Sudan’s neighbors, crippling South Sudan’s oil-dependent economy, creating a refugee crisis that is upsetting delicate communal balances in Chad, and intensifying a geopolitical struggle for access to Port Sudan on the Red Sea, a maritime corridor of vital importance to global trade.5

Table 2: Monthly Casualty Tracker (Select Critical Conflicts) – July 2025

1.4 Sahel Insurgency

• GCII Classification: 🔴 CRITICAL
• Conflict Type: Insurgency, Terrorist Campaign
• Belligerents & Objectives:
  • State Forces (Mali, Burkina Faso, Niger): Engaged in counter-insurgency operations that have proven largely ineffective and often involve indiscriminate retaliation against civilian populations, further fueling the insurgency.²
  • Jihadist Groups (Jama’at Nusrat al-Islam wal-Muslimin – JNIM, Islamic State in the Greater Sahel – ISGS): Seek to expand territorial control, supplant state authority with their own forms of governance, and exploit the vacuum left by retreating state and international forces.²
• Geographical Scope: The insurgency’s core is in Mali, Burkina Faso, and Niger, but it is actively spilling over into the coastal West African states of Benin, Togo, Ghana, and Ivory Coast.²
• Recent Tactical & Strategic Developments (Q2-Q3 2025):The violence in the Sahel remains at extreme levels in 2025. A significant strategic shift is underway as jihadist groups, having consolidated control over vast rural territories, are now increasingly “urbanizing” the conflict by launching attacks in and around major towns and administrative centers.2 The period from April to June 2025 has been one of the deadliest on record for Sahelian security forces, with JNIM sustaining a high operational tempo and launching attacks of increasing scale and lethality.30 This military pressure is occurring in a strategic vacuum created by the withdrawal of French and other Western forces, which has not been effectively filled by the ruling military juntas or their new partners, such as Russian mercenaries. This dynamic has created a massive refugee crisis, with over a million people displaced from the core conflict zone into neighboring coastal states.2
• Casualty Assessment & Humanitarian Impact (July 2025):The Sahel has become the global epicenter of jihadist violence, accounting for 47% of all terrorism-related deaths worldwide in 2023.36 This trend has continued into 2025. In April 2025, JNIM activity resulted in over 500 reported deaths in Burkina Faso and over 200 in Mali.30 Analysis indicates that attacks on provincial and commune centers in 2025 are on pace to cause more fatalities than in 2023 and 2024 combined, highlighting the escalating intensity and changing nature of the conflict.31
• Strategic Intelligence Vector:The insurgency’s strategy of eroding and supplanting state control is proving successful. This is demonstrated by a clear “contagion” effect, where the profound instability rooted in the landlocked central Sahel is now being actively exported southward. The process begins with jihadist groups consolidating control over rural areas where the state’s presence is weak.36 Ineffective and often brutal state counter-offensives alienate local populations, creating a permissive environment for the insurgents.2 Having secured these rear areas, the groups are now expanding operations across borders and toward urban centers in previously stable coastal nations.2 This expansion is not merely military; it is creating a cross-border humanitarian crisis, as massive refugee flows strain the limited resources and threaten the social cohesion of countries like Ghana, Togo, and Benin.2 The strategic threat is therefore no longer confined to the Sahel; it has metastasized into a regional West African crisis that jeopardizes the stability of the entire Gulf of Guinea.

1.5 Myanmar Civil War

• GCII Classification: 🔴 CRITICAL
• Conflict Type: Civil War, Insurgency
• Belligerents & Objectives:
• Geographical Scope: The conflict is nationwide, with particularly intense and persistent fighting in the Rakhine, Shan, Sagaing, and Magway regions.⁶
• Recent Tactical & Strategic Developments (Q2-Q3 2025):While anti-junta resistance forces achieved significant territorial and strategic gains in 2024, the conflict in 2025 has settled into a brutal war of attrition.2 The Tatmadaw has responded to its battlefield losses by escalating violence against civilians to unprecedented levels, with 2024 marking the highest civilian death toll since the 2021 coup.2 The junta’s brutality was starkly illustrated in March 2025 when a powerful 7.7 magnitude earthquake struck central Myanmar. The fighting did not pause; on the same evening, the Tatmadaw conducted an airstrike on a rebel-held village in the earthquake-affected zone, compounding a natural disaster with man-made terror.2 This act demonstrates a strategy of collective punishment and a complete disregard for humanitarian principles.
• Casualty Assessment & Humanitarian Impact (July 2025):The conflict’s death toll is substantial. ACLED data recorded 13,049 casualties in 2024.37 As of April 2025, at least 6,486 civilians are confirmed to have been killed by the junta and its affiliates since the coup.34 The March 2025 earthquake added another layer of catastrophe, causing at least 3,800 deaths and displacing over 200,000 people.35 Landmines and other explosive ordnance (EO) are a major driver of civilian casualties, with 227 such casualties recorded in the first three months of 2025 alone, 26% of whom were children.33
• Strategic Intelligence Vector:Myanmar represents a case study in catastrophic state failure and extreme conflict fragmentation. The sheer number of armed actors, each with local objectives and chains of command, makes any potential for a centralized, negotiated settlement virtually non-existent.2 The junta’s governing strategy is one of pure terror, deliberately targeting civilians and even weaponizing a natural disaster to punish populations in resistance-held areas. This approach indicates a regime that has abandoned any pretense of legitimacy and is committed to ruling through fear alone. The conflict serves as a persistent source of regional instability, a black hole for humanitarian aid, and a breeding ground for transnational crime.

Section II: 🟠 HIGH Threat Theaters

This section provides condensed intelligence on conflicts classified as HIGH, characterized by 100-999 casualties per month, significant regional destabilization, and ongoing military operations.

2.1 Syrian Civil War

The conflict has entered a new phase following the collapse of the Assad dynasty. The landscape remains highly fragmented with Turkish-backed forces in the north, ongoing Israeli interventions against Iran-linked targets, and the emergence of new jihadist groups like Saraya Ansar al-Sunna, which claimed a major suicide attack in Damascus in June 2025.¹⁶ A fragile US-brokered ceasefire between Israel and the new Syrian government was established in July 2025, but the potential for renewed large-scale violence remains high as various factions and external powers vie for influence in the post-Assad power vacuum.²⁰

2.2 Democratic Republic of the Congo

Violence persists in the eastern provinces of North Kivu and Ituri, driven by dozens of armed groups. The Rwandan-backed M23 rebellion remains a primary driver of instability, displacing hundreds of thousands.¹⁶ Other active groups include the Allied Democratic Forces (ADF). A significant diplomatic development occurred in June 2025 with the signing of a peace agreement between Kinshasa and Kigali, offering a potential pathway to de-escalating the M23 conflict.¹⁸ However, implementation challenges are immense, and the conflict’s deep-rooted ethnic and economic drivers make the peace exceptionally fragile.

2.3 Somali Civil War

The federal government, supported by US intervention and local clan militias, continues its long-running war against the al-Qaeda affiliate, Al-Shabaab.¹⁶ In 2025, government forces launched a new offensive in the Shabelle region.¹⁶ However, Al-Shabaab has proven resilient, launching its own deadly offensives in Hirshabelle state to regain territory and increasing pressure on areas near the capital, Mogadishu.³⁰ The conflict is characterized by increasingly fatal battles and concerns over Al-Shabaab’s capacity to exploit security gaps as African Union peacekeepers draw down.

2.4 Nigerian Conflicts

Nigeria faces a complex, multi-front security crisis. In the northeast, the Boko Haram and ISWAP insurgencies continue, albeit with reduced intensity compared to previous years. More widespread and lethal are the conflicts between herders and farmers, as well as the rampant violence and kidnapping perpetrated by criminal “bandit” groups in the northwest.¹⁶ The country is also experiencing spillover from the escalating Sahel crisis, with jihadist groups threatening to expand into Nigeria’s northern states, creating a severe and compounding security challenge.²

2.5 Mexican Cartel Warfare

Mexico’s conflict is characterized by high-intensity warfare between powerful transnational criminal organizations (cartels) and the state, as well as violent inter-cartel fighting for control of territory and trafficking routes.¹⁶ Groups like the Sinaloa Cartel and Jalisco New Generation Cartel (CJNG) possess military-grade weaponry and engage in conventional combat tactics against security forces. Based on fatality data from 2023 and 2024, the conflict consistently produces casualties in the HIGH threat range, making it one of the most lethal in the Western Hemisphere.⁶

2.6 Yemeni Civil War

While large-scale conventional fighting between the Saudi-led coalition and the Houthi movement has subsided since a 2022 truce, the conflict remains active with sporadic clashes and an ongoing Al-Qaeda insurgency.¹⁶ The most significant development is the internationalization of the conflict through the Houthi-led attacks on commercial shipping in the Red Sea. This campaign, framed as support for Palestinians, has triggered a US-led military response (Operation Prosperity Guardian) and transformed a local civil war into a major threat to global maritime security and trade.⁴

2.7 Ethiopian Civil Conflict

Following the devastating Tigray War, Ethiopia continues to suffer from significant internal conflicts. The War in Amhara and the Oromo Liberation Army (OLA) insurgency in Oromia are the primary drivers of violence.¹⁶ These conflicts continue to produce substantial casualties and displacement, qualifying for a HIGH threat classification, although the intensity has not reached the levels seen during the peak of the Tigray war.³⁷

Section III: 🟡 ELEVATED & 🔵 WATCHLIST Theaters

This section assesses conflicts with lower current kinetic intensity but where political tensions and strategic competition create a significant potential for future escalation.

3.1 Elevated Conflicts (Briefs)

• Pakistan/India: The long-standing dispute over Kashmir remains a source of tension, with an ongoing insurgency in Indian-administered Kashmir and periodic cross-border military skirmishes. Both nations are nuclear-armed, making any escalation inherently dangerous.⁷
• Philippines: The government continues to battle two long-running insurgencies: the communist New People’s Army (NPA) rebellion and a fragmented network of Islamic State-affiliated groups in the southern region of Mindanao.¹⁶
• Colombia: Despite a historic peace agreement with the FARC, Colombia faces persistent violence from remaining guerrilla factions, powerful drug trafficking organizations, and other armed groups. An assassination attempt on a presidential candidate in June 2025 and a 122% increase in kidnappings in 2024 highlight the worsening security situation and fragility of the peace process.¹⁸

3.2 Watchlist: Korean Peninsula

• GCII Classification: 🔵 WATCHLIST
• Recent Developments: The security environment on the Korean Peninsula has deteriorated sharply in 2024 and 2025. In a major policy shift, North Korean leader Kim Jong Un has officially abandoned the goal of peaceful unification, declaring South Korea the nation’s “principal foe”.⁵ This ideological shift has been matched by kinetic and strategic actions. Pyongyang has ratified a mutual defense pact with Moscow and reportedly deployed thousands of North Korean soldiers to fight alongside Russian forces in Ukraine, gaining valuable combat experience and likely access to Russian military technology in return.⁵ This new alignment is occurring alongside continued North Korean missile tests and aggressive rhetoric.This escalation is compounded by strategic uncertainty stemming from the United States. The Trump administration has sent mixed signals regarding the durability of the US-South Korea defense treaty and the future of the US force presence on the peninsula.⁴¹ This ambiguity has reignited a serious debate within South Korea’s political establishment about the need to develop an indigenous nuclear deterrent.⁴² In response to North Korean provocations, the US, South Korea, and Japan have increased the tempo of trilateral military exercises, which Pyongyang in turn labels as provocations, creating a dangerous action-reaction cycle.⁴³
• Strategic Intelligence Vector: The peninsula is in a state of high-risk flux where the potential for miscalculation is acute. The old deterrence framework is being eroded by North Korea’s aggressive posture, its new alliance with a war-fighting Russia, and South Korean anxiety over the reliability of US security guarantees. The debunking of the “black hole theory”—the notion that US forces in Korea are only for a Korean contingency—means that assets on the peninsula are now viewed as regionally deployable, including in a potential Taiwan scenario.⁴⁴ This raises the stakes of any conflict, as it could more easily draw in other regional powers and expand horizontally.

3.3 Watchlist: South China Sea

• GCII Classification: 🔵 WATCHLIST
• Recent Developments: Tensions between China and the Philippines have escalated to “unprecedented levels” in 2025.⁴⁵ This is no longer a purely diplomatic dispute but a militarized standoff. China has intensified its “grey-zone” tactics, employing its coast guard and maritime militia to ram, block, and use water cannons against Philippine vessels attempting to resupply outposts like Second Thomas Shoal.⁴⁵ Analysis of vessel tracking data shows that China has tripled its law enforcement patrols around the contested Scarborough Shoal.⁴⁶In response, the Philippines is accelerating a significant defense modernization program, bolstered by strong US support. This includes $500 million in Foreign Military Financing from the US to acquire advanced capabilities like mid-range missile systems.⁴⁵ Furthermore, the US is expanding its physical footprint under the Enhanced Defense Cooperation Agreement (EDCA), including the construction of a new naval repair and maintenance facility in Palawan, a province directly facing the South China Sea.⁴⁷
• Strategic Intelligence Vector: The South China Sea is a primary theater for US-China strategic competition. The immediate flashpoint is the increasing risk of an accidental or deliberate escalation between Chinese and Philippine forces. Such an incident could be a trigger for the 1951 US-Philippines Mutual Defense Treaty, potentially drawing the United States into a direct military confrontation with China.⁴⁶ The situation is evolving from a contest over maritime claims to a direct test of US alliance commitments and regional resolve against Chinese expansionism.

3.4 Watchlist: Armenia-Azerbaijan

• GCII Classification: 🔵 WATCHLIST
• Recent Developments: Following Azerbaijan’s successful 2023 offensive that established control over Nagorno-Karabakh, tensions with Armenia remain high. Key issues, including the formal demarcation of the border and the signing of a comprehensive peace treaty, remain unresolved.⁹ Low-level skirmishes and ceasefire violations along the border are still reported, though at an intensity below the HIGH threat threshold.¹⁶
• Strategic Intelligence Vector: The conflict remains a potential flashpoint for renewed hostilities. Russia, the traditional security guarantor in the region, has seen its influence and capacity diminished due to its preoccupation with the war in Ukraine. This creates a power vacuum and a more volatile security dynamic, where a breakdown in negotiations could quickly escalate back into open conflict.

Section IV: Asymmetric & Non-Kinetic Warfare Domains

4.1 Economic Warfare: Sanctions, Tariffs, and Supply Chain Disruption

• Key Theaters: United States vs. China, The West vs. Russia, United States vs. Iran.
• Recent Developments & Analysis:The use of economic tools for geopolitical ends has evolved from targeted sanctions aimed at punishing specific illicit behaviors to broad, systemic “geoeconomic confrontation”.3 This new paradigm seeks to fundamentally rewire global trade flows, create distinct technological-economic blocs, and strategically disadvantage rivals over the long term.The US-China rivalry is the primary driver of this trend. The US is pursuing an increasingly protectionist trade policy, with proposals for tariffs as high as 60% on Chinese goods and 20% on all trading partners.⁴⁸ This is coupled with a robust economic security strategy focused on maintaining a significant technological lead over China, particularly in critical sectors like advanced semiconductors, through tools like export controls and outbound investment screening.⁴⁹ This forces other nations and multinational corporations into a difficult position, compelling them to “friendshore” or “de-risk” their supply chains away from China, thereby accelerating the fragmentation of the global economy.⁵⁰
• The Western economic campaign against Russia exemplifies the complexity of this new environment. In July 2025, the European Union implemented its 18th sanctions package, which goes beyond targeting individuals and entities. It aims to cripple Russia’s state revenue by imposing a lower, moving price cap on its oil (approximately $47.60 per barrel) and targeting the “shadow fleet” of tankers used to circumvent previous restrictions.⁵² Critically, these sanctions have an extraterritorial dimension, banning the import of refined petroleum products made from Russian crude by third countries.
• This directly impacts the economies of nations like India, which had become a major processor of Russian crude for re-export to Europe, illustrating how economic warfare now creates complex, cascading effects across the global system.⁵³In a notable counter-trend, the US administration executed a major policy shift regarding Syria in May 2025, providing significant sanctions relief to the new post-Assad government. This was a pragmatic move to facilitate rebuilding and stabilization under a new regime, demonstrating that economic tools can also be used for strategic engagement, not just coercion.⁵⁴The overarching implication of these developments is the end of the era of a single, integrated global market. Intelligence, policy, and corporate strategy must now operate on the assumption of a “fractious and uncertain” landscape.⁴⁸ Navigating this environment requires unprecedented levels of supply chain resilience and sophisticated geopolitical risk analysis to mitigate the shocks of sudden tariffs, sanctions, and retaliatory measures.⁵⁵

4.2 Cyber Warfare: State-Sponsored Operations and Critical Infrastructure Threats

• Key Actors: Russia, China, Iran, North Korea.
• Recent Developments & Analysis:Cyber warfare is now a fully integrated domain of statecraft, employed continuously by major powers to achieve strategic objectives short of kinetic conflict. The primary actors each have distinct but overlapping methodologies and goals.Russia continues to leverage cyber operations as a core component of its hybrid warfare doctrine. In July 2025, NATO issued a formal statement of condemnation, attributing a wave of malicious cyber activities to Russia’s military intelligence service (GRU), specifically the group known as APT28. These attacks targeted government entities and critical infrastructure in Ukraine and numerous NATO member states, including Estonia, France, the UK, the US, and Romania, with the clear intent to disrupt, destabilize, and support kinetic military operations.⁵⁶China‘s cyber operations are tightly focused on its long-term strategic goal of achieving technological self-sufficiency and regional dominance. Between March and June 2025, a concerted cyber-espionage campaign targeted Taiwan’s vital semiconductor industry.
• Cybersecurity firms identified at least three new China-aligned threat groups (UNK_FistBump, UNK_DropPitch, UNK_SparkyCarp) systematically attacking companies involved in chip design, manufacturing, and testing to steal critical intellectual property.⁵⁷ This is not random hacking; it is industrial policy pursued by other means.Iran remains a persistent and aggressive cyber threat, particularly to the United States and its regional allies. US intelligence agencies have warned that the risk of disruptive Iranian cyberattacks on US critical infrastructure is heightened, especially in the wake of direct military exchanges.⁵⁸ The breach of Iran’s Bank Sepah in March 2025, which compromised 42 million customer records, indicates that Iranian entities are themselves vulnerable, potentially driving retaliatory actions.⁶⁰
• A significant overarching trend is the adversary’s adoption of generative AI. Threat actors like North Korea’s FAMOUS CHOLLIMA are using AI to create highly convincing phishing emails and fictitious social media profiles, supercharging the effectiveness of social engineering and insider threat operations.⁶¹ The line between state-sponsored actors and financially motivated criminal groups, such as ransomware gangs, also continues to blur, with states like Russia leveraging criminal networks for deniable disruptive attacks.⁴ The most pressing strategic concern for the United States is the evidence that China is actively working to pre-position malware within US critical infrastructure networks, indicating preparation for potential disruptive attacks in the event of a future military conflict.⁵⁹

Section V: Conflict Trajectory Analysis: Ceasefires & De-escalation

A defining feature of the 2025 conflict landscape is the nature of its ceasefires. These are not typically pathways to lasting peace but are tactical instruments used by belligerents to pause, regroup, and achieve limited objectives within a broader, ongoing conflict.

5.1 Israel-Hamas Ceasefire (Jan 19 – Mar 18, 2025)

• Analysis: This two-month truce was purely transactional, designed to facilitate a series of hostage-for-prisoner exchanges. It was never a viable bridge to a permanent settlement because the core strategic objectives of the belligerents remained irreconcilable: Israel’s goal of destroying Hamas versus Hamas’s goal of survival and ending the siege of Gaza. The ceasefire period was characterized by numerous violations by both sides, including continued Israeli killings of Palestinians and Hamas’s failure to adhere to the agreed-upon sequence of hostage releases.¹⁷ Its collapse was therefore not a failure of the process but an expected outcome, allowing both sides to reset before resuming hostilities. It served as a tactical pause, not a strategic de-escalation.

5.2 Iran-Israel Ceasefire (June 24, 2025)

• Analysis: This ceasefire represents a new model of great-power crisis management. It was not the result of a lengthy diplomatic process but was imposed directly by the US administration to halt a 12-day kinetic exchange that threatened to spiral into a full-scale regional war.¹⁸ The agreement is exceptionally fragile, as it is leader-dependent—brokered and enforced through direct intervention by President Trump—and does not address any of the underlying sources of conflict, namely Iran’s nuclear program and its regional proxy network.¹⁹ This “fire-brigade” approach successfully capped immediate escalation but leaves the entire conflict architecture in place, primed for reignition.

5.3 Israel-Syria Ceasefire (July 18, 2025)

• Analysis: This agreement is a localized de-escalation, distinct from the broader regional conflicts. It was brokered by the US following Israeli airstrikes on Damascus, which were themselves a response to deadly clashes between Druze and Bedouin factions in Syria’s Sweida province.²⁰ The ceasefire reflects the new reality of a post-Assad Syria, where Israel is acting assertively to enforce its red lines and prevent its northern border from becoming a new front. The durability of this truce is contingent on the ability of Syria’s new government under Ahmed al-Sharaa to exert control over its territory and prevent factions within it from launching attacks against Israel.

Conclusion: Global Conflict Synthesis & Forward Outlook

The mid-year assessment for 2025 reveals a global security environment that is increasingly fragmented, contested, and volatile. The data and analysis presented in this report converge on three critical conclusions that define the current era of conflict.

First, major wars are increasingly fueled by direct and indirect great power competition. The conflicts in Ukraine and the Middle East are the most salient examples. They are no longer contained regional disputes but have become primary arenas where the strategic interests, military doctrines, and industrial capacities of the United States, Russia, and Iran are being tested. The outcomes of these wars will have profound implications for the global balance of power and the perceived efficacy of military force as a tool of statecraft.

Second, conflict theaters are experiencing pervasive fragmentation. The civil wars in Sudan, Myanmar, and Syria are characterized by a dizzying array of state, non-state, and proxy actors, each with distinct motivations and patrons. This multi-polar nature of violence within states makes traditional, bilateral conflict resolution models obsolete and creates self-perpetuating cycles of violence that are highly resistant to diplomatic intervention.

Third, the domains of warfare have been fully integrated. Economic instruments like systemic sanctions and cyber operations targeting critical infrastructure and intellectual property are no longer ancillary to kinetic force; they are co-equal weapons in the arsenals of modern states. This weaponization of all domains of national power blurs the distinction between peace and war, creating a state of persistent, low-level conflict and raising the risk of rapid escalation.

Looking forward, the global risk of miscalculation remains exceptionally high, particularly in key flashpoints like the Taiwan Strait and the Korean Peninsula. The combination of unpredictable leadership among major powers, intensifying military postures, and fraying alliance structures creates a fertile ground for accidental escalation. The prevailing trend of brokering transactional, fragile ceasefires rather than pursuing comprehensive peace processes suggests a future characterized by recurring, high-intensity conflict cycles. Global stability appears to be increasingly dependent not on the strength of international laws and institutions, but on the ad hoc crisis management capabilities of a few major powers in a fundamentally more dangerous world.

RAGE X (Research Analysis in Global Events)

• Tagline: Exposing the World, One Truth at a Time
• Focus: Global conflict analysis, real-time intelligence, breaking geopolitical news.
• Website: www.ragex.co

Shield X

• Tagline: Smart Defense. Shielded by Intelligence.
• Focus: Cybersecurity, AI-driven surveillance, access control systems, digital defense strategies.
• Website: www.shieldx.pro

CIS Security

• Tagline: Your Safety, Our Priority
• Focus: Physical security, executive protection, residential & corporate guarding, CCTV installation, GPS tracking, security audits.
• Established: Over 35 years ago
• Website: www.cissecurity.net | www.cissecurity.pro