The big picture: a world in “contested order” mode

As of February 1, 2026, the global system is best described as persistent multi-theatre stress rather than a single dominant crisis. Unlike the post-Cold War or even post-2008 periods, instability is no longer episodic or geographically contained. Instead, multiple conflict zones, strategic rivalries, and economic confrontations coexist and interact, creating a permanent background of tension rather than discrete shocks.

The defining feature of this phase is the erosion of clean boundaries between war and peace. Kinetic conflict continues in several theatres, while major powers increasingly deploy non-military instruments as tools of coercion: tariffs, export controls, sanctions regimes, industrial subsidies, and technology restrictions. The World Economic Forum frames this as a period in which alliances are being reshaped, norms are contested, and geopolitical instability is deeply intertwined with technological acceleration—particularly in AI, semiconductors, energy transition technologies, and data infrastructure.

Parallel to this, global growth and trade dynamics are increasingly shaped by geopolitical uncertainty rather than purely economic fundamentals. A UN-linked outlook published in January warns that the combination of economic fragmentation, geopolitical rivalry, and technological bifurcation is reshaping the global landscape, generating new vulnerabilities for both advanced and emerging economies. Supply chains, capital flows, and investment decisions are now conditioned as much by political alignment as by cost efficiency.

Eastern Europe: the Russia-Ukraine war enters its fourth year with “winter weaponization” dynamics

The Russia–Ukraine war remains the single most consequential conflict for European security architecture and transatlantic strategic alignment. Entering its fourth year, the conflict has settled into a pattern of prolonged attrition, punctuated by technological adaptation and episodic escalations rather than decisive breakthroughs.

Recent reporting highlights continued missile and drone strikes targeting energy and civilian infrastructure during winter conditions, including large-scale power outages affecting Ukraine and neighboring Moldova amid freezing temperatures. Ukrainian officials have explicitly framed this strategy as “weaponizing winter”, aimed at degrading civilian resilience, increasing economic costs, and testing Western support under conditions of humanitarian strain.

Operationally, the war increasingly resembles an industrialized conflict adapted to 21st-century technologies. Both sides rely heavily on drones, precision-guided munitions, layered air defenses, and rapid battlefield innovation. Analytical assessments emphasize incremental territorial changes and grinding pressure, rather than maneuver warfare or rapid operational collapse. This dynamic favors endurance, logistics, and industrial capacity over tactical brilliance.

Politically, Moscow’s messaging remains deliberately maximalist. Statements by senior figures such as Dmitry Medvedev projecting imminent “victory” suggest that Russian elite narratives are not converging toward compromise, but rather toward a framing of the conflict as existential and long-term. This rhetoric reduces near-term diplomatic optionality and raises the risk of miscalculation.

Why it matters beyond the battlefield: Europe’s defense posture, energy security strategy, sanctions enforcement mechanisms, and defense industrial base are all being reconfigured around the assumption that this is not a short war. Think-tank risk frameworks continue to flag escalatory contingencies—including direct or indirect Russia-NATO pathways-as high-impact tail risks for 2026, even if their probability remains debated.

Middle East: Gaza ceasefire fragility, wider regional volatility, and the risk of “spasms”

The Middle East landscape in early 2026 is defined less by resolution than by fragile pause dynamics. Ceasefire arrangements around Gaza exist, but they are narrow, conditional, and highly sensitive to enforcement disputes, tactical incidents, and political signaling.

Reporting on renewed Israeli strikes in Gaza-even amid ceasefire frameworks and phased implementation-illustrates how rapidly de-escalation can unravel. Tunnel incidents, border control disputes, and disagreements over monitoring mechanisms repeatedly test the durability of ceasefire terms. The absence of a mutually accepted political end-state leaves military restraint vulnerable to tactical shocks.

Institutional and analytical assessments converge on a consistent conclusion: without a credible political horizon, “phase-two” frameworks are structurally unstable. Conflict datasets reinforce this view, showing a pattern in which violence declines from peak levels but persists through localized strikes, territorial consolidation, and episodic flare-ups. This is not peace, but managed friction.

At the multilateral level, UN briefings describe the situation as a potential turning point accompanied by extreme uncertainty. This is typical of ceasefire transitions where humanitarian access, governance arrangements, and security guarantees evolve at different speeds, creating gaps that armed actors can exploit.

Regional spillovers: Strategic analysts increasingly warn that 2026 is more likely to see intermittent bursts of violence than linear stabilization. Escalation risks are tied to regional actors, unresolved governance vacuums, and contested security arrangements that extend well beyond Gaza itself.

The Indo-Pacific: China–US competition shifts from “tariff shock” to targeted economic statecraft

By 2026, United States–China rivalry has evolved from broad trade confrontation toward precision economic statecraft. The emphasis is no longer on indiscriminate tariff escalation, but on targeted measures: sector-specific tariffs, export controls, sanctions, investment screening, and deliberate supply-chain redesign.

Policy messaging from Washington increasingly embeds strategic intent into formal trade frameworks, tariff schedules, and regulatory timelines. Sensitive sectors, semiconductors, advanced manufacturing, AI, clean energy inputs-remain central to this approach. Asia-focused trade analysis anticipates continued use of calibrated restrictions rather than sweeping decoupling.

On China’s side, U.S. government-linked assessments highlight concerns that weak domestic demand and ambitious growth targets could push Beijing toward investment- and export-led stabilization, reigniting trade imbalance tensions with partners in 2026. This raises the risk of retaliatory measures and further fragmentation of global trade flows.

Trade analysts describe 2026 as an environment of slower global trade growth combined with major structural shifts, where supply-chain rerouting, re-export hubs, and “friend-shoring” play an increasingly important role. Efficiency is being sacrificed for resilience and political alignment.

Flashpoint risk: Strategic risk assessments continue to place Taiwan Strait crisis scenarios in the high-impact category for 2026, even as analysts debate probabilities. The key concern is not inevitability, but the asymmetric global consequences of miscalculation.

“Economic war” is now mainstream: tariffs, sanctions, tech controls, and critical inputs

The most important structural change in global geopolitics is the normalization of economic instruments as tools of strategic competition. These include:

• tariff frameworks and reciprocal tariff designs,

• export controls and industrial security logic around critical technologies,

• sanctions enforcement and secondary effects shaping third-country behavior.

What is new is not the existence of these tools, but their frequency, legitimacy, and cross-domain coupling. Security policy, technology regulation, trade, and finance are now interlinked in ways that blur civilian and strategic spheres.

Institutional investors increasingly treat geopolitics as a baseline input into macroeconomic forecasting, portfolio construction, and risk management, rather than as a tail risk. Geopolitical exposure is being priced explicitly into assets, supply chains, and capital allocation decisions.

The “other wars” that still matter: Sudan, Myanmar, Sahel, Haiti (and why they’re systemic)

Beyond headline conflicts, ongoing wars in Sudan, Myanmar, parts of the Sahel, and Haiti continue to generate systemic global effects. Conflict monitoring organizations consistently flag these theatres as severe and persistent into 2026.

Their importance lies not in great-power confrontation, but in second-order effects: mass displacement, disruption of commodity and trade routes, maritime insecurity, and the expansion of transnational crime and armed group financing. These dynamics strain neighboring states and international institutions alike.

In several cases, external powers are drawn into “security assistance” or stabilization roles that reshape regional alignments and create long-term political entanglements.

Alliance shifts and institutional stress: rules-based order under strain

As geopolitical rivalry intensifies, alliances are being tested, recalibrated, and selectively reinforced. Global risk frameworks emphasize that longstanding alignments are under pressure, while contestation of rules and norms is rising across trade, security, and technology governance.

European security discourse increasingly frames the Ukraine war not as an isolated military crisis, but as part of a long-duration economic and industrial contest involving fiscal capacity, sanctions resilience, and defense production. Conflict is being treated as a multi-domain endurance challenge rather than a discrete campaign.

What to watch in the next 3–12 months: a practical risk dashboard

High-impact escalation triggers

• A breakdown of Gaza ceasefire implementation or failure of phase-two political arrangements.

• Major disruption to Ukraine’s energy system during winter or a sharp shift in external support dynamics.

• A Taiwan Strait escalation or significant increase in maritime incidents in contested waters.

Economic-warfare accelerants

• New targeted tariffs or export controls, particularly in semiconductors, AI, and critical minerals, followed by retaliation cycles.

• Trade and industrial policy moves that deepen bloc formation and reduce “bridge trade” via third countries.

Market-sensitive pressure points

• Energy supply disruptions remain the primary transmission channel from Middle Eastern escalation to global markets, with asymmetric downside risk.

Bottom line

As of February 1, 2026, geopolitics is defined by entrenched wars, normalized economic coercion, and rising multipolar friction affecting trade, technology, energy, and capital allocation. The decisive shift is that geopolitics is no longer treated as an episodic shock. For governments, investors, and corporates alike, it has become a continuous operating condition.

Sources

Global risk & systemic analysis

• World Economic Forum
  Global Risks Report 2026 – Geopolitical fragmentation, conflict spillovers, and systemic risk

• OECD
  Economic Outlook / Geopolitical Risk Notes – Impact of geopolitical tension on growth and trade

Eastern Europe – Ukraine / Russia

• Reuters
  Reporting on Russian official statements and military developments (Feb 2026)

• Center for Strategic and International Studies
  Analysis on the evolution of the Ukraine war and escalation dynamics

• Council on Foreign Relations
  Conflicts to Watch 2026 – Russia–Ukraine risk scenarios

Middle East

• United Nations
  Security Council briefings on Gaza and regional stability

• Chatham House
  Analysis on ceasefire fragility and political deadlock

• Armed Conflict Location & Event Data Project
  Conflict intensity and regional spillover tracking

United States – China / Indo-Pacific

• International Monetary Fund
  Global Financial Stability Report – Geopolitics and economic fragmentation

• U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission
  Trade, technology controls, and strategic competition

• ING Think
  Global trade fragmentation and supply-chain reconfiguration

Economic warfare & sanctions

• Bank for International Settlements
  Quarterly Review – Financial fragmentation and sanctions spillovers

• European Commission
  Trade defense instruments, industrial policy, and sanctions enforcement

Global conflict monitoring

• International Crisis Group
  10 Conflicts to Watch in 2026, Sudan, Myanmar, Sahel, Haiti

GET IN TOUCH

Have a question, a partnership idea, or want to share your thoughts about finance?
At Financia, we value meaningful connections with our readers and collaborators.
Reach out and let’s start a conversation, your insights could inspire our next article.