Where the World Drifts into a Grey Twilight
Conflicts today often lack clearly stated aims, making end states difficult to define. The ongoing engagements involving Russia, Israel, and the United States illustrate this ambiguity. In such situations, conflicts risk being driven more by national ego than by achievable objectives, prolonging destruction and human suffering.
More things change, the more they remain the same. Change is the only permanence; it is inevitable. As humans evolve, the outside world evolves, heralding changes in the environment and in how things are done. What we see, touch, smell, taste, and hear is constantly changing. We see new shades, touch new textures, smell new fragrances, taste new dishes, and hear new sounds; yet how we feel within has not changed since the beginning of time. The feelings of hunger, fear, pain, joy, and pleasure remain the same. Only the catalysts have changed.
Conflicts and wars have always existed in some part of the world for millennia. It is impossible to pick a time in the known past when man was not fighting man. It would be incorrect to believe that the world has ever experienced universal peace. One reason for this impression is that many past conflicts fade from memory; they are simply forgotten. In any case, we know of them largely through texts.
In the twentieth century, two major wars, within a span of five decades, were fought across more than three continents. The two World Wars together accounted for the deaths of between 120 to 150 million people. The third bloodiest conflict of that century, the Russian Civil War, caused an estimated 13.5 million deaths. In the same century, there were no fewer than 28 other wars between nations, excluding the three fought by India.
Nature of Conflicts
Even today, as I write, there is a major war in Ukraine and a number of conflicts in other parts of the world, including continuing tensions in West Asia, particularly involving Israel and the Gaza Strip. Overlaying this is the ongoing 2026 Iran conflict, where the United States and Israel have carried out coordinated military operations against Iran, triggering retaliatory strikes across the region and disrupting global energy routes and economic stability. What began as a targeted military objective has expanded into a wider confrontation with uncertain boundaries and no clearly defined end state.
These conflicts are deeply influenced by the actions of major powers, most notably the United States, whose interventions have often shaped, prolonged, and at times intensified the very conflicts they sought to address. At the same time, regional actors assert their own compulsions, making resolution even more complex. The lines between deterrence, retaliation, and escalation are increasingly blurred.
Simultaneously, newer flashpoints continue to simmer, whether in the Indo-Pacific, along contested borders, or in regions where state and non-state actors operate in uneasy proximity. The nature of conflict itself is evolving. It is no longer confined to battlefields; it now extends into cyberspace, economic sanctions, supply chains, and information warfare. Wars are increasingly undeclared, objectives less defined, and end states more ambiguous.
Yet, Yuval Noah Harari, the noted historian and author, observes that we are living in the most peaceful era in human history. He says this not without reason. Though the number and frequency of conflicts have increased, human casualties are lower in comparison to deaths caused by natural calamities, diseases, and other man-made disasters.
War and Peace
War and peace have always coexisted. In times before globalization, except for the World Wars, the effects of conflicts were largely localized. With economic globalization over the past five decades, interdependence among nations has increased significantly. Today, when any nation with a sizeable economy is involved in conflict, the shockwaves reverberate across the global economic fabric.
The world is already in the throes of an economic strain initiated by a pandemic and exacerbated by the war in Ukraine and instability in West Asia. Yet, by Harari’s definition, we remain in a relatively peaceful era, as deaths from war are still lower than in earlier centuries.
It is a vicious circle. War leads to peace, and peace leads to war. According to Goldstein, smaller, often unnecessary wars help sustain peace and power for ruling elites. They unify populations against a common enemy. During war, nations tend to rally together; when attention is directed outward, internal discontent often recedes into the background.
In recent decades, democracies and the so-called free world were united against communism, autocracies, and terrorism, common adversaries that sustained cohesion. That equation now appears to be shifting. The rules of this evolving game of “war and peace” are still being written.
From the events of the past, war may appear to be a necessary evil. As long as we are human, emotions and beliefs will clash. Conflict between groups is inevitable, and the use of violence has often been the chosen response. One may argue that there is little difference between human reactions and those of animals. Yet, given our evolution in knowledge and wisdom, can we truly accept that war is the only path to peace?
Alternatives exist. Negotiation, accommodation, and reasoned compromise, where both sides concede something, offer pathways to resolution. Diplomacy may well remain the most viable route to lasting peace.
Conflicts today often lack clearly stated aims, making end states difficult to define. The ongoing engagements involving Russia, Israel, and the United States illustrate this ambiguity. In such situations, conflicts risk being driven more by national ego than by achievable objectives, prolonging destruction and human suffering.
What kind of peace?
Harari speaks of a relatively peaceful age, but one resting on uncertain foundations. Perhaps what lies ahead is not peace in any absolute sense, but a kind of grey twilight; where systems do not collapse, yet quietly transform; where wars are neither fully declared nor decisively concluded; where conflicts expand even as their objectives grow unclear.
Preposterous? Perhaps. But then, so was the idea - once that multiple major powers could be engaged simultaneously, yet the world would still call it “peace.”
Who knows?
(The author is an Indian Army veteran and a contemporary affairs commentator. The views are personal. He can be reached at kl.viswanathan@gmail.com )

Post a Comment