Could the Ukraine War Spread? Analyzing Regional Conflict Escalation Risks

As conflicts proliferate across the globe, a pressing question emerges: which of today’s wars carry the greatest risk of expanding into devastating regional conflagrations? While the Ukraine conflict dominates headlines with its potential to trigger a NATO-Russia confrontation, history teaches us that wars often metastasize in unexpected ways—from the 2014 annexation of Crimea evolving into Europe’s largest land war since 1945, to an archduke’s assassination in Bosnia igniting the First World War. This analysis examines the current conflicts most likely to spill over their borders, explores developments in post-revolution Bangladesh, assesses Ukraine’s strategic targeting of Crimea, evaluates the United Nations’ effectiveness in an era of great power competition, and addresses questions about America’s National Guard system and NATO’s future relevance.

The Greater Escalation Risk: Sudan Over Ukraine

When assessing which current conflicts pose the greatest risk of expanding into wider regional wars, the instinctive answer points to Ukraine, where Putin’s maximalist goals repeatedly threaten to spark a confrontation with NATO. However, the actual escalation risk in Ukraine may be smaller than commonly perceived. Despite Putin’s cultivation of a madman persona, he has consistently backed down as his red lines about supplying Ukraine with Western equipment have been crossed.

The reason is straightforward: Putin shares Europe’s terror of a continent-wide war that could end in nuclear armageddon. All major players in the Ukraine conflict exercise hyper-caution about getting sucked into wider hostilities.

The same calculation does not apply to Sudan, where the civil war between the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) and Rapid Support Forces (RSF) draws in multiple outside backers who appear so committed to escalation that spillover threats grow daily. The conflict has already destabilized South Sudan to the point where it nearly slipped into its own civil war earlier this year. Sudanese armed factions maintain links to Tigrayan rebels in northern Ethiopia, where another conflict appears on the verge of igniting. The war has caused blowback in Chad and drawn mercenaries from Libya and Central African Republic.

The roster of external backers reveals the depth of international involvement. The United Arab Emirates pours enormous amounts of money and equipment into sustaining the genocidal RSF, with additional support from Chad, Ethiopia, and Kenya. Meanwhile, Russia and Iran back the SAF, which forges growing links with Islamist groups. Multiple middle powers have identified substantial advantages in dominating Sudan’s postwar future—whether through access to gold mines, control of Red Sea coastal areas, or wielding political influence—and none feels compelled to back off.

While the prospect of direct Russia-UAE military confrontation over Sudan remains laughably remote, a far more realistic scenario involves the war not merely spilling over but merging with brewing conflicts in South Sudan and northern Ethiopia to create an omni-war rolling across the Horn of Africa. The most troubling aspect of this escalation risk is the near-total absence of international attention. Only Sudan experts, local activists, and a handful of analysts seem concerned that one of the defining conflicts of our era proceeds largely ignored by global media and policymakers.

Bangladesh After the Revolution: Progress and Persistent Challenges

Just over a year ago, popular protests in Bangladesh overthrew the country’s long-time dictator, Sheikh Hasina, who fled to neighboring India where she remains in exile. An interim government under Mohammed Yunus—an economic activist and Nobel laureate—assumed control. While the outlook for Bangladesh today is undoubtedly brighter than under Hasina’s authoritarian rule, the past year has presented significant challenges alongside notable achievements.

The Yunus government’s successes have been impressive. Bangladesh avoided economic collapse despite Hasina’s inner circle and elites looting banks as they departed. The nation has attracted major foreign financial investment. After months of criticism that he was moving too slowly, Yunus recently announced nationwide elections for February.

The government has kickstarted political reforms and prevented the state bureaucracy from collapsing—no small feat given the circumstances. The administration has successfully balanced relations with both the United States and China. One year after Hasina’s overthrow, the mood in Bangladesh remains optimistic enough that the anniversary was marked by celebration rather than riots.

However, significant criticisms persist. Yunus and his government face accusations of taking a lax approach toward members of the old regime, failing to aggressively prosecute those who supported Hasina or profited from her dictatorship. Investigations into forced disappearances and extrajudicial executions have failed to produce quick results. Religious hardliners continue playing an outsized role in civil affairs despite widespread hopes for curtailing their influence.

Mob violence has become a regular occurrence.

The Rohingya refugee crisis continues to intensify, with camps in Bangladesh swelling as more people pour across the border from Myanmar. The refugee population now numbers 1.2 million, and prospects for their return home appear bleak. As for whether Bangladesh will take a more active role in Myanmar’s conflict, the options are severely limited.

Bangladesh possesses minimal international clout, its state structure remains weak, and military intervention is not feasible. Furthermore, the Myanmar conflict falls firmly within China’s sphere of influence, and any Bangladeshi action in Myanmar would severely damage the positive relations with China that Bangladesh seeks to maintain.

Ukraine’s Strategic Calculus in Crimea

Ukraine’s consistent targeting of radar installations and missile defense systems in Crimea raises questions about strategic priorities, particularly given the apparent unlikelihood of a large-scale Ukrainian offensive to retake the peninsula. The rationale for these strikes encompasses three interconnected elements: logistics, air defense attrition, and symbolism. While control of the Black Sea previously factored heavily into this calculus, combat in those waters has largely subsided at this phase of the war.

Despite what many Ukrainian supporters might prefer to believe, a Crimea offensive almost certainly is not forthcoming, and the peninsula’s return to Ukrainian control appears unlikely. Nevertheless, maintaining pressure on Crimea serves multiple strategic purposes for Kyiv.

From a logistics perspective, Crimea functions as an important waypoint for weapons, ammunition, supplies, and heavy warfighting equipment destined for southern Ukraine, where Russia contests control of multiple Ukrainian oblasts. Striking these supply routes inhibits Russia’s warfighting capability, with the potential to destroy particularly important assets in transit.

The symbolic dimension carries substantial weight. Since before the 2014 annexation, Crimea has occupied a central position in Putin’s wartime mythology. In Putin’s narrative, Crimea assumes almost religious significance for his vision of a great, powerful Russian state. Ukraine attacks Crimea precisely because Crimea matters to Russia—the strategic value lies partly in the psychological and political impact.

The air defense consideration may be the most tactically significant. Because Russia invests symbolic meaning in Crimea and runs logistical supply routes through the territory, it must protect the peninsula from aerial attack. Russia faces an air defense shortage, losing defensive batteries faster than they can be replaced. As air defenses stretch increasingly thin, more targets become exposed while remaining batteries themselves grow vulnerable.

If Ukraine ceased attacking Crimea, the air defense systems stationed there could be redeployed elsewhere. By maintaining pressure, Ukraine forces Russia to further disperse its already inadequate air defense network.

A final consideration involves resource efficiency. While Ukraine operates under significant constraints, these limitations are less severe when attacking targets as proximate as Crimea. Striking Moscow or targets beyond requires careful rationing of long-range munitions. Crimea, however, can be engaged with munitions types that Ukraine can more readily spare. Efficiency remains important, but not to the same degree as for other weapon systems and targets.

The United Nations: Dysfunction or Design?

A recurring question in geopolitical analysis asks whether the United Nations has become essentially pointless, or whether its apparent dysfunction actually represents its intended function—making dialogue possible even when substantive action proves impossible. The argument that the UN allows nations to blow off steam constructively rather than resorting to nuclear weapons carries some merit. However, the reality is that the days when the UN wielded meaningful influence over world leaders have long passed. Rather than solving problems, the United Nations has become a source of woeful gridlock.

Haiti provides an illustrative example. Nearly everyone agrees that Haiti’s ongoing meltdown has reached such a crisis point that intervention is necessary. Since regional powers—from the United States to Brazil—have all declined to act unilaterally, the situation would seem to represent the platonic ideal for a UN peacekeeping mission, especially since Haiti’s then-government called for intervention in autumn 2022.

Instead, talks to deploy a mission moved at glacial pace. Armed gangs had overthrown that government and seized most of Port-au-Prince by the time any action materialized. Even then, the Security Council authorized only a Kenyan-led police deployment—one that has failed to contain the violence.

The root cause lies in the peculiar politics of the Security Council. Five members wield veto power: France, Britain, Russia, China, and the United States. France and Britain have not utilized their vetoes since 1989. Consequently, almost all contemporary crises devolve into a counterproductive game where Russia and China kill anything the United States might support—such as a UN intervention force for Haiti—while the United States vetoes anything related to Palestine or Gaza.

The result: the last decade has seen exactly one peacekeeping mission authorized—the underfunded, under-equipped, and under-supported Kenyan police deployment to Haiti. Many of the UN’s eleven active legacy missions fare poorly. Some deployments—Cyprus and Kosovo—arguably contribute to fragile peace. Others read like a guidebook to global danger zones: South Sudan, Central African Republic, Democratic Republic of Congo.

A UN force in southern Lebanon resolutely failed to prevent a short, sharp war between Israel and Hezbollah last year.

Does this mean abandoning the entire UN concept and returning to a world of “might makes right”? Certainly not, unless one desires even more conflicts. However, the UN as currently constituted cannot continue in its present form. The Security Council requires serious reform to reflect the contemporary world order.

The situation where fading former colonial powers like France and Britain—and Russia, described as a dysfunctional gas station with nukes—wield vetoes while the European Union, India, and Brazil (among others) have no say appears increasingly absurd.

The veto system itself likely needs elimination in favor of qualified majority voting. Better enforcement mechanisms are needed for the rare occasions when the Council does reach agreement. In 2024, a joint resolution calling for a Ramadan ceasefire in Sudan was ignored by all warring parties with zero consequences.

Yet even these reforms might prove insufficient, as they would require buy-in from all the world’s most powerful nations—buy-in that appears unlikely to materialize. The current era sees international norms so broken that leaders realize they can seize territory with impunity. While this presents serious medium- and long-term risks, too many leaders instead perceive short-term opportunities for territorial aggrandizement. In essence, the world appears to be unlearning the lessons of the 20th century, which bodes poorly for the future.

Understanding America’s National Guard System

For international audiences, the US National Guard presents a complex institutional arrangement that defies simple categorization. The National Guard constitutes a major component of the US military, comprising approximately 430,000 troops at any given time. Simultaneously, these troops answer not only to the federal government in Washington but to individual states. Each state maintains its own National Guard—Texas has a Texas National Guard, California has a California National Guard, and so forth.

This dual structure means the US military can call upon the National Guard for foreign deployments, and National Guard contingents frequently rotate to American military bases and active war zones. However, the portion of a state’s National Guard remaining on American soil can be activated by the state’s governor to address major domestic concerns, including disaster relief, riots, public health events like the COVID pandemic, and similar emergencies.

A crucial limitation exists on military involvement in civilian affairs. The US military generally cannot fulfill civilian law enforcement functions. If a city experiences a crime wave, it would typically be illegal for a state governor or the federal government to direct the National Guard to make arrests and perform law enforcement duties. This restriction stems from the Posse Comitatus Act, enacted in the 1870s.

Exceptions to this rule exist. If a city or state faces mass unrest, riots too large for law enforcement to control, or even an insurrection, state governors can deploy the National Guard in a law enforcement capacity. In insurrection cases, the president can nationalize the Guard, assuming direct command of a state’s National Guard for the duration of the threat.

Washington, D.C. presents a unique situation. Since the capital is not part of any state and is administered directly by the federal government, the president can more easily deploy the DC National Guard for short periods without congressional approval for up to thirty days.

Additional presidential loopholes exist. The president can declare an insurrection essentially arbitrarily. While a state governor could refuse to surrender National Guard control or challenge the declaration in court, Washington, D.C. lacks any mechanism to contest Guard deployment.

The president can also obtain cooperation from friendly governors who voluntarily hand over National Guard control, allowing those federalized troops to be deployed into states or cities that dispute the necessity of Guard presence. Governors of Ohio, South Carolina, Louisiana, and several other states are currently testing this theory, sending their troops to deploy in Washington. If the legal theory withstands challenge, these troops may be deployed to other cities across the United States in the near future.

NATO’s Future: Dissolution or Evolution?

Questions about NATO’s viability increasingly surface in geopolitical discussions, with some suggesting that “coalitions of the willing” offer more practical alternatives. One argument proposes that dissolving and reforming the alliance might circumvent Putin’s claims about NATO advancement. While the emerging coalition of the willing taking shape appears poised to become a more potent geopolitical tool than NATO has been recently, the situation is better understood not as NATO becoming obsolete but as NATO falling into a decades-long trap.

The trap involves assuming that because the NATO alliance exists, it is no longer necessary or justifiable to assemble different coalitions for different tasks. This phenomenon might be termed “creativity blindness.” The world changes rapidly, every NATO member must navigate its place independently, and novel problems warrant novel solutions. Yet world leaders, particularly in Europe, gravitate toward pre-existing bureaucratic institutions.

When new problems emerge, NATO member nations defer to the NATO alliance and often pass problems to the United States when NATO cannot or will not provide solutions.

The decision to create a coalition of the willing could serve as a wake-up call to NATO members. For decades, crisis after crisis has emerged where a sub-group of well-equipped militaries could have collaborated to find solutions. The combination of European rearmament, diminished American reliability, and the threat of an expansionist Russia may finally compel NATO members to find both their brains and their spines.

Crucially, NATO need not be abandoned. The alliance will continue providing collective defense guarantees, overseeing military interoperability, and fulfilling numerous important functions. These roles need not be ignored simply because NATO members finally acknowledge that their alliance is not an omni-tool solution to every problem. NATO can persist as a foundational security architecture while member states simultaneously pursue more flexible, task-specific coalitions to address challenges that fall outside NATO’s traditional mandate or where consensus among all members proves elusive.

Reflections on Covering Global Conflicts

After several years building a channel focused on global conflicts and geopolitics, the most surprising discovery has been the viability of pivoting into coverage of global conflicts, particularly under-reported ones, and achieving success doing so. This runs counter to trends in larger traditional media companies, which experience declining success covering global conflicts and cover them less frequently, while this approach has found growing success through more frequent coverage.

The success ultimately testifies to the audience. The approach rests on respect—belief that audiences can hold nuance and complexity, that they can maintain attention for fifteen, thirty, or sixty minutes because they are curious and interested in fully understanding subjects. Large media groups no longer offer this, or when they do, they bury it in written format at the bottom of websites.

Given the trajectory of foreign affairs coverage in legacy media, the success of this type of channel is surprising. Observing how traditional media handles such coverage might lead one to conclude it is physically toxic. Yet when the approach invests time, careful consideration, and most importantly trust in the audience, the success makes complete sense. The audience responds to being treated as intelligent, engaged individuals capable of grappling with complex global issues rather than passive consumers requiring simplified, abbreviated content.

The Value of Unfiltered Analysis in Conflict Reporting

Beyond audience engagement, another unexpected dimension of success in covering global conflicts has emerged: the relationships forged with genuine subject matter experts who operate within traditional institutional constraints. A small but significant network of contacts has developed with individuals at respected think tanks, within the armed forces of various nations, and among award-winning reporters. What these experts consistently express is something approaching envy—not of reach or resources, but of the freedom to combine rigorous reporting with irreverence and the ability to directly confront nations threatening legal action.

These professionals, bound by institutional protocols and diplomatic niceties, appreciate the capacity to state plainly what they cannot: that certain nations represent human rights nightmares, that specific leaders deserve condemnation in the bluntest possible terms. The ability to call a spade a spade—or more precisely, to identify egregious behavior without euphemism—while maintaining analytical rigor appears to fill a void in contemporary conflict coverage.

The current media and diplomatic landscape has become so anodyne, so excessively careful in its language, that straightforward assessment feels refreshing. Experts who spend their professional lives navigating the constraints of institutional diplomacy seem to value outlets that can directly identify atrocities, name perpetrators, and assign responsibility without the layers of obfuscation that characterize much traditional reporting. The combination of subject matter expertise with willingness to speak plainly creates something distinct from both academic analysis (which prizes measured language) and sensationalist coverage (which prioritizes emotion over accuracy).

This approach does not abandon journalistic standards or analytical rigor. Rather, it recognizes that clarity and directness need not be sacrificed to maintain credibility. When a government commits war crimes, when a leader systematically violates human rights, when a nation’s actions merit condemnation—saying so explicitly, even colorfully, does not diminish the analysis. For experts operating within systems that require diplomatic language, witnessing this directness applied to subjects they study appears to provide a vicarious satisfaction, a recognition that sometimes the most accurate description is also the most blunt.

The Emu War: Tragedy Beneath the Absurdity

The Great Emu War of 1932 has become a fixture of internet humor—a seemingly absurd episode in which the Australian military deployed machine guns against flightless birds and, by most accounts, lost. The question of which other animals might similarly embarrass humanity in hypothetical conflicts invites playful speculation. Yet beneath the surface comedy lies a story of genuine human misery that deserves recognition.

The farmers whose crops were being devastated by emu populations were not simply agricultural workers facing an unusual pest problem. They were World War One veterans, men who had served their country in some of history’s most horrific battles, including the bloodbath at Gallipoli. These soldiers returned home expecting the nation they had fought for to support their transition to civilian life. Instead, they found themselves cast aside by a government that demonstrated less than zero concern for their welfare.

The economic context makes the situation even more tragic. These veterans were growing wheat at a loss because the Australian government had cancelled agricultural subsidies that had been promised to help them establish farms. The emu population explosion—a natural phenomenon exacerbated by habitat changes—threatened to destroy what little livelihood these men had managed to scrape together.

The government’s response was not to restore subsidies, provide alternative support, or implement sustainable wildlife management. Instead, the entire military expedition against the emus appears to have been a cynical public relations exercise, an attempt to reverse bad publicity by deploying machine guns against birds.

The operation’s failure—emus proved remarkably difficult to kill in large numbers, being fast, dispersed, and resilient—only compounded the humiliation. What should have been a story about a government failing its veterans became instead a punchline about military incompetence.

In a more just world, the Emu War would have ended differently. The downtrodden veterans, recognizing their shared status as victims of governmental indifference, might have joined forces with the emus in a symbolic uprising against the system that had abandoned them both. That this coalition never materialized—that the story remains one of veterans desperately trying to protect their failing farms rather than one of solidarity against injustice—continues to evoke a profound sadness. The episode serves as a reminder that behind many historical absurdities lie very human stories of suffering, abandonment, and the failure of institutions to care for those who sacrificed on their behalf.

Destinations Made Inaccessible by Conflict and Politics

The nature of covering global conflicts creates an ironic relationship with the places most frequently discussed. Regions that dominate analytical attention often become precisely the locations most dangerous or inadvisable to visit, either due to active warfare or because critical coverage has made one’s presence unwelcome to those in power.

Ethiopia represents a particularly poignant example of this dynamic. For someone who has repeatedly and publicly identified Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed as a war criminal, visiting Ethiopia would constitute an extraordinarily poor decision from a personal safety perspective. This assessment predates consideration of the ongoing insurgency in Amhara region or the substantial likelihood of renewed warfare in Tigray. The political environment alone would make such a visit inadvisable.

Yet Ethiopia appears to be a genuinely wonderful place to experience. The concentration of history within this single nation is remarkable—rock-hewn Christian churches that represent architectural marvels, traces of ancient Jewish communities that predate much of the diaspora, and paleontological sites containing footprints preserved in stone for millions of years. The landscape itself offers awe-inspiring vistas, from highland plateaus to the dramatic Rift Valley. The disconnect between Ethiopia’s cultural and natural wealth and the political reality that makes visiting dangerous creates a genuine sense of loss—not just for the individual unable to visit, but for the broader tragedy of a nation whose government’s actions have isolated it from those who might otherwise celebrate its heritage.

China presents a different but equally significant case. Despite the repression, the geopolitical tensions, and the systematic human rights violations that warrant criticism and coverage, China remains by all accounts an incredible country to experience. Every person who has visited—even those deeply critical of the Chinese government—agrees that the nation offers something genuinely remarkable. Dozens of vibrant cities, each with distinct character, a history spanning millennia with visible traces in architecture and culture, natural wonders ranging from karst mountains to vast deserts, and most importantly, 1.4 billion people whose individual stories and perspectives remain largely inaccessible to outside observers.

The tragedy lies not in criticizing the Chinese government’s actions—such criticism is necessary and justified—but in the reality that such criticism, combined with the government’s own restrictions and surveillance apparatus, makes meaningful engagement with ordinary Chinese citizens increasingly difficult. The desire is not to visit China as a tourist checking off landmarks, but to genuinely know the people, to understand their perspectives, their daily lives, their hopes and frustrations. The political barriers that prevent this represent a loss for everyone involved.

Even more unusual destinations hold appeal precisely because of their peculiarity. Transnistria—the unrecognized breakaway region of Moldova that exists in a quasi-Soviet time capsule—would offer a genuinely mind-altering experience simply by virtue of its anachronistic nature. However, the current security situation in the region, exacerbated by the nearby war in Ukraine and Transnistria’s dependence on Russian support, makes even this eccentric destination inadvisable at present.

These inaccessible destinations highlight a broader tension in conflict journalism: the places that most demand attention and analysis are often the places one cannot safely visit, and the act of providing that analysis can itself close off the possibility of future access. The work requires accepting that some of the world’s most fascinating locations will remain known only through research, satellite imagery, and the accounts of others—a necessary sacrifice, but a sacrifice nonetheless.

Cultural Touchstones: Television and the Analyst’s Perspective

The consumption of television and film by those who analyze global conflicts offers an interesting window into how narrative, character, and visual storytelling intersect with the analytical mindset. The shows and movies that resonate are not necessarily those that directly address geopolitics, but rather those that demonstrate excellence in craft or explore themes that parallel the work of understanding human behavior in extreme circumstances.

One Punch Man, a decade after its initial release, remains one of the most visually accomplished animated series ever produced. The first season’s fight sequences possess an unmatched kinetic energy, a fluidity of motion and impact that few productions have equaled. Yet the show’s lasting appeal extends beyond technical achievement.

The central premise—a superhero named Saitama who has become so powerful that his life has lost meaning and challenge—takes what could be a one-note joke and develops it into a genuine exploration of purpose, ennui, and the search for significance. The character has become a pop culture icon precisely because the absurdist premise touches on something universal: the question of what gives life meaning when external challenges disappear. The disappointment of the second season, which failed to maintain the visual standards and narrative momentum of the first, only reinforces how rare it is for a production to achieve and sustain that level of quality.

For those seeking to understand the critically acclaimed television landscape of recent decades, Boardwalk Empire offers a compelling entry point. The series, in which Steve Buscemi portrays Enoch “Nucky” Thompson carving a violent path through Prohibition-era Atlantic City, combines historical setting with character-driven drama. The show’s willingness to depict the brutality of the period—both the violence of organized crime and the corruption of political institutions—provides a window into an era when American governance and criminality became deeply intertwined. The experience of watching such prestige television after years of missing out on these cultural touchstones reveals how much these shows have shaped contemporary storytelling conventions and cultural references.

The Sopranos, often cited as the show that inaugurated the golden age of television drama, demonstrates why it earned that reputation. The series’ exploration of Tony Soprano’s dual existence—as both a suburban family man and a violent mob boss—created a template for morally complex protagonists that subsequent shows have followed. For someone coming to these acclaimed series years after their initial broadcast, the experience is one of recognizing influence and understanding references that have permeated popular culture. The realization of having missed out is tempered by the ability to now engage with these works and understand their significance.

What these viewing choices reveal is not escapism from the grim realities of conflict analysis, but rather an appreciation for storytelling that takes its audience seriously, that invests in character development and visual craft, and that explores moral complexity without easy answers. The parallels to the approach taken in conflict journalism—trusting the audience with nuance, investing time in thorough exploration, refusing to simplify for the sake of brevity—are evident. Just as these television series succeeded by respecting their viewers’ intelligence and attention span, effective conflict analysis succeeds by offering the same respect to its audience.

Related Coverage

• The UAE is Destabilizing the Entire Middle East
• How the UAE’s Regional Meddling Triggered a Historic Realignment Across the Middle East
• The UAE’s Regional Ambitions Collapse as Middle East Powers Push Back

Frequently Asked Questions

Which current conflict poses the greatest risk of expanding into a wider regional war?

Sudan’s civil war presents a greater regional spillover risk than Ukraine. While Ukraine dominates headlines with potential NATO-Russia confrontation risks, Putin has consistently backed down from his red lines due to fear of nuclear escalation. In contrast, Sudan’s conflict draws multiple outside backers—UAE supporting the RSF, Russia and Iran backing the SAF—with the war already destabilizing South Sudan, threatening northern Ethiopia, and drawing mercenaries from Libya and Central African Republic. The conflict risks merging with brewing wars in South Sudan and northern Ethiopia to create an omni-war across the Horn of Africa.

What has happened in Bangladesh since Sheikh Hasina’s overthrow?

Bangladesh has made significant progress under Mohammed Yunus’s interim government, avoiding economic collapse despite bank looting by Hasina’s regime, attracting major foreign investment, and scheduling nationwide elections for February. However, challenges persist including criticism of lax prosecution of old regime members, slow progress investigating forced disappearances and extrajudicial executions, continued influence of religious hardliners, regular mob violence, and a swelling Rohingya refugee crisis with camps now housing 1.2 million people.

Why does Ukraine continue striking targets in Crimea if a large-scale offensive to retake the peninsula is unlikely?

Ukraine strikes Crimea for three strategic reasons: First, logistics—Crimea serves as a waypoint for Russian weapons and supplies destined for southern Ukraine. Second, symbolism—Crimea holds almost religious significance in Putin’s wartime mythology, making it a psychologically valuable target. Third, air defense attrition—by maintaining pressure on Crimea, Ukraine forces Russia to disperse its already inadequate air defense network rather than concentrating systems elsewhere. Additionally, Crimea’s proximity allows Ukraine to use munitions it can more readily spare compared to long-range strikes on distant targets.

Has the United Nations become essentially pointless?

The UN faces severe dysfunction but abandoning it entirely would likely cause more conflicts. The Security Council’s veto system creates gridlock, with Russia and China blocking US priorities while the US blocks actions on Palestine and Gaza. In the last decade, only one peacekeeping mission has been authorized—an underfunded Kenyan police deployment to Haiti. Reform is needed, including updating permanent membership to reflect current global power, eliminating or reforming the veto system in favor of qualified majority voting, and creating better enforcement mechanisms for the rare occasions when agreement is reached.

Is NATO becoming obsolete with the rise of coalitions of the willing?

NATO is not becoming obsolete but rather suffering from decades of “creativity blindness”—the assumption that because NATO exists, it must handle every problem. The coalition of the willing approach represents a necessary correction, allowing member nations to form task-specific groups for challenges outside NATO’s traditional mandate or where consensus proves elusive. NATO will continue providing collective defense guarantees, overseeing military interoperability, and fulfilling foundational security functions. Member states can pursue flexible coalitions while maintaining the alliance’s core architecture.

Sources

• https://www.hrw.org/news/2025/07/30/bangladesh-year-since-hasina-fled-rights-challenges-abound
• https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2025/8/5/theyre-selling-the-revolution-bangladesh-a-year-after-hasinas-downfall
• https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c741qken2wvo
• https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/new-atlanticist/what-bangladesh-has-achieved-in-the-year-since-its-revolution/
• https://www.the-independent.com/asia/south-asia/rohingya-refugee-coxs-bazar-myanmar-red-cross-b2813513.html
• https://news.un.org/en/story/2025/03/1160986
• https://apnews.com/article/russia-ukraine-crimea-putin-zelenskyy-war-92573bf088a9b25fc6a6a317e7cc2fed
• https://www.nbcnews.com/world/russia/why-crimea-important-russia-ukraine-negotiations-rcna203652
• https://www.forbes.com/sites/vikrammittal/2025/01/24/russia-strengthens-air-defenses-amid-rising-ukrainian-strikes/
• https://www.politico.eu/article/white-house-bickers-arms-russia-ukraine-missiles-patriots-stop/
• https://www.wilsoncenter.org/blog-post/putins-crimea-mythmaking
• https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/09668136.2022.2134307
• https://www.reuters.com/article/world/crimea-a-symbol-of-russian-identity-vital-for-putin-s-legacy-idUSDEEA2C08I/
• https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/what-does-us-national-guard-do
• https://www.newsweek.com/national-guard-mobilization-plans-2118224
• https://www.chicagotribune.com/2025/08/27/national-guard-chicago-crime/
• https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/jun/07/trump-national-guard
• https://www.cbsnews.com/news/national-guard-federal-law-enforcement-dc-restrictions/