The world is witnessing the highest number of ongoing conflicts since the Second World War. As the Pax Americana era draws to a close, numerous tensions threaten to erupt, potentially triggering cyber warfare with far-reaching consequences.
The world is witnessing an alarming surge in armed conflicts, with numerous dormant tensions igniting into active hostilities. Some had been frozen for years, while others had simmered beneath the surface, occasionally erupting into sporadic clashes. Now, all these conflicts have reignited with renewed fervor.
As we go to bed each night, we are left with the unsettling prospect of waking up to news of Hezbollah joining the Gaza conflict, Iraqi militias approaching the Israeli border, or the US president issuing a 24-hour ultimatum to Iran. The Taiwan Strait remains a tinderbox, and China’s escalating coercive actions against the Philippines could spark an incident that would activate the US-Philippine defense pact, drawing America into a direct military confrontation with Beijing.
Russia’s appetite for aggression remains insatiable, and its next target could be one of the Baltic states, NATO members whom the Kremlin recently threatened. Azerbaijan and Armenia, scarred by two previous wars, could be on the precipice of a full-scale conflict. Tensions between Kosovo and Serbia remain volatile, while the proxy war between Iran and Saudi Arabia in Yemen could reignite with devastating consequences. Sudan’s fragile peace is at risk of spilling over into neighboring countries, while Ethiopia and Eritrea could erupt into war. The potential for Venezuela to attack Guyana, India and China’s territorial disputes, and China’s confrontations with numerous other nations loom large, each threatening to ignite into a wider conflict.
The world is teetering on the brink of widespread chaos, with the specter of escalating conflicts casting a dark shadow over the future.
A major global conflict does not necessarily need to erupt in a single, cataclysmic event like a nuclear exchange between superpowers. Instead, a more likely scenario is a gradual escalation of conflicts in different regions of the world, creating a ‘world at war’ situation rather than a traditional world war. This would pose a significant challenge in terms of allocating attention and resources, as we are already witnessing today. The United States’ ability to contain these conflicts in regions where it has extended deterrence obligations will play a crucial role. However, this task is becoming increasingly difficult, even without the added complication of domestic political divisions within the US.
The current global order is largely built upon American power. However, the US’s political trajectory is jeopardizing its commitments to allies and partners, emboldening revisionist powers to attempt to reshape the world order. The cascading effect of this potential scenario of escalating conflicts necessitates a containment strategy different from that employed during the Cold War era, when the focus was on competition with a single superpower or bloc. Hesitance in countering one adversary out of fear of escalating tensions can embolden others, further reinforcing the cascading effect. While most Western leaders have come of age under the Cold War paradigm and still view a large-scale conflict between two rival blocs as the worst-case scenario, we need to adopt a new framework for understanding the ‘world at war’ scenario. This new framework must consider the complexities of multiple, simultaneous conflicts and the potential for cascading effects.
The era of Pax Americana, characterized by American leadership and relative peace, following World War II, is nearing its end. The United States’ unipolar dominance of the 1990s has given way to a multipolar world, where power is more evenly distributed. This shift has been fueled by the United States’ missteps in the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, coupled with the economic crisis of the early 2010s, which eroded its goodwill and diminished its ability to deter potential challengers. Amidst this changing global landscape, China and Russia have emerged as formidable rivals to the U.S.-led international order. Both countries harbor revisionist ambitions and possess the capabilities to challenge the status quo. China, with its growing economic clout and sophisticated cyber espionage capabilities, exerts significant influence through initiatives like the Belt and Road Initiative.
Meanwhile, Russia employs a more militaristic approach, as demonstrated by its annexation of Crimea and ongoing military intervention in Syria. China’s economic leverage stems from its participation in the global economy and its ambitious Belt and Road Initiative, which invests in critical infrastructure projects across Asia, Africa, and Europe. This economic influence fosters a network of allies and partners aligned with China’s revisionist agenda. Additionally, China’s cyber espionage operations have penetrated critical infrastructure networks in numerous countries, granting it unprecedented access to sensitive data and potentially disrupting essential services.
Russia, on the other hand, flexes its muscles through military might and its growing proficiency in cyber warfare. Its blatant disregard for international norms and its willingness to use force, as evidenced by its annexation of Crimea and ongoing military intervention in Syria, underscore its revisionist aspirations. Russia’s growing military capabilities, including the development of advanced hypersonic weapons, further enhance its ability to challenge the status quo. Its cyberattacks have targeted critical infrastructure, government agencies, and private companies, demonstrating its potential to disrupt essential services and sow discord among its adversaries.
While neither China nor Russia has yet fully matched the economic, military, or cyber prowess of the United States, their shared revisionist sentiments and willingness to challenge the status quo make them formidable adversaries. The United States must carefully navigate this new geopolitical landscape, recognizing the unique challenges posed by these two rising powers, which include economic espionage, cyberattacks, and military provocations.
Throughout history, disruptive forces have sought to undermine the global order, but they have been largely kept in check by American power. However, the current U.S. administration’s actions suggest a diminished capacity for deterrence. The chaotic withdrawal from Afghanistan sent a clear message to the world’s rogue actors that America is willing to abandon its allies, much like it did with South Vietnam decades ago. Rather than deterring Vladimir Putin’s invasion of Ukraine, the administration lifted sanctions on the Nord Stream 2 pipeline, reduced weapons deliveries to Ukraine, and essentially pledged that the most severe response to Moscow’s aggression would be additional sanctions.
Similarly, the decision to abandon the Trump administration’s successful strategy of militarily containing Iran while pursuing the Abraham Accords, which normalized relations between Israel and Arab states, in favor of a doomed attempt to revive the Iran nuclear deal further eroded American deterrence. Instead of discouraging Tehran, this emboldened it to continue funding its malicious proxies in the region and provided it with additional resources to support their activities.
While we cannot delve into the mind of Chinese President Xi Jinping, it is evident that China is closely observing these developments and making calculations accordingly. Amidst the ongoing crises in Eastern Europe and the Middle East, the Pentagon’s worst nightmare is a third crisis in the Far East, where the stakes are at their highest. A Chinese blockade of Taiwan, perhaps triggered by the upcoming January election there or U.S. support for Manila’s efforts to assert control over its territorial waters, is not an implausible scenario.
In the digital age, deterrence hinges on the ability to project cyber power and protect critical infrastructure. The U.S. government’s recent cybersecurity failures, such as the SolarWinds supply chain attack and the Colonial Pipeline ransomware attack, have raised concerns about its ability to defend against sophisticated cyber threats. Moreover, the administration’s decision to waive sanctions on the Russian cyber espionage ring; REvil, responsible for the Colonial Pipeline attack, further undermines American deterrence in cyberspace. As the global balance of power shifts, the United States must adapt its deterrence strategies to effectively address emerging threats in the cyber domain. This requires robust cybersecurity measures, a strong offensive cyber capability, and a clear willingness to retaliate against cyberattacks. Without a credible cyber deterrence strategy, the U.S. risks losing its edge in this critical arena, further emboldening its adversaries and escalating global tensions.
While numerous actors possess the capability to employ cyberspace as a tool for disrupting the existing world order, this analysis will focus on the threats posed by the “axis of ill will,” a term encompassing China, Russia, and Iran, nations openly challenging the current global order.
As recently highlighted, China has demonstrated a growing willingness to use force against resupply vessels within the Philippines’ exclusive economic zone, creating a potential flashpoint. The cyber campaign observed is believed to be aimed at assisting the Chinese government in evaluating its options in this contentious area. Beijing’s actions, including the risk of an armed attack on a Philippine public vessel, raise the specter of triggering the U.S.-Philippines Mutual Defense Treaty, heightening the likelihood of a militarized crisis involving the United States and China in the South China Sea—a situation unprecedented in recent years.
While Beijing engages in provocations in the Philippine Sea, its hackers have been actively targeting governmental organizations in Manila. Researchers have linked three other cyber campaigns this summer, primarily targeting South Pacific organizations, to the same Chinese Advanced Persistent Threat (APT) group. Recent Chinese hacking activities have been concentrated around countries neighboring the South China Sea, where territorial disputes involve nations like the Philippines, Vietnam, and Indonesia, and amid broader conflicts with the United States over regional and global influence. Guam, a U.S. territory in the Western Pacific housing significant military bases, is reportedly among the targets.
China’s consistent strategy of escalating actions suggests a potential for further intensification. State-backed media, such as the Global Times, predicts “more severe collisions,” indicating a heightened risk of China causing harm to a Philippine Coast Guard or a smaller government-chartered vessel. In this tense environment, the threat of large state-sponsored cyber attacks remains significant. The recent warning by the Five Eyes against the use of artificial intelligence in extensive Chinese hacking campaigns underscores the potential amplification of the threat through AI.
Chinese hackers have primarily focused on the defense industrial base, successfully breaching networks of contractors to the U.S. Transportation Command numerous times within a year. Concerns linger among researchers that China may be positioning itself to potentially paralyze critical U.S. infrastructure in the event of a conflict eruption, especially concerning issues related to Taiwan or Philippine waters.
Russia’s ongoing colonial war against Ukraine has shattered the existing world order, while its leaders continue to issue belligerent threats toward Western nations opposed to the status quo. Amidst this turmoil, Russia’s state-sponsored hackers face a growing workload, balancing traditional espionage with cyberattacks supporting the war effort and probing critical infrastructure in the West. Despite these stretched resources, the Kremlin retains the capacity to inflict significant disruptions through its cyber tools.
A notable development has been the emergence of cyber “privateers” – state-backed hackers operating with relative anonymity – conducting cyberattacks on behalf of Russia. These privateers enjoy state protection, making their actions difficult to attribute and prosecute, a strategy commonly employed by governments worldwide. In this instance, the rise of Russian cyber privateers appears to align with Russia’s overall national mobilization efforts. Russia’s defense spending is set to almost double in 2024 compared to the current year, a move that reflects the strain on the Russian economy and its determination to bolster its intelligence and military capabilities. The increasing enlistment of privateers should raise concerns, particularly for businesses in countries deemed hostile by the Kremlin, as they are more likely to become targets than well-defended government agencies.
In the Middle East, Iran’s proxies have waged a low-intensity war against Israel, the United States, and Saudi Arabia, primarily through rocket, drone, and cyber attacks. Iranian officials tread a delicate line between their ideological commitments and pragmatic regional calculations, highlighting the complexities Iran faces in managing relationships with its allies and adversaries. However, in cyberspace, where the risk of high-scale physical retaliation is perceived as lower, Iran is expected to intensify its cyber campaign. Israel’s National Cyber Directorate expresses deep concern over the prospect of increased Iranian cyber activities, acknowledging that Iran views cyberspace as a domain where it can operate more freely. While Israel has been successful in mitigating state-directed cyber-attacks through a proactive cyber defensive approach, other countries supporting Israel may be more vulnerable to potential spillover.
The ongoing cyber arms race in the Middle East, with Iran as a prominent actor, suggests a heightened risk of cyber conflict in the region. The international community must work together to address the growing cyber threats posed by Russia and Iran, fostering cooperation and establishing clear norms of behavior in cyberspace to prevent further escalation and safeguard critical infrastructure.
The post-World War II international order is facing unprecedented strain, with conflicts erupting across Europe, the Middle East, and the Russian periphery. While these regions remain volatile, it is in Asia that the threat of a major conflict looms most ominously. Asia is experiencing an unprecedented arms race, fueled by China’s meteoric rise and its ambitions to reshape the regional order. China’s assertive actions in the Taiwan Strait and the South China Sea have raised tensions with the United States and its regional allies. Taiwan, under constant pressure from China, stands as a potential flashpoint. The Philippines is also increasingly asserting its claims in the South China Sea, further complicating the already fraught situation. The potential for cyber warfare adds a chilling dimension to the already precarious situation. Advanced state actors like China possess the capability to launch massive cyberattacks, disrupting critical infrastructure and the internet-powered amenities that underpin modern life.
The Korean Peninsula remains a tinderbox, with North Korea relentlessly advancing its nuclear weapons and missile programs. Pyongyang’s support for Russia’s war in Ukraine further destabilizes the region, adding another layer to the already volatile situation in Asia. The United States, no longer possessing the formidable military-industrial complex of the Cold War era, faces the daunting prospect of managing three simultaneous conflicts in Europe, the Middle East, and Asia. Each conflict demands a finite stockpile of weapons and munitions, straining US resources and capabilities.
The potential for massive cyberattacks by advanced state actors like China looms large, threatening to disrupt critical infrastructure and the internet-powered amenities that underpin modern life. In a recent document, the US Navy highlights the pivotal role of non-kinetic effects and defense against such effects in future conflicts. The Navy emphasizes that cyber warfare extends far beyond networks and cybersecurity issues, yet neither governments nor businesses are adequately prepared to confront this emerging threat. Asia, once perceived as a region of relative peace, now stands at the precipice of conflict. The international community must urgently address the growing tensions in Asia and establish clear norms of behavior in cyberspace to prevent a catastrophic conflict. Failure to act could lead to a devastating clash with far-reaching consequences.
