OPINION — 2026 and the illusion of peace

As 2026 begins, the international system remains locked in conflict. Hopes for a New Year reset have already faded. Russia’s war against Ukraine grinds on, while expectations that the fragile truce in the Middle East might evolve into a meaningful second phase of agreements signed three months ago now look increasingly misplaced, if they were ever realistic to begin with.

The eleventh-hour meetings convened by Donald Trump at Mar-a-Lago with Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelensky and Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu were carefully staged media moments rather than serious diplomatic efforts. Unsurprisingly, they yielded little of substance.

Peace is not within reach, neither in Ukraine nor in the Middle East, and certainly not a peace that could credibly be described as just or durable.

Unresolved wars to emerging flashpoints

Beyond the headlines lie conflicts that receive far less attention but carry equally serious consequences. Sudan’s war continues to unravel the region, deepening humanitarian collapse at home while spilling instability into neighbouring South Sudan, where fragile state structures are under fresh strain.

There are also flashpoints that could ignite with little notice, fuelled by the volatility of U.S. foreign policy and the erosion of diplomatic guardrails. 

Venezuela has already become a dramatic and controversial case early to kick off the year.. On 3 January, the United States carried out a large-scale military operation against Venezuelan targets that resulted in the capture of President Nicolás Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores. The strike, named “Operation Absolute Resolve,” involved bombing infrastructure in Caracas and deploying elite forces that seized Maduro and transported him to the United States to face federal criminal charges including narco-terrorism and drug trafficking in a New York federal court. 

Venezuelan authorities reported casualties and widespread disruption from the assault, while international reactions ranged from condemnation by the United Nations and Latin American governments to cautious support from some U.S. allies. 

Venezuela’s vice president, Delcy Rodríguez, assumed the interim presidency with backing from the military and has offered a conditional willingness to engage with Washington, though questions about legitimacy and sovereignty persist.

This episode has intensified fears of broader regional instability and raised urgent questions about the legality of unilateral military interventions without United Nations authorisation or host-nation consent.

There remains one American voice that consistently calls for peace, yet it is largely ignored. U.S.-born Pope Francis continues to preach dialogue, restraint and tolerance, but his appeals rarely shape political outcomes. By contrast, President Trump often advances positions that undermine stability, yet his capacity to inspire fear gives his words tangible consequence.

The Pope has warned against ridiculing those who believe in peace, a message that lands uneasily in a world increasingly resigned to conflict as a default condition rather than a failure of politics.

A recent report by the Council on Foreign Relations identifies active and potential wars as the primary threats to global security in 2026. Its authors conclude that the world continues to grow more violent and disorderly, that the anxiety over conflict risks seen in 2025 remains undiminished, and that the United States could and should do more to promote international peace and stability.

Such hopes appear misplaced so long as the White House is occupied by a president whose priorities seem centred on personal authority and transactional gain. A succession by Vice President J.D. Vance would not necessarily represent a course correction. The drift towards centralised power could simply become more ideological rather than merely impulsive.

The long year of waiting 

Barring surprises, 2026 will be relatively light on elections in major states, Brazil aside, until 3 November, when Americans vote in the midterms to renew the House of Representatives and one third of the Senate. The outcome could curb Trump’s dominance if Democrats manage to reclaim the House, where the current majority rests on a narrow margin.

The diplomatic calendar includes the G7 summit in Evian, France, from 14 to 16 June, and a G20 summit hosted by the United States later in the year, with the location still to be confirmed. Trump has already indicated that South Africa will not be invited, citing what he claims is an “anti-white apartheid” policy, an allegation widely rejected by independent observers. The Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation summit is scheduled for 18 to 19 November in Shenzhen, China. Meetings of the BRICS group and the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation are also expected, though dates and venues remain unconfirmed.

BRICS and the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation are vehicles for efforts to construct alternatives to the Western-led international order, a process accelerated by Washington’s growing mistrust of multilateralism. For Trump, ad hoc personal initiatives consistently outweigh collective diplomacy.

Within the European Union, Cyprus assumed the rotating presidency of the Council on 1 January, followed by Ireland on 1 July. Neither is expected to exert decisive influence over major strategic decisions. The first scheduled European Council meeting will take place on 19 and 20 March in Brussels, although extraordinary summits are likely.

NATO has no summits formally planned for 2026. At the United Nations in New York, the General Assembly’s high-level week begins on 22 September.

The only truly global spectacles of 2026 will be the Milan–Cortina Winter Olympic Games and the tripartite Football World Cup hosted by the United States, Mexico and Canada.

An Olympic truce is unlikely. On the contrary, controversy is expected as sport continues to sanction aggressor states and individuals accused of war crimes, often unevenly and selectively.