Powder Kegs in Plain Sight: Why Global Powers Need a New Conflict Strategy
Photo: Washington Times
Argument by Luke Venezia & Mica DenBraber | February 24, 2025
So far, the 2020’s have been plagued by uncertainty, instability, and conflict. Taiwan and Ukraine dominate media headlines as the next “Powder Keg” to global conflict. Air space incursions, haywire missiles, and threats of nuclear escalation validly point to both regions as flashpoints for great power conflict. The two conflicts stress the growing risk of uncontrollable escalation fueled by competing great power interests. While capturing world attention, these overlapping interests with added elements of regional instability suggest that flashpoints exist far beyond the aligned circumstances of Taiwan and Ukraine.
Recent years show that security is defined less by one-off individual conflicts and more through the patterns of instability, powered by great power rivalry. The increasingly layered interests of powerful states and greater interconnection with the world system too often clash with regional power imbalances and unresolved grievances. The difficulty of identifying, assessing, and preparing for multiple flashpoints calls for a recalibrated approach to global security. In the era of rapidly shifting geopolitics and complex alliances, policymakers should recognize the risk of great power conflicts beyond the continuous mentions of the latest news headline.
The Caucasus as a Testbed for Risk Management
The Caucasus is a volatile region split between Iran, Russia, and Turkey with a complex tangle of power interests and historically simmering rivalries. At the end of 2020, a ceasefire in its most turbulent area, Nagorno-Karabakh, was solidified and it was believed to be a conflict of the past. However, the continued involvement of combative ethnic identities stress relations and interests further. Ethnic tensions are the underlying dilemma of Nagorno-Karabakh, but a regional patchwork of allies further complicates the conflict. This situation is exemplified by Turkey’s support of Azerbaijan on both political and ethnic ties, and Russia’s similar backing of its rival Armenia. Both provide a basis of intervention for rival great powers with ethnic connections that can escalate into broader conflict as nationalistic fervor is provoked. The result is a local conflict ripe for proxy rivalry between great powers. This only seeks to draw in broader alliances – the Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO) and North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) – with the capability to widen and worsen confrontation. Both countries maintain longstanding alliances with a potential for collision between the two biggest military alliances worldwide.
The region further serves as a critical transit route and hub for energy supplies from the Middle East to Europe. The global energy crisis adds yet more urgency, as energy prices rise while supply chains are disrupted. This naturally collapses great power interests onto a single focal point, with Europe seeking to de-risk from Russian supplies and Russia needing to maintain its monopoly. The competition of control centers on a small region with large control of resources, further elevating tension and the likelihood of miscalculations between great powers.
The risk of misstep and miscalculation is high. Renewed skirmishes in Nagorno-Karabakh could trigger Russian intervention, escalating Turkey’s willingness to respond. Meanwhile, a targeted attack on the region’s energy infrastructure could very well lead to explosive global impacts, disrupting energy flows and potentially prompting a military response. By assessing potential conflict by regional drivers – ethnic conflict, alliances, energy interests – while overlaying great powers’ ambitions, one could proactively anticipate the nature of these hotspots. This could help reveal how local crises, like in the Caucasus, can swiftly escalate to global concerns. Local disputes remain disabling in their unanticipated power to catalyze widespread great power conflicts.
Russia’s commitment to defending Armenia, driven by both cultural ties and systemic alliances like the CSTO, stands in stark contrast to Turkey’s pan-Turkic support for Azerbaijan and its NATO commitments, adding layers of complexity. The Caucasus is a key energy transit route to Europe, heightening economic stakes for involved powers. The rise of unresolved separatist disputes in Georgia, like those in Abkhazia and South Ossetia, further exacerbates the instability, with Russia leveraging these movements to assert control. Meanwhile, Western interests, represented by the EU and the US, aim to promote stability and energy security, but their involvement risks provoking Russian backlash.
The Role of Early Intervention in Global Stability
In a world of growing combative powers and increasing interconnection of global systems, conflicts are no longer confined to high-profile regions like Taiwan or Ukraine. An intricate web of economics, ideologies, and power interests means the geopolitical landscape may unexpectedly ignite wider conflict. Simmering local instabilities frequently converge with the ambitions of powerful states. Characterized by speed and unpredictability, great power confrontations could arise out of the Caucasus just as easily as they could from Taiwan.
A forward-looking and proactive approach to security is necessary for great powers to navigate an increasingly complex environment; an approach that prioritizes preventive engagement over reactionary responses. Creating regular forums and channels of dialogues for regional powers, alongside great power stakeholders, would reinforce conflict resolution and de-escalation, rather than the primitive alternative of proxy actions. These forums should address the historical and current grievances that foster conflicting interests on both sides. Decision-makers would also benefit from developing early warning systems built into intelligence agencies, that monitor regions for instability through military commitments, economic disruptions, and ethnic divisions. These systems could inform timely diplomatic actions and anticipate crises prior to their arrival. Finally, a combination of supporting local peacekeeping organizations with international mediators that could directly address local instability, while providing resources and experience from global experts. Their involvement would provide a balanced perspective and local knowledge to de-escalate potential catalysts of wider conflict that have been left festering for centuries.
As the decade progresses, conflicts like Ukraine and Taiwan will merely be the first dominos in a long chain of global instability from great power conflict. Regions like the Caucasus unnervingly highlight the potential of local instability to escalate into international confrontations, driven by historical grievances and the complex interests of great powers. Effectively managing this trend of growing risk requires a proactive approach that prioritizes dialogue and early intervention. Nurturing communication, supporting local de-escalation efforts, and monitoring regional tensions can lead national and international systems alike to construct a more resilient strategy to de-escalate conflicts.