As the world turned the page on a turbulent 2025, few could ignore the sense of exhaustion and disillusionment left behind by another year of conflict, war and diplomatic paralysis. Across continents, violence between states and armed groups persisted, while the United Nations Organisation appeared increasingly sidelined — more a forum for inconclusive debate than an effective guarantor of peace and international order.
Millions of people welcomed 2026 with cautious hope that the new year might mark a break from the cycle of instability. Yet that hope is tempered by a sobering question: will 2026 truly be different, or will it merely extend the patterns of confrontation that defined the year before? For many observers, the answer depends largely on the actions and ambitions of three powerful leaders — US President Donald Trump, Chinese President Xi Jinping and Russian President Vladimir Putin — whose policies are widely seen as driven by territorial expansion and strategic dominance, often at the expense of global stability.
From Asia to Europe and the Americas, ordinary citizens — including millions in China, Russia and the United States themselves — have expressed disappointment and anxiety. They fear that the territorial ambitions and confrontational postures of their leaders will inevitably translate into prolonged conflicts, economic hardship, and loss of life. History has repeatedly shown that while wars may be planned in capitals and command centres, their consequences are borne overwhelmingly by civilians.
What troubles many analysts is not merely the persistence of conflict, but the apparent erosion of restraint. The pursuit of territorial gains, critics argue, increasingly defies the principles of sovereignty, international law and peaceful coexistence championed by iconic figures such as Mahatma Gandhi, Martin Luther King Jr. and Nelson Mandela. Those leaders advocated moral authority, dialogue and justice as foundations of peace — ideals that appear distant in today’s geopolitical climate.
China’s Long Arc of Expansion
China’s territorial ambitions are often traced back to 1950, when it invaded Tibet, asserting that the Himalayan region was an inseparable part of China. The takeover was met with widespread resistance, which was brutally suppressed. Thousands of Tibetans were killed, and decades later Beijing continues to maintain tight control over the region, curtailing political freedoms, religious expression and free speech.
Critics argue that Tibet was only the beginning. In 1962, China launched a brief but decisive war against India, claiming large swathes of territory along the Himalayan border. India’s poorly equipped forces were unable to halt the Chinese advance, and China continues to occupy thousands of square kilometres in the Ladakh region. Tensions have remained high, with periodic military standoffs and no final settlement in sight.
China’s territorial claims have since expanded further. Beijing asserts sovereignty over Arunachal Pradesh, an Indian state it refers to as “South Tibet,” despite India’s firm rejection of the claim. Beyond the Indian border, China has disputes with several neighbours, including Japan over the Senkaku Islands and multiple Southeast Asian nations over vast areas of the South China Sea, where Beijing’s sweeping claims conflict with international maritime law.
Perhaps the most consequential flashpoint is Taiwan. China has repeatedly stated that Taiwan must be reunified with the mainland, by force if necessary. Military drills and increasingly aggressive rhetoric have heightened fears that a conflict over Taiwan could draw in the United States and its allies, potentially triggering a major global crisis. To many observers, China’s actions suggest that there is, as yet, no clear upper limit to its territorial ambitions.
Russia-Ukraine War
Russia’s war against Ukraine, launched in 2022, remains one of the defining conflicts of the decade. Moscow justified its invasion by claiming that Ukraine’s potential NATO membership posed a direct threat to Russian security. However, the scale and persistence of the war have led many to conclude that territorial ambition played a central role.
Russian forces now occupy significant portions of Ukrainian territory, and the Kremlin has made it clear that it does not intend to relinquish control over these areas. The conflict has caused immense human suffering, displaced millions, and destabilised global food and energy markets. As the war drags on into its fourth year, prospects for a negotiated settlement appear dim, reinforcing the perception that territorial greed, rather than security alone, is driving the conflict.
Trump and a Return to Expansionist Rhetoric
In the United States, President Donald Trump’s return to office has been marked by rhetoric and actions that have shocked allies and adversaries alike. Soon after taking office, Trump declared that Canada should become the 51st state of the United States — a statement widely dismissed as unrealistic but deeply unsettling for a close ally.
More controversially, Trump ordered a military intervention in Venezuela, citing the country’s alleged role in facilitating drug trafficking. Following the intervention, Trump claimed he would act as Venezuela’s president, a declaration that drew global condemnation and raised serious questions about respect for sovereignty and international norms.
Trump has also revived his long-standing interest in Greenland, arguing that US control of the vast Arctic territory is essential for national security to prevent Russia or China from gaining influence there. Denmark, which governs Greenland, has repeatedly rejected any suggestion of a sale or transfer of sovereignty. Critics argue that security concerns are being used as a pretext for territorial expansion, driven by strategic and economic interests in the Arctic.
For Canada, Venezuela and Greenland alike, the pattern appears troubling. Many analysts warn that such claims reflect an insatiable territorial appetite, leaving allies and neighbours uncertain about where Washington’s ambitions might turn next.
A Dangerous Shift in Global Conflict
Wars and conflicts are not new to the international system. For decades, disputes have arisen from local grievances, historical claims and ideological differences. What alarms many observers today is the renewed prominence of overt territorial greed — pursued by powerful states with vast economic and military resources.
The apparent ineffectiveness of global institutions has only deepened this concern. The United Nations, constrained by veto powers and geopolitical rivalries, has struggled to prevent wars or enforce resolutions. As a result, international norms that once acted as guardrails against aggression appear increasingly fragile.
A Utopian Hope?
A growing number of analysts now argue that the complete absence of war may be a utopian ideal. As long as power is concentrated in the hands of leaders willing to pursue territorial expansion, conflicts may remain an enduring feature of global politics. In their view, the actions of Trump, Xi and Putin serve as stark evidence of this reality.
Yet even amid pessimism, public pressure remains a powerful force. Across the world, citizens continue to voice opposition to wars fought in their name, demanding accountability, diplomacy and respect for international law. Whether those voices can influence the course of 2026 remains uncertain.
As the new year unfolds, the world stands at a crossroads — between the hope for peace and the pull of power-driven ambition. The direction it takes may well define not only 2026, but the global order for years to come.
