World-armed conflict reached to highest level in 2025

  Armed conflicts worldwide, in term of number, hit the highest level in 2025 since conclusion of the WWII, according to the Peace Research Institute Oslo [PRIO].

The research institute, in a report – Conflict trends: A global overview, 1946–2025 [Siri Aas Rustad, Oslo, Norway] – said: “In 2025, the Uppsala Conflict Data Program (UCDP) reported that approximately 245,000 indi­viduals were killed in battle-related deaths. This was the third most violent year in the post-Cold War era.â€

The analyses in this report are based on the conflict data collected and published annually by the UCDP.

The report identified three conflicts that pushed the death-figure to this height: the Ukraine-Russia War, the violence in Sudan; and the bombardments of Gaza.

These three wars/conflicts are related to control: control over either resources or geopolitical/geostrategic position. In these wars/conflicts, imperialism is involved in one way or other.

The report said:

“In 2025, the UCDP recorded the highest number of state-based conflicts since 1946, with 65 con­flicts, 6 more than ever previously recorded, with approximately 153,000 battle deaths – surpassed only in 2021, 2022 and 2024. This indicates a persistently high level of state-based violence, with the past five years accounting for more battle-related deaths than the entire twenty-year period prior to 2021.â€

The violence that played a role is “persistently high level of state-basedâ€. In real sense, states are controllers of power and strength serving one class or another, and, state machine is the most powerful owner and operator of violence and threat. It's either violence against a collective – a class or classes, or against person or persons challenging the state authority in the realms of ideology or politics or economy or culture or governing practices, challenging status quo.

Now-a-days, a number of states have privatized the operation of war: employing soldiers without the concerned state's insignia – private military contractors. It's privatization of the business of war. With tax payers' money, private military/war organizations are employed to carry on the bloody business of war. In one way, the concerned state machine remains anonymous. In real term, the identity, the backers of the related organization ultimately come to public view, and the business of war conducted with the help of private capital backed by state that pays tax payers' money to the private military contractors mostly go unscrutinized in related legislative assembly.

But, the military force under private ownership stays above laws, rules, conventions and covenants, treaties and agreements that allow these private military units to operate freely – “shoot and kill as you likeâ€, “demolish and destroy as you wishâ€. It – the privatization of war – sounds like a medieval war or war field. But this is a fact at a time, which has passed medieval period long ago, other than a few isolated areas with backward economies, and in a few areas of philosophy, ideology and culture, which mingle together to shackle humanity's journey towards rationality, consideration, accommodation.          

According to the report, in 2025, the 65 conflicts occurred in 35 countries. It's “an increase from 2024 in both the number of state-based conflicts and the number of countries experiencing them.â€

The report noted: “[T]he gap between the number of conflicts and the number of conflict countries has increased over the past decade, indicating a rise in countries hosting multiple simultaneous conflictsâ€.

As example, the report cited Myanmar: five civil conflicts, Israel: two civil conflicts and three international conflicts.â€

The question comes: Why Myanmar is facing so much conflict, and who backs the actors? There're resources to be grabbed, and unsettled contradictions including questions related to nationalities to be resolved.  

The PRIO report said: “[A] number of countries host more than three conflictsâ€

As case, the report cited Afghanistan, Cameroon, Mali, Nigeria and Pakistan.

The report cited a lower number: “Only 16 out of the 35 conflict countries have only one conflict.â€

At the same time, it said: “This trend points to a growing complexity in conflict dynamics with more actors involved, which has impor­tant implications for how we analyse and respond to conflict.â€

The “growing complexity in conflict dynamics with more actors involved†is a serious reality. What's the reality? It's the involvement of “more actorsâ€; it's the appearance of fierce competition for war-plunder; and the fierce competition goes on between more actors.

Africa, according to the report, was the region most affected by state-based violence, followed by Asia, the Middle East, the Americas, and Europe.

The report points its finger to interstate conflicts: “conflicts between statesâ€, which, as the report said, “have increased substantially.â€

It presents related figure: “In 2025 [there were] eight international conflicts, a doubling since 2024 and the highest recorded since 1946.â€

What does this mean? It's [1] a rise in competition, [2] an increase of rivalry for grabbing something – may be rare earth or strategic minerals, [3] may be having control for a geostrategic/geotactical position, [4] may be widening or regaining a sphere of influence, and [5] rise of new economic powers. Cases or reasons driving the wars/conflicts vary. The same is the question of involvement of classes and their political-military power.  

The report comments on interstate conflicts: “This is a very concerning trend […]â€

It cites the “regional escalation in the Middle East, increasing the risk of a large multi-country conflict in the regionâ€, and said: “This trend has continued in 2026 with the USA – Iran war.â€

The PRIO report cites “non-state conflictâ€, and says:

“There were 75 non-state conflicts in 2025, which represents a slight decrease from the 79 non-state conflicts reported in 2024. Many of the non-state conflicts are low intensity, affecting the volatility in numbers of conflicts from year to year, since many of these conflicts only flare up occasionally.â€

The slight decrease is four in number. None knows, whether or not 2027 would push up the number, crossing 79. There's no threshold, as a cut-throat competition among capitals are emerging, and getting increased and powerful.     

The report cited the number of battle-related deaths from such conflicts: approximately 14,500 in 2025. This is a decrease since 2020.

But, it said: “[T]he number of non-state conflict battle-related deaths has stabilized at a substantially higher level compared to the period before 2013.â€

It noted that “Africa was the region with the highest number of non-state conflicts, with 34 conflicts recorded. Of these, 14 occurred in Nigeria, but South Sudan and Ethiopia also experienced several non-state conflicts. Africa is closely followed by the Americas with 32, with Brazil, Colombia and Mexico constituting the main share.â€

In all the countries with sad news – wars and deaths – any of the following aspects is found: These countries are either resource-, especially strategic resource-rich or important in term of geostrategy or geotactic or carry possibility of a lucrative market. Capitalism can never spare any of such places from its claws; and conflicts, armed, bloody, crop up out of these claws when the number of competitors increase, and the targeted booty increasingly turns valuable. When market and political maneuverings fail, the competitors resort to force – violence, organize and engage non-state actors.

The report cites “one-sided violenceâ€, which took “[a]lmost 76,500 fatalities from one-sided violence against civilians […]  n 2025â€.

It said: “The number of actors conducting one-sided violence reached an all-time high with 55, and the number of fatalities related to government killings increased in 2025 to almost 5,900.â€

It cites Tanzania for “the high level of fatalities related to post-election violenceâ€.

It shouldn't be missed that these violences/spilling of blood went in political systems with exploitative relations, with ties to imperialist system, and in class-based societies. So, the class character of these conflicts/wars don't wither away, as one class or more than one class played role, hidden or open, behind these wars/conflicts. Simply naming names and citing figures don't deliver the real picture, show the real cause, and the real actors, and point out the failure of political process. Finding out contexts of the wars/conflicts help find out class character of these, which creates fundamental questions related to the class-based system across the world.

While finding out contexts, the PRIO researchers' observation helps, as they said: The world today is far more fragmented.

“More fragmentation†is a serious development on the world stage of competition between capitals. The competing capitals turn more aggressive, more on the offensive, uglier, and with blood-stained hands. Here, smaller countries/economies have no role other than following one or the other capital involved in competition, if not these countries [1] take a collective stand, [2] mobilize people, [3] successfully handle contradictions between rival capitals. With widespread corruption and brutal, iron fist, mobilizing people is almost impossible.     

The report examined three types of violence measured by the UCDP: state-based conflicts, non-state conflicts and one-sided violence.

It defined state-based conflict as “a contested incompatibility over government and/or territory, where at least one party is a state and the use of armed force results in at least 25 battle-related deaths within a calendar year.â€

The non-state conflict has been defined as “the use of armed force between organized groups, none of which is the gov­ernment of a state, resulting in at least 25 battle-related deaths within a year.â€

The study defined one-sided violence as “the use of armed force against civilians – by the government of a state or by a formally organized group – that results in at least 25 battle-related deaths per year. Extrajudicial killings in custody are excluded.â€

The definitions fail to point out one main actor in some circumstances: the Great MNCs – multinational corporations, or giants in the areas of hydro-carbon or minerals/strategic-resources, and/or markets.

It defines war as a conflict “that reaches at least 1,000 battle-related deaths in a calendar year.â€

The definition doesn't take into account proxy wars and economic wars organized by imperialism. These two types of war may not take at least 1,000 persons' lives in a calendar year. The opposite can also happen. Or, a proxy war, conducted for a shorter than one year-period, having the number of deaths smaller than 1,000 can devastate or cripple an entire economy and population of a country within a short period of time, a few weeks or months. Today's world carries evidences of such proxy wars. The ultimate death-number, after years, could rise much higher than 1,000.

Similarly economic and financial war can take a high toll from a population in a country. In this type of war blood does not immediately soak soil, but extinguish lives of thousands facing shortages of food, fuel and medicines, facing scarcity of immediately-needed and essential medical, agricultural and industrial equipment. In such incidents, imperialism is the sole actor in striking and crippling the concerned economy.

The PRIO researchers said the same: “However, it is important to note that these figures [direct battle deaths, which include those directly killed in con­flict battles or attacks (both combatants and civilians)] do not include the vast number of people indirectly killed by armed conflicts due to the lack of infrastructure, health facilities or food security. Nor do they include those injured […]â€

The researchers find: “[W]hile prior to 2020â€, there was “one large conflict at a timeâ€.  However, “in recent yearsâ€, there's “an accumulation of large con­flicts running concurrently.â€

It's a dangerous sign that carries a number of effects, which include

[1] beginning of a process of breaking down of existing global power equation;

[2] starting of a process of weaking of a number of existing powers, still considered global; and

[3] rise of a number of powers with capacity to withstand imperialist onslaught.

These are like change in wind flows across horizons and seasons.

The following figures from the PRIO report give a lively presentation:

[Source: All figures above are from the PRIO report cited in this article.]

The report, at its conclusion “confirms†the following observations:

[1] “[T]he level of violence is increasingâ€.

[2] “[T]his […] is part of a longer trend and not just a peak.â€

[3] “The growing number of international conflicts reflects an increasing global tension.   

Peoples in countries should be prepared to face the peak.

So, it's found:

• The imperialist military block NATO is increasing its military presence in the Arctic, as the region is turning critical to interests.
• The NATO has launched a new experimental unit – Task Force X-Arctic. Its purpose is to test various unmanned systems in the region; and it'll operate there up to 2027.
• Russia has consistently expressed alarm about NATO's buildup in the Arctic and beyond. Russia considers NATO's moves in the Arctic as a “bridgehead for possible conflicts.â€
• In 2025, Germany planned to spend $10.8 billion in the coming years to massively expand its fleet of military drones. It's part of NATO's bigger militarization drive, in which Germany is in the commanding position.
• There are ploys and plays of imperialist presence/efforts to increase its presence in the Indo-Pacific.
• There's possibility of increasing serious imperialist military presence in Australia, and in a number of island-countries in the Oceania.

No doubt, the world has already entered a stage of heightened tension and increasing military activities, and increased imperialist interventions, in different forms, and in countries it plans to make subservient.

At the same time, the world has witnessed limit of imperial power in the Gulf region, which was impossible to comprehend by many even after passing of a few days since the Empire began its against Iran.

Prior to that show of limit, the Empire is facing a few problems in areas/regions of the world that have cropped up out of its half-backed theory and plan.

This development has two opposite aspects: The Empire, or one of its factions, may turn more reckless out of desperation, or turn more thoughtful to understand the changing calculus on the plane of geoeconomics and geopolitics, and understand its innate problems that include dominance of monopoly finance capital, and questions its political institutions are facing increasingly. There's the question of class force and of forces of different faction within the same class in the Empire.

Engels writes: “Force, nowadays, is the army and navy, and both, as we all know to our cost, are ‘devilishly expensive'. Force, however, cannot make any money; at most it can take away money that has already been made – and this does not help much either – as we have seen, also to our cost, in the case of the French milliards. In the last analysis, therefore, money must be provided through the medium of economic production; and so once more force is conditioned by the economic situation, which furnishes the means for the equipment and maintenance of the instruments of force. But even that is not all. Nothing is more dependent on economic prerequisites than precisely army and navy. Armament, composition, organisation, tactics and strategy depend above all on the stage reached at the time in production and on communications. It is not the ‘free creations of the mind' of generals of genius that have had a revolutionising effect here, but the invention of better weapons and the change in the human material, the soldiers; at the very most the part played by generals of genius is limited to adapting methods of fighting to the new weapons and combatants.  [Anti-Duhring, “Theory of forceâ€]

Now, also, the same. It's not genius of any chief or commander or group of commanders, which would decide the outcome of developments concerning competition between capitals; but developments within economy, shifting of center of gravity of economy to gambling, deep divide within society leading to fatal hostilities, corruption within political process, media's loosing credibility would decide the final race.  

Farooque Chowdhury writes from Dhaka, Bangladesh.