Global Conflict, Cyber Risk, and Trade Shocks
Why Security Tops the 2026 Worry List
A morning scroll tells the story.
A headline on Ukraine. Another on Gaza. A brief update from Sudan or Myanmar. A short video of missiles over the Red Sea. A note about a new ransomware attack that shuts down hospitals or a global brand. A graph showing tariffs, shipping delays, and higher prices.
Conflict and security risk feel close, even for people far from any front line.
For readers who lead teams, run businesses, preach sermons, or guide families, one question rises.
How unstable will the next few years become?
The World Economic Forum’s Global Risks Report 2025 names state-based armed conflict as the most pressing immediate global risk for 2025, with nearly one quarter of surveyed experts ranking it as the top concern for the year ahead [1].
That judgement sits on hard numbers.
The Armed Conflict Survey 2025 highlights four conflicts alone, with reported fatalities in Ukraine, Palestine, Sudan, and Myanmar together above 140,000 in a recent period [2].
At the same time, cyber attacks and trade tensions spread the effects of conflict into every sector. Ransomware groups target critical infrastructure. New tariffs and shipping disruptions push costs higher and force supply chain changes [3][4][5][6][7].
Conflict is no longer an issue for diplomats alone. Conflict shapes budgets, hiring, technology plans, and family decisions.
This article looks at war and global security through five lenses: Economic, Political, Sociological, Psychological, and Leadership.
The goal is not prediction. The goal is a clearer field of vision and a grounded way to lead.
WHAT WE KNOW SO FAR
First, some baseline facts.
Forced displacement continues to rise.
UNHCR reports 20.1 million new internal displacements due to conflict or violence in 2024, with more than 60 percent in a small number of countries [3].
A related humanitarian overview notes that by mid-2024 one in 67 people worldwide lived in forced displacement, almost double the rate a decade earlier [3].
The intensity of some conflicts has increased.
The Armed Conflict Survey 2025 records high fatality counts in Ukraine, Palestine, Sudan, and Myanmar, with tens of thousands killed in each context in a recent year [2].
A Reuters investigation into Sudan describes direct attacks on hospitals, staff, and patients, with more than 460 people killed in a single hospital massacre and over 12,900 incidents of violence against healthcare services worldwide from 2021 to 2025 [8].
Nuclear risk remains serious.
The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists moved the Doomsday Clock to 89 seconds to midnight in January 2025, the closest setting in its history, citing a worldwide nuclear arms race and rising geopolitical tension [4].
Cyber operations hit critical systems.
A United States intelligence community report notes a 15 percent increase in reported ransomware attacks in 2024, after a 77 percent jump in 2023, and describes continued evolution of ransomware groups [5].
Research cited in a 2025 report shows global ransomware attacks against critical sectors rose by 34 percent in 2025, with nearly half of incidents affecting manufacturing, healthcare, energy, transportation, and finance [6].
A separate review highlights the People’s Republic of China as the most active and persistent cyber threat to United States government, private sector, and critical infrastructure networks [7].
Trade and shipping disruptions spread risk into the global economy.
S&P Global describes “conditional globalization,” where more states use tariffs and industrial policy to protect domestic industries, with higher costs and more fragmented supply chains [9].
UNCTAD warns that attacks on shipping in the Red Sea, combined with the war in Ukraine and climate-related constraints, create “unprecedented shipping disruptions” and higher freight costs [10].
Analysis from Oxford Economics and supply chain firms links new tariffs and renewed Red Sea conflict to fresh pressure on United States supply chains in 2025 [6][11].
In short, conflict has three faces at once.
Active wars with high casualties.
Nuclear risk at a historic warning level.
Cyber and economic pressure that reach daily life far from any firing line.
ECONOMIC LENS: THE PRICE OF DISRUPTION
Conflict changes prices, risk models, and investment choices.
Higher shipping costs.
Attacks on vessels near the Red Sea and the wider region reduce traffic through the Suez Canal. Ships reroute around the Cape of Good Hope. Transit times lengthen. Fuel costs increase. Insurance premiums rise. UNCTAD notes large increases in container and tanker freight rates linked to these disruptions [10]. Those costs pass through to importers, then to consumers.
Tariffs and trade measures.
After recent elections and policy shifts, new tariffs affect a wide range of goods. Expert commentary from S&P Global and others describes more frequent use of trade barriers as tools of national security and industrial policy [9]. Supply chain managers move production. That move demands new capital and a tolerance for short-term disruption [11].
Energy and food security.
Conflicts in Ukraine and the Middle East influence oil, gas, and grain flows. UNCTAD and other observers point to changed routes for crude, refined products, and grain, with consequences for price volatility and for states that depend on imports [10].
For leaders in business or ministry, economic questions follow.
How much buffer sits in current budgets?
How resilient are suppliers?
How much exposure exists to single shipping routes or single critical vendors?
Economic risk shifts from a distant macro story to a management task that demands regular review.
POLITICAL LENS: FRAGMENTED ORDER AND HARDER COMPROMISE
Conflict always carries a political dimension. Current patterns show weaker global coordination and more reliance on narrow national interest.
The Global Risks Report notes an “increasingly fractured” global system, with concern that conflicts could widen or multiply [1]. Trade tensions reflect that same pattern, with more states willing to accept higher costs in exchange for perceived autonomy or leverage [9].
Several features stand out.
More actors with veto power.
Regional powers, non-state groups, and cyber actors gain leverage. Each actor complicates mediation and ceasefire efforts.
Greater link between domestic politics and foreign policy.
Leaders face strong pressure from domestic audiences. That pressure narrows the space for compromise. Policy choices on tariffs, alliances, and military aid tie directly to election cycles.
Arms modernization.
Nuclear arsenals, missile systems, and autonomous weapons receive new investment. The Doomsday Clock statement warns about expanded nuclear options and greater reliance on nuclear brinkmanship within a wider arms race [4].
For readers who lead organizations, this matters in simple ways. Political risk no longer sits only in faraway capitals. Political risk shapes regulation, data rules, supply chains, and even digital platforms used in daily work.
SOCIOLOGICAL LENS: DISPLACEMENT, POLARIZATION, AND TRUST
Conflict alters societies even where no bombs fall.
Displacement and demographic shifts.
With one in 67 people worldwide living in forced displacement as of mid-2024, almost every region receives or sends displaced people [3]. Communities receive new neighbors. Schools and health systems feel pressure. Local labor markets change.
Attacks on civilians and services.
The Sudan case shows deliberate targeting of hospitals and health workers [8]. Similar patterns appear in other conflicts. Violence against healthcare, water systems, and housing breaks trust and damages chances for peace.
Polarization and information war.
Disinformation campaigns, partisan media, and social media echo chambers deepen internal divisions. External actors sometimes feed those divisions as part of conflict strategy.
The Global Risks Report ranks disinformation and misinformation among top concerns alongside conflict and climate [1].
The social result is a mix of anxiety and fatigue.
People reduce engagement with news.
Trust in institutions declines.
Complex global stories reduce to simple slogans.
PSYCHOLOGICAL LENS: AMBIENT FEAR AND NUMBNESS
Conflict and security risk shape mental health even where no direct trauma occurs.
News exposure.
Constant exposure to violent images and alarming language triggers stress responses. Some respond with worry and hyper-vigilance. Others withdraw and lose interest.
Uncertainty about the future.
Nuclear risk at 89 seconds to midnight, rising cyber attacks, and warnings about trade and climate combine in the public mind [1][4][5][6]. Many people no longer believe in linear progress. Plans for career, family, or retirement feel less secure.
Second-hand trauma.
Leaders in churches, companies, and civic groups listen to stories from relatives in conflict zones, veterans, aid workers, and refugees.
Caregivers absorb secondary stress.
This emotional climate matters for leadership.
Motivation shifts.
Attention spans shorten.
Trust in official messages reduces.
LEADERSHIP LENS: HOW WISE LEADERS RESPOND
Conflict and security risk place special weight on decision makers.
Leaders set tone.
Language choice can escalate fear or frame sober hope.
Flippant talk about war or nuclear risk undermines trust.
Silence in moments of crisis erodes confidence.
Leaders set priorities.
Risk management moves from paperwork to practice.
Some leaders still treat cyber security, supply chain risk, and duty of care during travel as niche topics.
Current trends show those areas as central leadership responsibilities [5][6][7][9].
Leaders model moral clarity.
Conflict stories raise questions about civilian protection, proportionality, and the value of human life.Comments from leaders shape organizational culture.
A cold or partisan response to civilian suffering tells staff and congregations what values hold sway.
For followers of Jesus, another layer appears, even in an analysis piece.
Allegiance to national interest meets allegiance to the way of Christ.
That tension will grow, not shrink, as conflict spreads or hardens.
IMPLICATIONS FOR LEADERS AND COMMUNITIES
So what does this worry about conflict and global security mean for the next year or two? Several implications follow from the data and trends above.
First, global security risk is structural, not a short interruption. Conflict, nuclear risk, cyber attacks, and trade tensions form a connected system. Leaders should expect continued volatility rather than a quick return to earlier patterns.
Second, effects reach daily operations. Higher shipping costs and tariffs affect pricing and margin. Cyber incidents threaten data, reputation, and even physical safety in sectors such as healthcare and energy. Staff carry emotional weight from news and personal ties.
Third, moral pressure on leaders will increase. Organizations will face choices about suppliers, investments, travel, and public statements. Members or employees will expect consistent care for vulnerable populations.
PRACTICES FOR THIS MOMENT
No leader controls global security trends. Leaders still have agency in response. Several practices offer value across sectors.
Build basic risk literacy at senior levels.
Senior teams need a shared picture of conflict trends, nuclear risk, cyber threats, and trade tensions.
Short, regular briefings, with clear sources, help.
One person or group should carry responsibility for staying current and for distilling key points for others.
Strengthen cyber hygiene and incident response.
Ransomware trends against critical sectors point to a clear priority [5][6][7].
Actions include multi-factor authentication, robust backups, clear incident playbooks, and regular training for staff at every level.
Review supply chains and key dependencies.
Conflict and tariffs expose single points of failure [9][10][11].
Map critical suppliers, transport routes, and data dependencies.
Ask simple questions. Where does dependency on one route, one port, or one vendor introduce outsized risk? Where do contingency plans exist? Where do they not exist?
Care for people, not only systems.
Displacement, news exposure, and personal connections to conflict shape mental health [3][8].
Offer space for staff or congregants to speak, grieve, and ask questions.
Normalize rest, sabbath patterns, and boundaries around news intake.
Name moral commitments.
Clarify commitments to civilian protection, non-violence in speech within communities, and support for peacemaking work.
Share those commitments openly.
Align budgets and partnerships with those commitments.
A HOPEFUL HORIZON
Global conflict trends give strong reason for concern.
Armed conflict death tolls remain high.
Displacement reaches record levels.
Nuclear risk and cyber threats press closer to daily life.
Yet history also shows creativity, resilience, and moral courage.
Local communities welcome displaced neighbors.
Health workers serve in dangerous conditions.
Diplomats, mediators, and grassroots leaders work toward ceasefires and reconstruction.
For readers shaped by Christian faith, that work aligns with a deeper story.
The call to peacemaking, truth, and care for neighbors does not depend on favorable conditions.
That call grows stronger as conditions grow harder.
Heading into 2026, conflict and global security will remain a central worry.
Wise leaders will refuse both panic and apathy. Wise leaders will face facts, strengthen systems, care for people, and hold fast to a vision of shared human dignity.
That posture will not remove risk. That posture will help households, churches, and organizations act with clarity in the midst of risk.
Sources & Further Reading
[1] World Economic Forum, The Global Risks Report 2025: 20th Edition (Geneva: World Economic Forum, 2025).
[2] International Institute for Strategic Studies, The Armed Conflict Survey 2025 (London: International Institute for Strategic Studies, 2025).
[3] UNHCR, Global Trends: Forced Displacement in 2024 (Geneva: United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, 2025).
[4] Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, “2025 Doomsday Clock Statement,” Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, January 28, 2025.
[5] Office of the Director of National Intelligence, Cyber Threat Intelligence Integration Center, Worldwide Ransomware, 2024: Increasing Rate of Attacks Tempered by Law Enforcement Disruptions (Washington, DC: Office of the Director of National Intelligence, 2025).
[6] “Half of 2025 Ransomware Attacks Hit Critical Sectors as Manufacturing, Healthcare, and Energy Top Global Targets,” IndustrialCyber, October 22, 2025.
[7] Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, 2024 Year in Review (Washington, DC: Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, 2025).
[8] Alexandra Lewis et al., “Hospital Massacre Caps a Long Series of Attacks on Healthcare in War-torn Sudan,” Reuters, November 28, 2025.
[9] S&P Global, “Trade Tensions: Conditional Globalization and Fragmented Trade,” S&P Global Market Intelligence, 2025.
[10] UNCTAD, “Unprecedented Shipping Disruptions Raise Risk to Global Trade, UNCTAD Warns,” United Nations Conference on Trade and Development, February 22, 2024.
[11] Oxford Economics, “US Supply Chains Face More Tariffs and Renewed Red Sea Conflict,” Oxford Economics Research Brief, July 14, 2025.
[12] Macmillan Supply Chain Group, “Supply Chain Disruption 2025 – Red Sea, Panama & Tariff Shock,” Macmillan Supply Chain Group Insights, May 27, 2025.