2026: A world without rules and new conflicts

by Vitaly Portnikov, a well-known Ukrainian journalist, political commentator, and analyst, as well as a laureate of the Shevchenko National Prize of Ukraine

Source: Portnikov on Facebook

Forecasting for 2026 consistently runs into the same problem: the simple fact that predictions no longer work — just like blackout schedules fail to hold after each new wave of Russian bombings. In this sense, the whole world now reminds me of Ukraine after an air raid: just when you’ve managed to patch something up, figure out how to survive a broken system, a new attack comes — and with it, a fresh absence of clarity.

Russian politicians, throughout the years of the full-scale war with Ukraine, have been enraged at being forced to live in a “rules-based world.” And, in truth, the world after World War II was — oddly enough — rules-based, and therefore predictable. The boundaries of influence between the two rival blocs were clearly drawn, and it was understood that direct interference or confrontation could only take place in “gray zones.” 

That’s why the West did nothing to save Hungary or Czechoslovakia when Soviet tanks rolled in to suppress pro-democratic protests, and the Soviet Union couldn’t prevent the military coup against Salvador Allende in Chile. It was clear that East and West could trade with each other, but they operated in economic systems that didn’t directly compete.

After the defeat of communism in the Cold War, it seemed one model had won: the democratic, market-oriented one. It was expected that Russia would become part of the West, and China would move closer through economic reform. It was at that moment that Francis Fukuyama wrote his famous essay about “The End of History,”though, in reality, everything was just beginning to unravel.

Because a chance had emerged to break the rules.

Kremlin ruler Vladimir Putin was the first to break them — deliberately. 

In a new “rules-based world,” Chekist Russia would have had to acknowledge its civilizational defeat. And a Russia without Chekists, if it ever emerged, would inevitably become an energy periphery of the wealthier West — a scenario unacceptable not only to Putin but also to many Russians accustomed to living in a paradigm of dominance. Before 2014, it was unimaginable that a European state would simply annex the territory of another, no matter the justification. Now, it has become almost normalized, and the possibility of the United States formally recognizing Russian control over occupied territories is already being discussed in official negotiations.

Yet all of this could still be endured, as long as there was confidence that democracies would eventually manage the problem and force Russia back into civilized dialogue and a “rules-based world.” That confidence existed until U.S. President Donald Trump broke the rules. And that is a far worse story than Putin.

Trump disrespects rules, I would argue, more fundamentally than Putin. It’s one thing when an authoritarian leader disregards law to rewrite their own constitution to hold onto power. It’s something else entirely when the president of the world’s leading democracy does the same. Trump, who stakes claim to Greenland or Canada or imposes tariffs on the world as threats, is consciously seeking to dismantle the post-World War II world order. And in his view, America’s main rival isn’t Russia — it’s communist China. But China, too, is led by someone who has already broken the rules, at least domestically. Xi Jinping eliminated term limits, a principle that had long defined effective governance in China. Now, there is no guarantee he won’t break other rules, for example, regarding the “cold peace” with the U.S. around Taiwan.

The problem is that none of this is predictable. In a world without rules, each actor behaves according to the situation in front of them. That’s why discussions of a peace agreement for Ukraine strike me as naive. In a lawless world, no agreement is worth the paper on which it’s written. Russia’s war on Ukraine may eventually end, but not because of compromises — it will end because the aggressor no longer has the capacity to continue. And that is better than a peace in which the victim is too weak to defend itself.

This is true across the board. Trump reverses his tariffs not because of negotiations, but because certain decisions harm the U.S. economy or his political standing. Xi does not attack Taiwan not because he doesn’t want to annex it, but because Beijing cannot predict Trump’s reaction. And Trump cannot predict his own reaction either — which, paradoxically, is where his power lies.

We now live in a world where leaders understand only strength and learn only from their own mistakes. If they learn at all. This is not a new phase in human history. It has happened many times before, and the inability to follow rules has led to major wars. After each war, on the ruins, people temporarily agreed on how to survive without total destruction. We are now in that pre-war period.

Yet the presence of nuclear weapons among major powers makes a large-scale war nearly impossible and forces them to settle scores in peripheral conflicts, one of which, through Putin’s ignorance and dogmatism, became the Russia-Ukraine war. But in these conflicts, it’s difficult to quickly determine whose values dominate or which rules should govern. Ukraine’s national task is to exit this conflict zone and integrate fully into the democratic world. But that doesn’t mean future conflicts between market democracies and market despotisms won’t arise, or that we won’t again find ourselves at the center of such confrontations. In the world of Trump, Putin, and Xi, even “internal” conflicts between democracies and between dictatorships are possible. Trump’s tariffs and imperial ambitions have proven that brilliantly.

Chaos in high politics, the decay of our civilization, sporadic local wars, and economic crises may persist for a long time. Very long.

Possibly the entire 21st century.