Working for peace in 2026 - trends to watch and the role of peacebuilding

2026 has gotten off to a particularly inauspicious start when it comes to peace and justice. The US unilateral military intervention, abduction and arrest of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and his wife Cilia Flores in early January sent a bleak message, further eroding international laws and norms. This imperialist stance, outlined in the US National Security Strategy released late last year, is not new given the US history of intervention, but it is certainly far more explicit than in recent decades and has significantly escalated as we’ve entered the new year. This marks the progression of the transactional politics that defined 2025, which was also a year in which conflict-related deaths exceeded 240,000 - with Ukraine, Palestine, Sudan and Myanmar seeing the most violence. This openly interventionist approach and flagrant violation of international norms - and subsequent silence from many governments - has serious implications for the prospects of fuelling conflict. Adherence to international law and commitments, including the UN Charter, and focus on addressing the root causes of conflict has taken a back seat to narrowly defined self-interest, not only for the US, but for other players responding to the rapidly shifting global context. Amid these dramatic shifts, and alongside the progression of violent conflict year on year, where does this leave those of us working for peace in 2026?

Military first, the rise of the far right and the advance of imperialism in the West

The ascendancy of military-first foreign policy agendas in Western countries sped up dramatically in 2025, as European countries increasingly saw themselves preparing for, or indeed already in active warfare with, Russia. Pledges by NATO member states to dedicate 5 percent of GDP to defence spending by 2035 promise a bonanza for the global arms industry, but will see trade-offs in terms of spending on social goods and aid. Asking Europeans to accept cuts to services in the name of defence and putting society on a ‘war footing’ is being presented as the only option in the face of a hostile Russia – but there are serious questions about whether huge increases in military spending will result in the desired outcomes amid a failure to consider the negative consequences. For example, the undue political influence of the defence sector and arms industry, increased corruption, and the implications for other social spending all present risks to peace and security (both at home and abroad) associated with the huge military investments we have seen in recent years. This military first approach may also obscure options for de-escalation, the risk of which will only increase should a NATO force be deployed in Ukraine. Politically, it is also a risky strategy in the face of the rise of the far right – who are agile exploiters of social grievances linked to cost of living, unemployment, overstretched social services, and anti-immigration sentiment for electoral gain. A further risk is of Western powers pursuing their own interests (like addressing specific threats to Red Sea shipping, for example) instead of looking to address conflict drivers, where the evidence of what works in promoting peaceful inclusive societies - including accountable governance and access to basic freedoms, equality and services - is ignored in favour of short-term security interests. This, combined with persistently ignoring flagrant violations of international humanitarian and human rights law when it suits – from Gaza to Venezuela – sends the message that the laws no longer apply (or apply only to some). History has taught us that imperialism and blatant disregard for the human rights and agency of local people does not bode well for peace outcomes.

State violence and shrinking space

New research from ACLED found that states are increasingly responsible for violence in conflict, with Russia, Israel and Myanmar leading the way. In a year where many elections are taking place – including in Somalia, Uganda, Ethiopia, Morocco, Myanmar, South Sudan – the risk of violence and repression is high. Elections in different countries in Europe may also see the advance and consolidation of electoral gains for the far-right, bringing with it anti-immigrant, militaristic, anti-gender agendas, and a further rejection of international cooperation and multilateralism. Alongside this, we have seen the de-facto acceptance of state violence against local people by the international community, as perceived state security and transactional alliances have increasingly become the primary goal over human security. The downward trend on civic space continued in 2025 as more free media was shut down, anti-NGO legislation passed, and increased restrictions on legitimate protests, including in Europe around Gaza protests, for example. There will need to be concerted effort to challenge the divisive and racist narratives pushed on the far-right, and to more strongly defend human rights, international law and recommit to basic principles around peace and justice. Taking up space for protest and organising as a primary path of resistance will be a key trend to watch this year.

Multilateralism limps forward

Multilateralism had another hard year in 2025, with the outlook for 2026 looking no better as the US announced further withdrawals from international organisations and agreements in January. This is a continuation of a crisis of principles and legitimacy that has challenged multilateralism over recent years – the UN has been unable to respond to the major peace and security challenges it has been presented with. From the Russian invasion of Ukraine to the genocide in Gaza, it has struggled to act as an effective force for peace and justice, constrained by Security Council politics. The introduction of the ‘UN80’ reform process by the UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres aimed to, in theory, make the system fit for purpose, but in reality, to reconcile hugely reduced budgets. The implications of this, also in the context of the ongoing ‘humanitarian reset’, raise questions about whether limited funds will just be consolidated around the institutional interests of flailing UN agencies or they will shift towards locally-led responses. The UN80 process will signal the last major contribution of the embattled UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres, whose second and final term will end at the end of the calendar year, and attention will soon turn to the election of the next Secretary General. Other policy processes like the review of the UN Counter-terrorism architecture, will be an important indicator of the state of multilateralism. It will also be tested in the UN Security Council and spaces like the Commission on the Status of Women, where those states that still value the UN’s role in preventing global conflict, promoting human rights and gender equality, and upholding international law, will need to show their backbone. The UN will need to assert its relevance as a forum for global cooperation, promoting human rights and rule of law-based approaches, as well as de-escalation and peaceful and just alternatives in the era of transactional politics and resurgent imperialism.

Solidarity, organisation and protest

Despite the bleak picture we are facing going into the year ahead, 2025 witnessed continued resistance from civil society, including peacebuilders, human rights defenders and grassroots community groups, who are responding to incredible levels of violence and insecurity. The role of mutual aid in crisis response and as an act of sustained solidarity in the face of conflict and repression has received more prominence, particularly in the context of the inadequate response of the international aid system to crises amid increasingly constrained resources. While this could help to support more transformative thinking that centres locally-led responses and leadership, it also risks trade-offs if it exposes local responders to risk and undermines mutual aid itself. In the context of severe repression and the use of increasingly sophisticated surveillance, those organising to protest, to support their communities, and to stand up to oppression are increasingly in danger. Solidarity expressed through political backing, progressive funding mechanisms, amplifying the voice and political space of communities and organisations will continue to be crucial.

Emerging and disruptive technologies

Technological advances and changes to the conduct of warfare are also having profound effects on conflict, where the increasing use of drones in, for example, Gaza, Myanmar, Sudan and Ukraine have terrorised and killed local populations. The speed of development and uptake of production and use of new technologies is challenging long-standing assumptions of warfare, pushing production and testing closer to the frontline of conflict, and encouraging its use before full consideration of the potential risks to civilians and the environment. Likewise, the rapid rise of artificial intelligence (AI) has already raised concerns about the potential impact on employment and the rise of mis- and disinformation, which can undermine trust in governance and promote further societal division. Alongside this, the growing entanglement of big tech companies in security provision and policing, through AI-powered surveillance and targeting systems, poses serious risks to respect for human rights, social cohesion and democratic values.

Its implications for the military sphere are also extremely worrying. We are already seeing increasingly sophisticated incorporation of AI and autonomous capabilities into military doctrine and practice without internationally agreed rules or standards to provide safeguards, and with serious impacts on local populations. By lowering the threshold for the use of force and raising escalation potential, these capabilities pose a direct threat to both global peace and stability, and people in conflict-affected areas. As well as agreeing international rules and standards for emerging and disruptive technology in the military and security spheres, a key challenge for states in 2026 will be to balance the desire to double down on emerging technologies with the realities of the limitations of these innovations, including in terms of accountability.

A thousand cuts

The aid sector, particularly peacebuilding, is significantly diminished compared to where it was this time last year, where we had yet to see the considerable cuts that would come – starting with USAID and spreading to donors like the UK, France, the Netherlands, Sweden, Germany and others as they reduced their aid budgets, while at the same time increasing defence spending. Unfortunately, the full impact of the aid cuts is still filtering through, and we are likely to see this bite even more this year across many countries and thematic areas. The cuts have already hit people affected by conflict hardest, and has forced one in four women’s rights organisations and civil society organisations to reduce services and programmes aiming to prevent violence, with many at risk of closure altogether. Peacebuilding and conflict prevention have been deprioritised as donor budgets have become squeezed and amid government restructures and mergers. Crucial voices and advocates for peace have been left with very little support (both financial and political) as violence has escalated in their contexts, civic space has shrunk under ever more emboldened state and non-state conflict actors and humanitarian needs have skyrocketed. This continues to have serious implications for local conflict dynamics as competition over limited resources increases and access to basic goods, services and support for social cohesion dwindles, even as environmental and conflict stressors increase. Creative solutions to getting what little resources remain in to support local responders and those promoting peace will be essential.

Resource competition and climate inaction

Critical minerals are increasingly a key issue in geopolitics due to their use in defence and the so-called ‘twin transition’ - green and digital – whereby these minerals are used for clean energy technology and advanced electronics. High value natural resources (such as oil, gold, diamonds) have long been conflict drivers – indeed, President Trump has made clear that oil was a motivating factor in US military action in Venezuela - and securing access to critical minerals has received greater prominence in national security strategies across the board. Extractivist rivalry is a key facet of current great power competition (e.g., between US and China), and a clear connection can be drawn between these interests and foreign engagement in multiple contexts (both belligerent and diplomatic), for example, in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC), Myanmar, Ukraine, and Greenland. This will drive further interest in countries affected by conflict and fragility, especially given the perceived ‘untapped potential’ of countries such as Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan or in South Sudan where mineral resources mapping has been inhibited due to war and instability. This is often at the expense of communities, whereby harmful practices can fuel corruption, undermine human rights, cause pollution and exacerbate ongoing conflict. More broadly, how natural resources affect local conflict dynamics is also changing due to environmental degradation and climate change, presenting both increased risks due to heightened stresses and competition and opportunities for increased cooperation. Open hostility to policies to address climate change and environmental protection in the face of ever more consequential climate impacts is being met with increasing organisation and resistance from civil society and climate justice campaigners, leading to gains such as the Fund for Responding to Loss and Damage. However, the situation is expected to continue to worsen for environmental and climate justice activists who are also facing targeting from state and non-state actors amid shrinking civic space, including the Indigenous groups who have led the way. They will need sustained political and financial support.

Gender under fire

The backlash against gender equality and LGBTQIA+ communities worsened significantly in 2025, even as we marked the 25th anniversary of the Women, Peace and Security agenda. While there are still allies willing to stand up for women’s rights, the ‘just don’t mention gender’ trend was apparent in its omission from foreign policies through to UN speeches. The rise of the far right and anti-gender governments in many countries has seen significant and damaging backtracking on gains achieved by the women’s movement, from sexual and reproductive rights to the rights of gender minorities. Last year, half of women’s rights organisations surveyed by UN Women reported they were at risk of closure amid the cuts to an already traditionally underfunded area. This is one more manifestation of an organised and well-funded anti-gender and anti-feminist agenda – where women and gender minorities who speak up or engage in public life are increasingly targeted for abuse, and decades of gains are being reversed. Feminist activists and peacebuilders are still standing addressing gender inequality to achieve peaceful societies and playing a key role in preventing conflict and responding to crises in their communities. This continues to be a dramatically under-resourced and embattled area of work. Supportive governments, donors and power holders will need to step up to champion the role of feminist peacebuilders in leading the way on issues from conflict prevention to inclusive peace – providing flexible resourcing, creating political space, and reaffirming clear commitments to gender equality.

The role of peacebuilders

Diplomacy in 2025 has been dominated by attempts to impose a victor’s peace in the brutal wars in Gaza and Ukraine, settlements which are unlikely to bring about peace, justice or stability – and would cement the dispossession of Ukrainian territory, and ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians. We have seen the application of double standards here which serve to undermine the principles of human rights and international law, and the credibility of the multilateral system. The geopolitical turn towards transactional politics and narrowly defined self-interest is also a recipe for greater violence and instability, aggravated by the environmental pressures of a changing climate. Amid these dynamics, a peacebuilding approach can help to re-focus on addressing the causes of conflict and investing in the building blocks of peace.

In 2026, peacebuilders will need to prioritise not only what they can do to reaffirm support and solidarity for those local responders and activists who are continuing to promote peace and justice in their communities under incredibly difficult circumstances (both locally and globally), but also to confront the global winds of power politics that are seeding new wars. Governments and donors must also recognise the value of a conflict prevention approach, exploring options for de-escalating tensions, seeking dialogue, and pushing back on the divisive trends and tactics that undermine social cohesion and ultimately threaten global stability.

Working together and supporting the connections and linkages between peacebuilders across communities and countries to strengthen dialogue, build global and local visions of peace and change, and strengthen collective influence will need to be a priority. Supporting peace will also mean standing up unequivocally for human rights and international law. We are living through a perilous time, where a lot is at stake for international peace and security and basic freedoms and rights. While the instinct of many may be to stay silent and focus on self-interest and transactional alliances, and an over-reliance on militarised ideas of security, drawing away from the world when so many of the principles that are essential to future peace are being threatened, is hugely risky. Now is the time to work collectively to articulate and robustly support visions for peace, and work in solidarity to defy the forces that seek to sow the seeds of violence and division.