Today’s conflicts have a characteristic not seen since World War II: no belligerent can yield without disappearing. After 1945, it was the fascists and the Nazis who disappeared. In the conflicts that followed, the survival of the major powers was not at stake; they could back down, which they did on numerous occasions: the Russians retreated from Afghanistan, Central and Eastern Europe, Iraq, and elsewhere. The Americans from Vietnam, Afghanistan, and many other regions. The French have backed down everywhere.
This is not the case in the two major conflicts today:
In Europe, neither Ukraine nor Russia can back down: For Ukraine, it would mean renouncing its very existence. For Vladimir Putin’s regime, it would be a major blow that would put an end to his omnipotence in the Kremlin.
In the Middle East, Israel cannot back down against Hamas, Hezbollah, or Iran, all three of which proclaim their intent to destroy the Jewish state. And conversely, Hamas, Hezbollah, and the mullahs’ Iran know that capitulating to Israel would be tantamount to a death blow for them. Similarly, the mullahs and the Pasdaran cannot accept the conditions set by the United States without hastening their downfall, while for Trump, accepting the conditions set by the dictators in Tehran would open the door to Iran’s nuclearization and increase the prospects of a Democratic victory in November and the paralysis of the Republican administration.
Consequently, all the talk we hear about ongoing negotiations for a ceasefire—which, in both cases, are supposedly on the verge of reaching an agreement—is nothing but nonsense, intended solely to delay the realization, particularly by the financial markets, of the reality of the situation: whoever accepts a ceasefire to their disadvantage will, sooner or later, lose power in their country. We can count on Zelensky, Netanyahu, Trump, Putin, and the mullahs to do everything in their power to avoid it.
One would have to be truly blind not to see this. Just as we are blind to climate change and so many other things.
The most likely scenario, therefore, is not the imminent arrival—in either of these two theaters of operations—of a real and lasting ceasefire, even if we’re going to be entertained by this for quite some time yet. And the news channels will continue to make hay with it.
In Ukraine, the most likely scenario is an escalation of the conflict, with Belarus entering the war, the Russians using weapons of immense power, the bombing of city centers and centers of power, and Ukrainian retaliation on the same scale.
In the Middle East, the most likely scenario is a prolonged blockade of the Strait of Hormuz and an extension of the fighting in Gaza and Lebanon.
With disastrous consequences for the global economy. For even if alternative supply routes are established, even if oil from the region is partly routed through channels other than the Strait of Hormuz and commercial ships through passages other than the Suez Canal, these two wars are causing shortages that will soon weigh heavily on every country in the world, particularly the poorest nations, which have nothing to do with this conflict:
OECD oil stocks will reach critical levels by June; 120 billion cubic meters of LNG will be lost; agriculture is expected to suffer crop losses starting in the second half of 2026 (the Strait of Hormuz handles approximately 30% of global fertilizer trade); since the planting season in the Northern Hemisphere has already passed, these disruptions will cause irreversible damage. Key polymers will be in short supply, with significant repercussions for the packaging, paint, pharmaceutical, and cosmetics industries. Aviation and tourism will suffer from kerosene shortages, which will ground an increasing number of aircraft by the end of June. The automotive industry (and particularly the electric vehicle sector) will face worsening shortages of aluminum, plastics, and sulfuric acid, which will disrupt the processing of metals for batteries for at least a year. Finally, with one-third of the global helium supply cut off, semiconductor manufacturing will be severely disrupted for at least three years, regardless of any ceasefire.
China, Europe, India, Africa, the Gulf states, and much of American industry will increasingly pressure the warring parties to avert this disaster, which the markets have not yet anticipated. No one can know whether they will have enough influence to make powers fighting for their survival back down.
The solution will therefore likely come either from the collapse of a dictator or the electoral defeat of a leader in a democratic country. It is easier to count on—and hope for—the defeat of Netanyahu and Trump, both of whom face serious challenges in November, than a coup in Moscow or Tehran.
Nothing significant, therefore, is likely to change before November. We must, in any case, prepare for this. And we must not forget that other conflicts to come are of the same nature: for example, the one that could pit Beijing against Taiwan, with the same consequences.
The time has come for Europe to make the voice of reason heard.