Defense One Radio• Dec 30, 2025• 22:16Interview

Defense One Radio, Ep. 201: Conflicts to watch in 2026

From Defense One Radio

Paul Stairs•General John W. Vesey, senior fellow for conflict prevention, and Director of the Center for Preventive Action at the Council on Foreign Relations

Executive Summary

The number of global armed conflicts is at its highest since World War II, with a shift in focus from counter-terrorism to great power competition and interstate conflict.
The Council on Foreign Relations' Preventive Priorities Survey identifies a US-China conflict over Taiwan, escalation of the Russia-Ukraine war, and renewed Middle East conflict as top-tier risks for the coming year.
For the first time, the risk of domestic political violence in the United States is ranked as a high-likelihood, high-impact concern by foreign policy experts, signaling a significant national security vulnerability.
While the U.S.
commercial sector maintains a slim lead in AI development, the Pentagon lags by an estimated five years in adopting this frontier technology, creating a critical gap that erodes the U.S.
military's competitive edge against China.

10 quotes

Concerns Raised

The Pentagon's five-year lag in adopting frontier AI technology.
The rising risk of great power conflict with China over Taiwan or with Russia in Europe.
The high likelihood of significant political violence within the United States.
The degradation of U.S. government capabilities for conflict prevention and strategic foresight.

Opportunities Identified

Accelerating the translation of commercial AI advancements into military applications to regain a competitive edge.
Using expert risk assessments like the CFR survey to focus policymaker attention and resources on the most pressing threats.
Rebuilding institutional capacity for proactive conflict prevention, which is more effective and less costly than reactive crisis management.

Key Themes

Shifting Global Conflict Landscape

The primary focus of U.S. national security concerns has pivoted from the post-9/11 'Global War on Terror' to the rising threat of interstate conflict and great power competition. Risks associated with China (over Taiwan) and Russia (in Ukraine and against NATO) now dominate the top tier of geopolitical threats, while former hotspots like Afghanistan are no longer considered primary contingencies.

This fundamental shift requires a strategic realignment of U.S. foreign policy, military posture, and resource allocation away from counter-insurgency and towards deterring and preparing for high-intensity conflict with peer adversaries.

The Military AI Adoption Gap

There is a critical disconnect between America's commercial leadership in AI and the military's ability to operationalize it. While U.S. labs are months ahead of Chinese counterparts, the Pentagon is estimated to be five years behind the commercial frontier, effectively nullifying the national lead in a military context.

This 'adoption gap' is a major national security vulnerability. Without a rapid and transformative effort to integrate advanced AI, the U.S. military risks falling behind the PLA, which is competing on a 'level playing field' in this domain.

Domestic Instability as a National Security Threat

The Council on Foreign Relations' survey now includes the risk of political violence and popular unrest within the United States as a top-tier concern. This is a notable development, as foreign policy experts now view internal U.S. instability as a significant and highly likely contingency with major consequences.

Internal division and political violence can severely constrain a nation's ability to project power, respond to international crises, and maintain alliances, making domestic cohesion a critical component of national security.

Erosion of U.S. Strategic Foresight Capabilities

The discussion highlights the systematic dismantling of U.S. government bodies dedicated to strategic foresight, conflict prevention, and peace-building, such as parts of USAID and the State Department. These institutions were not replaced, leaving a void in the government's ability to proactively manage emerging global risks.

This degradation of institutional capacity forces the U.S. into a more reactive posture, dealing with the consequences of crises rather than preventing them. This is a less effective and far more costly approach to foreign policy.

Get started free

Topics

Geopolitics Risk Assessment Council on Foreign Relations Preventive Priorities Survey Global Conflict Great Power Competition US-China Relations Taiwan Russia-Ukraine War NATO Middle East Conflict Artificial Intelligence AI Competition Military Technology Tech Adoption Gap Pentagon Domestic Political Violence Conflict Prevention Strategic Foresight

Processed Apr 20, 2026 yt-dlp + mlx-whisper + Gemini