On Tuesday, January 27, 2026, the Science and Security Board (SSB) of the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists will hold its annual press conference. Alongside the podium, there will be a model of the famous Doomsday Clock. On this occasion, the board members will exercise one of three options: they will either leave the clock setting as it is (currently 89 seconds to midnight), move the minute hand of the clock back if they perceive that the world is more peaceful than it was when President Joe Biden left the White House, or move it closer to midnight. Midnight, of course, is when the lights on this planet go out and there are more dead people than living ones left to bury them.
The clock was first established 79 years ago. Originally, the focus was on atomic, hydrogen, and nuclear weapons, though today the health of the environment is also factored into the SSB’s formula.
world publishes their findings and prognostications. The clock is a visually useful but obviously not an accurate predictor of what the future might hold.
The January 27th 10:00 a.m. EST (1500 GMT) press conference will be livestreamed here. A list of guest speakers at the event can be found here.
Pattern Analysis
I’ve sort of put the cart before the horse in this essay. But I wanted to start with the simple concept and then more to the more complex.
So, what is pattern analysis?
A pattern is a general concept and means a form, a template, a model, or, more abstractly, a set of rules or a data structure. Pattern recognition is the detection of underlying patterns in data. By pattern analysis we mean analysis of data on the basis of patterns, involving pattern recognition, classification, modeling and statistics.
Ornithologists (that is, those who study birds) will tell you that the best time to watch robins is in the spring. By summer, there are still robins present, but other birds become prominent by then, such as swallows. In the fall, you may note the presence of geese overhead returning to their wintering habitats. In winter, at least where I live, there is a preponderance of chickadees, cardinals, and blue jays. Thus, we can discern crude or broad patterns empirically without any sophisticated analysis.
This first week in January 2026 has, for me as a retired political science professor, been a wild ride. There was a U.S. military strike on Venezuela that led to the overthrow of the government, the president of which (Nicolás Maduro) was kidnapped by U.S. forces and flown to New York for trial on charges of trafficking of narcotics or something along those lines. However, the narrative changed abruptly from illegal drugs to oil, and our policy seemed to focus on pumping and selling as much oil in this country as possible. At the same time, threats of military force were raised against Cuba, Colombia, and Greenland, of all places. It is not unusual to use military force against an enemy; after all, that is what war is all about. But against a friend? This led to a stern public warning from the Prime Minister of Denmark to the U.S.
What troubled me in particular is that you could strip Vladimir Putin’s casus belli against Ukraine and reduce Donald Trump’s justification for attacking Venezuela and threatening an invasion of Greenland, and you would find a common denominator: “We want that country.” “It is in our national interest” to steal that country, and “we will do so!” Using Trump’s logic, what is to stop Putin from attacking Estonia, Poland, or Moldova? And with a wider war in Europe and the real potential of one in South America, what is to keep China from seizing Taiwan while the West is divided and distracted elsewhere? These three scenarios would certainly qualify as a world war.
In order to bring my blood pressure down and to stop hyperventilating as these thoughts ran through my head, I tried to come up with some sort of algorithm or model. Here is what I came up with (and in the interest of full disclosure, I did use AI to help me organize my thoughts. When you are almost 77, you have trouble finding your bedroom slippers, let alone trying to remember what Karl Popper or Hans Morgenthau might have said).
There are several axes to this model: moral absolutism, dehumanization, grievance and inevitability plus a few others that I will not go in to.
Moral Absolutism
Moral absolutism is when a situation is viewed unequivocally as justified by people around the globe. This concept is known as jus ad bellum. The fact that Russia started a war with Ukraine in 2014, stealing and annexing Crimea along with other Ukrainian territory, and then returned in 2022 to carve out even more territory, is indefensible. The General Assembly’s vote against Russia in March 2022 on this issue was 148-5. The fact that Russia was unhappy in 2014 with how the people of Kyiv overthrew a pro-Russian president, Viktor Yanukovych, during the Euromaidan demonstrations, does not change the fundamental nature of this situation—it was an internal affair for the people of Ukraine. Yanukovych, who barely won the election in 2010, wanted to keep Ukraine as a client state of Russia, while the people in the streets looked westward to the EU and, later, NATO.
Putin drew a page from Adolf Hitler’s playbook—the same tactics he is using again to insert himself into the Transnistria tensions in Moldova—by claiming that Russian-speaking or ethnic Russian residents in Donetsk (Ukraine) and in Moldova were being unfairly persecuted. There may or may not be a ring of truth to this. However, most countries around the world do not view Russia’s military solution as legitimate. Consequently, there has been no way to dissuade Putin from his actions in Ukraine, nor has there been a way for a country (i.e., the United States) drifting towards fascism at an alarming speed to stop Trump from what he did in Venezuela.
Many years ago, I heard a statement attributed to Ronald Reagan, though I’m not certain he originated the thought. The comment was, “Democracies don’t go to war with each other.” Despite my efforts, I could not find an example that challenges this assertion. The point is that in a democracy, there are checks and balances, personal freedoms, leaders who act in good faith, and respect and confidence in your country’s institutions, which you do not try to overthrow (today, January 6, is the anniversary of the insurrection in 2021). All of these variables are currently being undermined in the U.S. as American history is being rewritten before our very eyes. This suggests to me that armed conflict
is a real possibility for us in the future. Plus, our overseas policy initiatives are represented to be good while those proposals that disagree are classified as evil.
Dehumanization
It’s one thing to criticize your political enemy for some reason or another, but when you resort to ad hominemattacks you cross a red line. To call the governor of Illinois a “fat slob” as president Trump called Jay Pritzker last weekend, and in attacks of the past on Chris Christie’s weight while Donald Trump is equally obese is to dehumanize them.
To refer to undocumented immigrants in the U.S. as vermin, strangers who eat our pets, rapists and murderers is to do the same. Franklyn Roosevelt was cripped by infantile paralysis. Hitler claimed FDR had advanced syphilis. Today, Ukrainians and their followers call the Russian soldiers Orcs from The Lord of the Ring. In fact, most of them are just poor snooks who got sucked into this without knowing what they were in for. Russia persists in calling Zelenskyy a drug addict with not evidence whatsoever to substantiate their claim. Others in government are called neo-Nazis by Russia.
Grievance
Grievance is a very powerful motivator used to arouse national indignation against a potential foe. Consider how Hitler used the 1919 Treaty of Versailles, with its demand for crushing reparations and limits on German rearmament, which were more than onerous. When Germany fell behind in its payments, France and Belgium occupied the Ruhr, which added insult to injury.
In the case of Ukraine, I think Dr. Fiona Hill hit the nail on the head when she said that during the pandemic, Russian President Vladimir Putin, who was fearful of contracting COVID, secluded himself in the basement of the Kremlin, poring over ancient maps of the Russian Empire that included Ukraine. Putin felt disrespected by the West and wanted to lead Russia back to glory, much as our current incumbent President wants his name stamped on practically every government building in Washington.
As far as China goes, put yourself in China’s shoes. They have been told by U.S. Presidents from Reagan to Obama that Taiwan is part of mainland China and that the capital of China is Beijing. Imagine being told that Hawaii is our fiftieth state but that the U.S. may not supervise or regulate Hawaii. On the other hand, our somewhat schizophrenic Sino policy is to arm Taiwan to the teeth to prevent any reclamation of Taiwan by China. The Fifth Plenary Session of the Central Committee in China is scheduled to meet later this year or next (2027). It would certainly be a feather in the cap of Xi Jinping if he could serve this plump, plucked duck at the conference.
Is global war inevitable?
Russia and the Russian economy has been on a war footing for the past three years. The BBC noted last month:
According to a recent report by the Kiel Institute for the World Economy, Russia has been producing each month around 150 tanks, 550 infantry fighting vehicles, 120 Lancet drones and more than 50 artillery pieces.
An important assumption here is that given the capricioous policies of this current administrarion, Europe might be forced to fight a war on its own without U.S. support should the war in Ukraine spill over the border. And given the arrogance and unpopularity of this president among our allies,it would be a fair question to wonder how much support NATO would offer the U.S. if the U.S. started a war elsewhere in the world. Certainly countries like Denmark and Canada would understadably not rush to our aid.
I’ve gone through speeches by Russian President Vladimir Putin as well as remarks by Russian Minister for Foreign Affairs Sergey Lavrov. Then there is former Russian President Dmitry Medvedev, currently Deputy Chairman of the Russian Security Council, who almost three years ago said, “The world is probably on the brink of a new world war . . .”
In a webinar sponsored by the Atlantic Council, I heard Wesley Clark (General, Ret.) who was formerly the Supreme Allied Commander of Europe say that every single Russian military exercise ends with the simulated launch of Russian nuclear missiles. Medvedev reminds us of this when he warned, “The Western nations should comprehend that in the event of a direct attack against Russia, we will be forced to use nuclear weapons.” Other countries would respond similarly, because standing armies and weapons systems are so expensive that deterrence today depends on nuclear arms, whether strategic or tactical (i.e., battlefield).
The next war will be vastly different from any conflict the U.S. has ever been involved in before. Picture in your mind young North Korean soldiers in Ukraine running through fields, being chased by drones that use sensors to make the death of these soldiers inevitable. The soldiers collapse long before the drone’s battery runs low and the drone does not take prisioners. A Stryker Armored Multi-Purpose Vehicle (AMPV) costs $7 million per unit and carries four soldiers, plus two that operate the vehicle. It can be destroyed with a $20,000 drone carrying a specific type of explosive.
Less than a month ago, the prestigious Financial Times reported:
With a Ukrainian endgame looming, European concerns over a future Russian attack against a Nato country are acquiring a new sense of urgency, even inevitability. In November, Germany’s defence minister Boris Pistorius invoked warnings by military historians that ‘we already had our last summer of peace’. Soon afterwards, Nato secretary-general Mark Rutte prophesied that ‘we are Russia’s next target’ and ‘must be prepared for the scale of war our grandparents or great-grandparents endured’. Sir Richard Knighton, the UK chief of defence staff, echoed such sentiments when he called on the nation’s ‘sons and daughters’ to be ready to fight in the event of a Russian attack on Britain.
The risk, according to the Financial Times, is that everything threatening that Russia does such as missile testing, a new submarine launch, and the severing of submarine communication cables will be interpreted in Europe in terms of confirmation bias rather than as separate, prescheduled events or as accidents in the case of the severed cables, which are currently considered to be acts of sabotage.
If anyone is convinced of the inevitability of war, it is Russian Minister for Foreign Affairs, Sergey Lavrov. In remarks to the UN General Assembly last September, he said:
Moreover, threats to use force against Russia are becoming more frequent, prompted by unproven accusations that Russia is planning to attack NATO and the European Union. . .Those in NATO and the EU who are not only convincing their voters of the inevitability of war with Russia and forcing them to tighten their belts but are also openly declaring preparations for an attack on our Kaliningrad Region and other Russian territories. . .”
Meanwhile, European countries are making quiet preparations.
France’s health ministry has quietly asked the nation’s hospitals to gear up for a ‘major military engagement’ in Europe, with full readiness requested by March 2026.
The instruction, revealed by Le Canard Enchaîné, has been sent to the regional health agencies (ARS) and sketches out how the system should cope if France becomes a rear base in a large-scale conflict. Other countries (Croatia, Latvia and Sweden) are reintroducing the draft and Denmark is expaning their draft to include women.
No one doubts that Israel will sit out the next war quietly on the sidelines. A wider global conflict would give Israel the opportunity to permanently remove any threat from Iran and Lebanon, assuming they can secure enough munitions. An attack on Israel might also lead to hundreds of thousands, or more, Palestinians being sent beyond the borders of Israel to refugee camps in nearby Arab states. Whenever there is a broad conflict, adjustments to national boundaries and widespread refugees are sure to follow.
Other possible variables
Fragmented world order with destabilizing coups, competition for critical resources such as rare earths,[1] and geopolitical situations with so-called escalation ladders. For example, Iran arms and supervises Hezbollah as well as providing material assistance to the Shahed-136 drones for Russia to use in Ukraine. Meanwhile, Israel retaliates against Iran as it fights Hamas in Gara. To show their solidarity with Hamas, Houthis rebels in Yemen who depend on Iran for military support attempt to shut down the Bab-el-Mandeb strait where the Red Sea enters the Indian Ocean, sinking allied shipping in the process.
Whether regional conflicts remain isolated in terms of timing or whether they “couple” together is another possible pattern towards war. But at the moment, the instability in Washington is a major factor that threatens the harmonics of peace. This president’s remarks about Canada, acquiring Greenland, attacking Venezuela, giving Russia unfettered and implicit permission to ravage Ukraine and causing friction among our NATO allies is akin to upsetting a chess board where in a new game, the U.S. might not come out on top.
Footnotes
[1] Rare earths are a group of seventeen chemical elements and they are critical to any modern military force, particularly in the areas of sensors and precision guided munitions. They are also needed in the production of smart phones, tablets and computers as well as green technology. It should be no surprise then that Greenland, currently being threatened by the U.S. has large rare earth deposits.
#Oreshnik, #Орешник
