There is no global equivalent of the First or Second World War, which shows that humanity has achieved considerable progress in maintaining peace, even though pockets of regional conflicts persist across virtually every continent. International institutions such as the United Nations and other multilateral agencies established in the wake of the Second World War have largely fulfilled their original purpose, given that no shooting conflict involving several nations has erupted on the scale of those two devastating world wars since 1945. Yet the absence of trench lines and mass armies does not imply that the world has grown safer; rather, the modern battlefield has shifted into arenas that are economic, digital and informational.
Ongoing armed struggles such as the protracted Israeli-Arab war and the Russia-Ukraine conflict continue to pose grave humanitarian risks, but they represent only a fraction of the wider crisis. In recent years, new forms of confrontation have emerged: the aggressive tariff policies of certain governments have set off chains of reprisals that undermine trade and threaten global markets; cyber-security challenges have multiplied as state-sponsored hacking groups probe critical infrastructure; toxic content and disinformation campaigns flourish online; and non-state actors engage in terrorism that knows no borders. These struggles do not unfold on muddy trenches or across no-man’s-land; they take place within lines of code, through punitive economic sanctions and via complex diplomatic manoeuvres. In effect, we face a virtual world war that demands a fundamentally different response.
Economic frictions in the form of punitive tariffs can inflict damage akin to that of conventional weaponry. When one nation slaps high duties on another country’s exports, it invites retaliatory measures that weaken industries, disrupt supply chains and unsettle entire markets. The tit-for-tat exchanges between major powers over steel, aluminium and technology, for example, have exposed farmers in rural America, automobile manufacturers in Germany and electronics firms in South Korea to cascading losses. A dispute over a single tariff can lead to lost jobs, stalled production lines and higher costs for consumers. Thus, trade wars are not mere policy debates; they amount to aggressive acts that strike at the livelihoods of workers and the stability of businesses worldwide.
At the same time, cyber threats have risen sharply in scope and sophistication. Governments, hacktivists and criminal syndicates now probe and penetrate vital systems such as power grids, financial institutions and electoral infrastructures, to steal data, extort ransom or sow chaos. The rapid spread of false narratives on social media can undermine democratic processes, foment social unrest and erode trust in public institutions. Experts liken these digital offensives to air raids of the past: damage is done invisibly, often without immediate attribution, and citizens can be harmed without a single shot being fired. Nightly headlines routinely report leaks of sensitive data, ransomware attacks that paralyse hospitals and schools, and coordinated campaigns of hate speech that polarise entire communities. It is no exaggeration to say that our interconnected world is under constant digital assault.
Multilateral institutions face formidable challenges in adapting to this new era of conflict. The United Nations was conceived to resolve disputes through dialogue, peacekeeping missions and coordinated economic assistance. Yet when hostilities emerge through virtual channels, hackers exploiting untraceable servers, or financial sabotage launched from offshore accounts, traditional diplomatic tools struggle to keep pace. International law remains slow to address cybercrime, information warfare and economic coercion, and powerful states often treat these tactics as grey-area operations that sit just below the threshold of conventional war. In this legal vacuum, smaller nations and non-state actors find opportunities to strike without fear of immediate, proportionate reprisal.
Complicating matters further is the resurgence of populism and nationalism around the globe, which fosters scepticism towards multilateralism. Some governments now believe they can act unilaterally on trade or cyber matters without regard for wider international repercussions. This trend erodes the trust that underpins any effective global institution. When states cease to believe in the value of collective security, a fractured international community becomes powerless to respond when a cyber-attack targets an ally or an economic embargo destabilises entire regions.
Nevertheless, technology also holds promise as part of the solution. Advances in artificial intelligence and machine learning have given birth to sophisticated tools capable of detecting malware patterns, tracing the origins of disinformation and analysing financial transactions for signs of illicit behaviour. Cyber-security firms are building advanced threat-intelligence platforms that can alert governments to imminent attacks, while blockchain technology offers potential for tamper-resistant records of votes, transactions and supply-chain movements. In theory, a coalition of like-minded nations could share threat-intelligence data in real time, enabling defenders to stand united against hackers. Joint research teams might establish common security standards for critical infrastructure, and public-private partnerships between governments, technology companies and academic institutions could develop best practices that transcend national borders. By pooling resources and expertise, it becomes feasible to erect digital “firewalls” around vulnerable systems and deter would-be attackers through collective resolve.
Equally important is the role of civil society in this era of virtual conflict. Journalists, non-governmental organisations and concerned citizens contribute by exposing corruption, biased reporting and cyber-malfeasance. Transparency initiatives like open-source monitoring of online hate speech, robust whistle-blower protections and independent fact-checking can help inoculate societies against the spread of propaganda. Grassroots movements can pressure elected officials to adopt stronger privacy laws, allocate sufficient budgets for cyber education and hold perpetrators of digital aggression to account. Ordinary people, when organised, become frontline defenders in the virtual world war.
Education also plays a critical role: by teaching digital literacy in schools and workplaces, we equip the next generation to recognise phishing attempts, question suspicious narratives online and safeguard their personal data. Cyber hygiene becomes as fundamental as reading or basic arithmetic. As citizens grow more informed and vigilant, malicious actors find it harder to exploit ignorance and fear.
In the eighty years since the conclusion of the Second World War, humanity has successfully averted another global shooting conflict, thanks in no small measure to institutions that promote diplomacy and collective security. Yet we now confront an era in which economic hostilities, cyber warfare and disinformation can inflict harm on a scale once reserved for armed conflicts. Nobel-prize winning economist Paul Krugman observed that economics can operate as “war by other means,” and that observation holds true today: tariffs can destroy livelihoods, hacks can cripple hospitals, and toxic online narratives can fracture societies.
To prevail in this virtual world war, we must reinforce international cooperation, adapt legal frameworks to address new forms of hostility and harness technology for defence instead of destruction. Civil society must remain vigilant, while education systems instil digital resilience from an early age. Only then can we safeguard the progress achieved since 1945 and ensure that peace extends beyond trenches and borders to include the digital realm.