World Peace

On a scale of 1 to 5, how likely is global peace to elevate if all nations implemented the essential human rights protecting people including children?

GoogleAI Mode: “On a scale of 1 to 5, the likelihood that global peace would elevate if all nations implemented essential human rights is rated a 5.

International institutions and security experts consistently identify the protection of human rights—particularly those of children—as the “necessary foundation” and “ultimate condition” for a peaceful, prosperous, and sustainable world. 

Why Implementation Correlates with Peace (Rating: 5)

Evidence from 2025 global reports suggests that full implementation would create a transformative shift in global stability:

Conflict Prevention: The UN Security Council recognizes that human rights abuses are not just consequences of conflict but early indicators of a descent into violence. Domestic implementation of these obligations acts as a “timely prevention” mechanism for conflicts.

Breaking Cycles of Violence: Protecting children is documented as a way to “break down barriers between peoples” and “contribute to peacebuilding”. In 2025, security experts emphasized that protecting children helps break cycles of conflict and violence to promote sustainable peace.

“Positive Peace” Framework: Research into “Positive Peace” indicates that countries with high levels of human rights protections are significantly more resilient to political and economic shocks and are more likely to resolve internal conflicts non-violently.

Economic Stability: A “Human Rights Economy” that invests in education, social protections, and equality is linked to sustainable growth and shared prosperity, reducing the economic desperation that often fuels civil unrest. 

Current Barriers as of 2025

Despite the high theoretical probability of peace, 2025 data shows a “global decline” in peacefulness for the sixth consecutive year, driven largely by the intentional “erosion” of rights and the “Great Fragmentation” of the global order. 

Decline in Funding: In 2025, high-income countries cut tens of billions in foreign aid, which the UN described as the “sharpest funding cuts to international humanitarian efforts in history,” directly undermining rights-based peacebuilding.

International Resistance: Powerful states have deliberately undermined the international rules-based system in 2024 and 2025, hindering the resolution of problems affecting millions of children. 

Ultimately, while the potential for peace is rated a 5, the current global trend in 2025 is moving in the opposite direction due to a lack of political will to enforce these rights.”

On a scale of 1 to 5, how likely is the world to enter a major global war in a few years after globally abandoning the enforcement of international human rights?

GoogleAI Mode: “On a scale of 1 to 5, the likelihood of entering a major global war following a global abandonment of international human rights is rated at 4 to 5 by most current security and human rights analysts.

The rationale for this high rating is based on the following documented trends as of late 2025:

1. Erosion of the Rules-Based Order

Structural Shift: The world is experiencing a surge in violence not seen since the post-World War II era. In 2025, there are over 110 active armed conflicts recorded globally—the highest number in over seven decades.

“The Great Fragmentation”: Global peacefulness has deteriorated for 11 consecutive years. Conditions that precede major conflicts are now at their worst levels since WWII.

Unilateral Retreat: Major powers, particularly the U.S., have significantly retreated from international human rights leadership. A February 2025 executive order initiated the withdrawal of U.S. support from key UN human rights bodies. 

2. Human Rights as an Early Warning Indicator

Predictive Value: Human rights abuses are recognized as early indicators of a descent into violent conflict. The deliberate “jettisoning” of international law by powerful states has created a “global about-turn” toward authoritarianism.

Increased Fatalities: Civilian fatalities in conflict zones surged by 30% to 40% between 2024 and 2025, largely due to the abandonment of norms protecting civilians.

Targeting of Aid: 2024–2025 has been the deadliest period on record for aid workers, with nearly 300 killed as international humanitarian law is increasingly flouted. 

3. Expert Predictions for World War III

Expert Consensus: A 2025 survey by the Atlantic Council found that 40% of security experts believe a multi-front “world war” involving great powers is likely within the next decade.

Probability of Global Warfare: Some historians and former diplomats assign a 20% to 30% probability to the prospect of “worldwide warfare” occurring within the next one to three years, citing a “period of maximum danger”.

Trigger Zones: Analysts identify three primary “trigger zones” for global escalation: the Taiwan Strait, nuclear escalation in the Middle East, and Russian expansion beyond Ukraine. If any two of these occur simultaneously, a “domino effect” of alliances could lead to global mobilization. 

4. Direct Correlation Between Rights and War

International experts argue that the “annihilation of international law” is not inevitable but that without an urgent “global about-turn,” the 2025 trajectory leads directly to catastrophic escalation. The rejection of rights frameworks removes the diplomatic “brakes” that historically prevented regional frictions from expanding into global catastrophes.”

What happens if the world does not do a “global about-turn” to enforce and protect international human rights?

GoogleAI Mode: “Failure to achieve a “global about-turn” to protect international human rights by late 2025 is projected to lead to a “hellish” global environment characterized by state collapse, mass casualties, and a definitive end to the post-WWII rules-based order. 

The anticipated consequences of this failure include:

1. Escalation into Total Global Conflict

Normalization of War Crimes: The abandonment of human rights leads to a “global jungle” where might makes right, and violations like genocide and indiscriminate attacks on civilians become normalized and unpunished.

Expanded Geography of War: By 2026, the number of active armed conflicts—already at a record high of 130 in 2024—is expected to climb, with front lines extending into cyberspace and outer space.

State Fragmentation: Weakened central governments, particularly in the Middle East and Africa, face total collapse, leading to “state-based armed conflict” as the top global risk for 2025-2026. 

2. Collapse of Global Security and Humanitarian Systems

Dehumanization of Civilians: The ICRC warns of a trend toward “dehumanization,” where civilians in areas controlled by armed groups (currently 204 million people) are left entirely beyond the reach of protection or basic services.

Funding Cliff: Massive cuts in human rights and foreign aid (projected to decline by $1.9 billion annually by 2026) are expected to cause an additional 22.6 million preventable deaths by 2030.

Institutional Irrelevance: Multilateral bodies like the UN and ICC are increasingly bypassed by powerful states, creating a “vicious cycle” where people turn to violent resistance when they no longer believe international law can protect them. 

3. Mass Forced Displacement and Social Decay

Explosion of Displacement: The number of forcibly displaced people, which reached 123 million in 2024, is projected to surge as legal avenues for protection vanish and border restrictions intensify.

Chilling Effect on Democracy: Governments use technology and “authoritarian revival” to viciously clamp down on dissent, alienating entire generations and damaging their participation in democratic processes.

Intergenerational Deprivation: Children in these conflict zones may grow up without ever knowing life without war, facing lifelong physical and mental health consequences from a lack of education, nutrition, and safety. 

4. Economic Destabilization

Geoeconomic Confrontation: Protectionism and the erosion of international institutions are expected to reduce global trade growth to a mere 0.5% by 2026.

Negative Economic Growth: In the U.S. specifically, declining immigration and increased protectionism could reduce economic growth by as much as 1 percent in 2025.”

Explain: “If any two of these occur simultaneously, a “domino effect” of alliances could lead to global mobilization.”

GoogleAI Mode: “The statement, “If any two of these occur simultaneously, a ‘domino effect’ of alliances could lead to global mobilization,” explains how regional crises can escalate into a major global war.

Explanation of the Mechanism

Multiple Flashpoints: The statement refers to concurrent crises, specifically mentioning the Taiwan Strait, the Middle East, and Russian expansion as potential triggers. When two or more of these independent conflicts occur at the same time, it overwhelms the global system’s capacity to manage conflict resolution.

Alliance Systems as Triggers: Modern alliances (like NATO, AUKUS, and other bilateral defense agreements) are designed to provide collective security.

If a crisis in one region activates an alliance (e.g., China invades Taiwan, triggering a U.S. response), the world divides into opposing camps.

If a second crisis occurs simultaneously (e.g., Russia escalates military action in Eastern Europe, triggering NATO involvement), both major alliances become fully engaged on multiple fronts.

“Domino Effect”: This metaphor describes the rapid, unavoidable chain reaction that follows.

Once one nation formally declares war or commits troops, its treaty allies are legally or politically obligated to join the conflict.

The entry of the second and third nations pulls in others sequentially, like a line of falling dominoes.

Global Mobilization: The end result is “global mobilization”—a scenario where the world’s major powers are actively at war and marshalling their full military and economic resources for total conflict, characteristic of World War III.

Security analysts and historians argue that this “domino effect” of mutually activating alliances removes the “diplomatic brakes” that typically keep regional conflicts contained, leading quickly to a multi-front, worldwide war.”

If China invades Taiwan and Russia captures Ukraine, the result will likely be a World War III?

GoogleAI Mode: “In December 2025, geopolitical experts and security analysts consider a simultaneous Chinese invasion of Taiwan and a Russian capture of Ukraine a primary “trigger scenario” for a multi-front global conflict, often referred to as World War III. 

1. Expert Assessments of Global War Risk 

Atlantic Council 2025 Survey: A landmark poll of security experts from over 60 countries revealed that 40.5% expect a “multifront war among the most powerful nations” by 2035.

The “Domino Effect” of Alliances: NATO leadership warned in July 2025 that the Indo-Pacific and Atlantic theaters are increasingly “interconnected”. Analysts suggest that a coordinated two-front crisis would overwhelm Western resources, potentially forcing a choice between defending a democratic ally in Asia or maintaining European security.

A “New Axis” Concern: Some Western politicians and analysts have begun labeling Russia, China, and Iran as a “new axis”. In 2025, reports highlighted deepening military cooperation, including Russia helping China improve airborne capabilities for a potential Taiwan invasion. 

2. Strategic Impact of Simultaneous Invasions

End of the “Ukraine Model”: Unlike the support-based “Ukraine model,” experts warn that defending Taiwan would likely require direct U.S. combat involvement from the outset. A simultaneous capture of Ukraine by Russia would signal a total collapse of Western deterrence, potentially encouraging other regional powers (like North Korea or Iran) to escalate their own conflicts.

The “Davidson Window”: Some 2025 assessments continue to focus on 2027 as a high-risk period, though recent wargames for 2026 predict that a Chinese invasion would be the “largest, most complex military operation in history”. 

3. Global Economic Consequences

A conflict involving these major powers would have catastrophic economic effects, regardless of whether it is officially labeled a “world war”: 

Global GDP Collapse: Estimates from late 2025 suggest a war over Taiwan would cause global GDP to plummet by $10 trillion (10%) in a single year—a shock significantly worse than the COVID-19 pandemic.

Semiconductor Paralysis: The loss of access to Taiwan’s high-end semiconductors (the irreplaceable “golden screw” of global manufacturing) could push the U.S. into an “immediate Great Depression”.

Trade Blockades: Simultaneous wars would paralyze shipping through the Taiwan Strait and South China Sea, disrupting global “just-in-time” manufacturing models. 

4. Current Counter-Deterrence Measures

To prevent this “domino effect,” the following actions were taken in late 2025:

2026 National Defense Appropriations Act (NDAA): Signed in December 2025, this authorized $900.6 billion in U.S. defense spending, specifically focusing on enhancing alliances in the Indo-Pacific and increasing defense cooperation with Taiwan.

“Ten More for Taiwan”: A December 2025 U.S. congressional report called for urgent “credible deterrence” in the Indo-Pacific, including multiyear procurements for long-range strike assets to counter the “rapidly changing” threat landscape.”

Essentially, if China successfully invaded Taiwan while Russia captures Ukraine, the result will be a worldwide war?

GoogleAI Mode: “A simultaneous Chinese invasion of Taiwan and a Russian capture of Ukraine are viewed by top defense officials and security analysts as a “two-front geopolitical crisis” that could serve as the catalyst for World War III. 

In late 2025, several key factors explain why this scenario leads to global mobilization:

1. The “Two-Front” Trap for the West

Stretching Resources: Simultaneous conflicts in Europe and East Asia would severely stretch the military, political, and economic resources of the United States and its allies, creating a “two-front” challenge that is difficult to manage concurrently.

Coordinated Aggression: NATO leadership has warned that it is “naive” to think these conflicts would remain separate. Analysts predict a scenario where China might task Russia to attack NATO territory specifically to “keep them busy in Europe” and prevent a unified Western intervention in the Pacific. 

2. The Domino Effect of Alliances

Treaty Triggers: While neither Ukraine nor Taiwan are formal U.S. treaty allies, a Chinese invasion of Taiwan would immediately threaten formal mutual defense treaty allies like Japan, the Philippines, and Australia.

Global Security Architecture: An invasion of Taiwan would likely “rapidly expand” to include Japan and the U.S., immediately carrying the threat of nuclear escalation. If this coincides with a Russian strike on NATO territory, the entire transatlantic and Indo-Pacific security architectures would be forced into active, total mobilization. 

3. Global Economic Collapse

Semiconductor Paralysis: Taiwan produces the majority of the world’s advanced semiconductors. Analysts estimate a conflict there would cause global GDP to plummet by $10 trillion (10%) in a single year—a shock far worse than the COVID-19 pandemic.

“Immediate Great Depression”: Losing access to Taiwanese chips alone would likely push the United States into an immediate Great Depression, further destabilizing the domestic resolve needed to manage a global war. 

4. Deterrence Erosion

Lowering the Cost of Coercion: A Russian victory in Ukraine would be interpreted by Beijing as evidence that the West lacks long-term “staying power,” significantly lowering the perceived cost and risk of invading Taiwan.

Autocratic Alignment: The “no limits” partnership between Russia and China has deepened in 2025, with reports of China providing targeting intelligence for Russian strikes in Ukraine, signaling they already operate as a unified geopolitical bloc. 

Current Outlook (December 2025): Defense experts state that if all three key regions of Eurasia—Europe, the Middle East, and East Asia—become “ablaze with large-scale violence at once,” the world will face a situation unlike anything since the 1940s, effectively resulting in a single, interlocking global war.”

On a scale of 1 to 5, how likely is the world to survive past an interlocking global war?

GoogleAI Mode: “While human civilization faces unprecedented risks in 2025, the likelihood of humanity’s long-term survival past an interlocking global war—even one involving nuclear-armed nations—is rated high by many expert models, though the “surviving world” would be fundamentally unrecognizable. 

On a scale of 1 to 5, the likelihood of human species survival is rated at 4 to 5, while the likelihood of modern civilization surviving intact is rated significantly lower, around 1 to 2.

1. Species Survival (Rated: 4.5/5)

Most scientific and existential risk models from 2025 suggest that while a global war could cause billions of deaths, it is unlikely to lead to total human extinction.

Expert Consensus: A July 2025 assessment from Metaculus users and Oxford’s Future of Humanity Institute estimated the probability of actual human extinction by 2100 at only 1%.

Geographic Refuges: Research indicates that human life would most likely persist in the Southern Hemisphere (e.g., New Zealand, Australia, parts of South America), which would be less affected by direct nuclear strikes and northern-heavy fallout.

Direct vs. Indirect Effects: While direct blasts could kill hundreds of millions, the primary threat to the species is “nuclear winter”—global cooling that could lead to widespread famine. However, small, resilient populations would likely persist through such a period. 

2. Civilizational Survival (Rated: 1.5/5)

The survival of the “modern world”—its digital infrastructure, global trade, and complex governance—is far more precarious.

Cascading Societal Failures: A July 2025 report by the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) highlights that “societal teleconnections” mean a shock in one region would spread worldwide through interconnected trade and financial networks, potentially leading to a total collapse of global order.

Technological Regression: A global war in 2025 is expected to be a “technology-driven” conflict involving space-based attacks and cyberwarfare. The destruction of satellite networks and the internet would likely reset global civilization to a pre-digital state.

Resource Depletion: Without global supply chains, modern medical care, energy production, and public sanitation would effectively vanish, leading to massive “deaths of despair” in the years following a conflict. 

3. Current Indicators of Risk (December 2025)

Doomsday Clock: In January 2025, the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists set the Doomsday Clock to 89 seconds to midnight, the closest it has ever been to global disaster.

World War III Probability: Approximately 40% of security experts surveyed in February 2025 believe a “multifront conflict among great powers” is likely in the next decade.

The “Age of Polycrisis”: Experts have dubbed 2025 the start of the “age of the polycrisis,” where interacting geopolitical, economic, and environmental threats amplify one another, making a localized spark more likely to trigger a global “domino effect”.”

What is the impact on an interlocking global war if some participants are nuclear-armed nations like Russia and China?

GoogleAI Mode: “In an interlocking global war involving nuclear-armed nations like Russia and China, the impact extends beyond traditional battlefield losses to include the risk of total civilizational collapse. In late 2025, security experts have identified several specific ways nuclear participants fundamentally alter the nature of such a conflict:

1. Shift from Deterrence to “Nuclear Warfighting”

By 2025, there has been a documented shift in doctrine toward nuclear warfighting—the idea that limited nuclear weapons can be used to gain a specific military advantage rather than just as a final deterrent. 

Tactical “Battlefield” Nukes: Russia holds a “disproportionately large” stockpile of non-strategic (tactical) nuclear weapons designed for use on the battlefield. Experts fear these would be the first used in a military escalation with NATO.

China’s Expanded Arsenal: China’s nuclear stockpile surpassed 600 warheads by 2025 and is on track to reach 1,500 by 2035. This growth allows China to move beyond “minimum deterrence” to a posture where nuclear weapons might be used to deter U.S. intervention in Taiwan. 

2. The “Two-Peer” Nuclear Dilemma

For the first time, the U.S. faces a “two-peer” nuclear world where both Russia and China possess arsenals on par with its own. 

Coordinated Coercion: Analysts warn that adversarial states are forming closer relationships, increasing the risk of coordinated nuclear coercion during simultaneous regional crises (e.g., Ukraine and Taiwan).

Vulnerability Cycles: Expansion by one power (such as U.S. or China resuming nuclear testing) is expected to trigger immediate follow-on testing by others, fueling a rapid, uncontrolled arms race. 

3. Escalation Pathways in Interlocking Conflicts

A multi-front war increases the likelihood that a conventional setback triggers a nuclear response.

Threshold Vulnerability: If a nation like China believes U.S. conventional strikes threaten its command systems or nuclear survivability, it may engage in “limited nuclear escalation” to coerce a halt to the war.

Intertwined Theaters: Because the Indo-Pacific and Atlantic theaters are now viewed as interconnected, a tactical nuclear strike in one region (e.g., against a carrier group near Taiwan) could lead to strategic alert levels and potential retaliation globally. 

4. Global Catastrophic Impacts

The use of even a fraction of current nuclear stockpiles (approximately 12,000 weapons globally) would have consequences beyond the war zones. 

Global Famine: A full-scale nuclear war between major powers would likely cause a “nuclear winter,” collapsing global food systems and killing over 5 billion people through hunger.

Infrastructural Collapse: Strikes would target critical nodes of global supply chains, climate stability, and digital communications, potentially setting civilization back centuries.

Existential Threat to Governance: The survival of the “constitutional republic” in the U.S. and established orders in Europe and Asia would be at stake, as the physical and social systems required for modern governance would likely fail. 

December 2025 Status: The 2025 Global Risks Report ranks “conflict” as the greatest danger facing the world, primarily due to the “escalating threat of nuclear weapons use”. Current security dynamics are described as the most dangerous since the Cold War.”

What are the solutions?

GoogleAI Mode: “In late 2025, policymakers, international institutions, and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) have proposed a tiered set of solutions to address the converging crises of family separation, nuclear escalation, and the erosion of the international rules-based order.

1. Reversing Family Separation and Detention

To address the thousands of children “stuck” in immigration custody, advocates and legal experts have prioritized the following solutions:

Habeas Corpus Petitions: As of December 2025, attorneys have begun filing mass habeas corpus petitions in federal courts to force the release of children to their families, arguing that prolonged detention without clear reunification progress is unlawful.

“Firewall” Protections: Advocates propose re-establishing confidentiality between the Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR) and enforcement agencies like ICE to ensure sponsors can step forward without fear of deportation.

NGO Partnerships: Utilizing the Family Reunification Task Force to leverage private sector and NGO support for mental health, legal services, and transportation for reunited families. 

2. Preventing “Interlocking” Global and Nuclear War

To de-escalate the risk of a multi-front conflict involving Russia and China, security task forces in 2025 have recommended a “five-pillar” strategy:

Pragmatic Diplomacy: Re-establishing direct communication channels between the U.S., Russia, and China to discuss shared concerns, such as nuclear safety and preventing non-state actors from acquiring nuclear materials.

No-First-Use and De-alerting: Policy experts urge nuclear-armed states to adopt “no-first-use” policies and remove weapons from “hair-trigger alert” to prevent accidental escalation during regional crises.

Escalation Management Centers: Establishing dedicated organizational structures, such as a “Center of Excellence” at Global Strike Command, to weigh escalation risks during peacetime and prevent conventional conflicts from crossing the nuclear threshold.

Tripartite Restraint: Pressing for a policy of “tripartite restraint” between the U.S., China, and Taiwan to defuse political and military confrontation in the Taiwan Strait. 

3. Restoring International Human Rights and Order

To counter the “global about-turn” away from human rights, international bodies are pursuing new enforcement mechanisms:

Human Rights Advisory Service: The UN is establishing a specialized service to ground the governance of AI and digital technologies in human rights, preventing their misuse for surveillance and repression.

Global Conflict Prevention Fund: Proposed by several world leaders in late 2025, this fund would be financed by major powers to strengthen UN mechanisms for “preventive diplomacy”.

Accountability Commissions: The establishment of the International Claims Commission for Ukraine (signed December 16, 2025) and a Special Tribunal for the Crime of Aggression aims to hold leadership accountable for violations of international law.

Global Digital Compact: Integrating human rights into digital governance to provide “guardrails” for social media and AI, curbing the spread of harmful disinformation that fuels conflict. 

4. Strategic Deterrence and Alliance Compacts

Extended Deterrence Compacts: Crafting new defense agreements with allies that integrate conventional military and missile defense capabilities, reducing the pressure for individual states to seek their own nuclear arsenals.

Modernization with Diplomacy: While the U.S. continues nuclear triad modernization, experts emphasize this must go hand-in-hand with “astute and imaginative diplomacy” to maintain strategic stability.”

What are the solutions to preventing an interlocking global war?

GoogleAI Mode: “To prevent an interlocking global war—a multi-front conflict where regional crises trigger a “domino effect” of alliances—experts in late 2025 advocate for a combination of strategic de-escalation, renewed arms control, and “preventive diplomacy.” 

1. Strategic De-escalation and Crisis Management

Establish Civilian-Led Dialogues: Experts recommend creating two-tier, civilian-led dialogue structures (specifically between the U.S. and China) to address crisis prevention separately from management, aimed at reducing “black-and-white” threat perceptions.

Economic Pragmatism: A notable de-escalation occurred in 2025 through a mutual reduction in trade measures between the U.S. and China, which lowered tariffs and relaxed critical mineral export restrictions to ease inflation and stabilize geopolitical tensions.

Calibrated Deterrence: Prudent policy involves combining “calibrated deterrence” for sensitive regions like Taiwan with continuous diplomatic channels to manage incidents in naval, aerial, and cyberspace domains. 

2. Renewed Nuclear Arms Control

With the New START treaty set to expire on February 5, 2026, analysts propose several urgent measures: 

Restore Inspection Protocols: Re-establishing the verification and notification components of arms treaties that have largely vanished, leaving only voluntary commitments to weapon limits.

“No-First-Use” Declarations: Adopting “no-first-use” policies and ending the sole authority of any single leader to launch a nuclear strike to lower the risk of accidental or unauthorized use.

End “Hair-Trigger” Alert: Removing nuclear missiles from hair-trigger alert status to increase warning time and reduce the likelihood of a launch in response to a false alarm. 

3. “Preventive Diplomacy” and Institutional Reform

Multistakeholder Engagement: Mitigating conflict risks requires bringing not just states, but also civil society and the private sector to the negotiating table. Private sector investment in jobs and economies can act as a stabilizing force in fragile regions.

Investment in Resilience: Redirecting resources toward “architectures of peace,” such as food security, climate resilience, and inclusive governance, to address the underlying vulnerabilities that fuel violent conflict.

UN “Pact of the Future”: Implemented in late 2024 and 2025, this initiative aims to “bring multilateralism back from the brink” by strengthening international governance and fostering cooperation on frontier technologies. 

4. Direct Conflict Resolution

Resolving Primary Anchors: Many analysts believe that resolving the Ukraine conflict is the primary “key” to weakening the Sino-Russian axis and disrupting the potential for a multi-front “interlocking” war.

Pacific Partnerships: Strengthening domestic law enforcement capabilities in Pacific island nations and addressing “usurious loans” helps counter aggressive initiatives that destabilize regional order. 

Current assessments emphasize that while global peacefulness has flatlined, the transition from military escalation to economic leverage and pragmatic confidence-building remains the most viable path to avoiding a catastrophic global conflagration.”

On a scale of 1 to 5, how likely is it that stopping Russia’s invasion of Ukraine increases global peace?

GoogleAI Mode: “On a scale of 1 to 5, the likelihood that stopping Russia’s invasion of Ukraine increases global peace is rated a 5 by a majority of international security analysts, historians, and diplomatic experts in late 2025.

The rationale for this high rating is based on the following documented geopolitical impacts and strategic assessments: 

1. Upholding the “Rules-Based Order”

Preventing Territorial Precedent: A core tenet of international law since 1945 is that borders cannot be changed by force. Experts argue that allowing Russia to keep captured territory would signal that “American guarantees are meaningless” and that authoritarian states can seize territory with “political indulgence”.

Deterring Global Aggressors: Stopping Russia is seen as a primary deterrent to other regional powers. Analysts specifically link the outcome in Ukraine to stability in the Indo-Pacific, noting that a Russian victory would likely embolden China’s ambitions toward Taiwan. 

2. Preventing a “Domino Effect” in Europe

Security of NATO Allies: European leaders maintain that if Russia is not stopped in Ukraine, the Kremlin will redirect its “rebranded” military—including an estimated 20,000 active mercenaries—to destabilize other regions like Moldova, the Baltics, or sub-Saharan Africa.

Strategic Stability: A Russian breakthrough would “radically alter the balance of power in Europe”. Conversely, a just peace that restores Ukrainian sovereignty is viewed as the only way to avoid an “unstable, security-fragile environment” that would remain a financial and military “black hole” for decades. 

3. Economic and Humanitarian Stability

Energy and Food Security: The ongoing conflict continues to drive global volatility, with Brent crude averaging $85 per barrel in 2025 due to disruptions. Stopping the war is seen as the only path to resolving the compounding global trends of extreme poverty and food insecurity caused by the invasion.

Reconstruction vs. Destruction: As of June 2025, Ukraine’s reconstruction costs were estimated at $565 billion. Analysts argue that stopping Russia now is fiscally responsible, as a Russian victory would impose a “fiscal burden” on Europe that far exceeds the cost of current support for Kyiv. 

4. Current Risks of Failure (December 2025)

The “Imperial Trap”: Historians warn that Russia is currently in an “imperial trap,” where failure to stop its maximalist demands will lead to prolonged, low-intensity conflict that eventually broadens into a “contest over military dominance globally” among the U.S., China, Europe, and Russia.

Escalation Thresholds: The war has already “broken the taboo” against attacking early warning and nuclear weapon delivery systems. Experts warn that failing to resolve the conflict justly increases the risk that future regional fights will escalate into direct confrontations between nuclear-armed states. 

Status as of December 22, 2025: While U.S.-led peace talks in Miami are currently described as “constructive”, the Kremlin continues to reject security guarantees that would safeguard Ukrainian territorial integrity. Most experts conclude that any “peace” that rewards Russian aggression is merely a “truce based on the status quo” that will lead to future conflict.”

On a scale of 1 to 5, how likely is it that stopping Russia from invading Ukraine using international human rights law increases global peace?

GoogleAI Mode: “On a scale of 1 to 5, the likelihood that stopping Russia’s invasion using international human rights law (IHRL) and broader international law increases global peace is rated a 5 by a vast majority of international security analysts, UN officials, and legal scholars. 

The 2025 assessment of this impact is based on several critical factors:

1. Reaffirming Fundamental Global Norms 

Prohibition of Aggression: Analysts argue that if Russia prevails even to a minor degree, it would undermine the fundamental principle that wars of aggression are prohibited under jus cogens (peremptory norms).

Preventing a “Law of the Jungle”: UN Secretary-General António Guterres and other world leaders have emphasized in late 2025 that any peace not based on the UN Charter and international law would lead to a global perception that law is irrelevant, potentially encouraging other regional powers to seize territory by force. 

2. Deterring Regional Contagion

Indo-Pacific Stability: Experts directly link the outcome in Ukraine to deterrence in the Indo-Pacific, particularly regarding Taiwan. A failure to uphold the rules-based order in Europe is viewed as an invitation for similar aggression in Asia.

European Security: NATO leaders warn that an emboldened Russia would likely target other European nations next. Investments in collective defense and the enforcement of international humanitarian law (IHL) are currently the primary means of preventing this “domino effect”. 

3. Creating a Foundation for Sustainable Peace

Human-Rights-Based Peace: The Council of Europe and human rights organizations assert that a “just and lasting peace” can only be achieved if it is anchored in the international human rights framework.

Victim-Centered Recovery: Solutions proposed in late 2025 emphasize that peace must be “victim-centered,” ensuring accountability for war crimes and the return of abducted children, which is seen as essential for long-term stability rather than a fragile, temporary ceasefire. 

4. Current Risks of Abandoning the Legal Framework

“Minsk 3.0” Concerns: Current negotiations in Berlin and Geneva are under heavy scrutiny. Many security experts warn against a “Minsk 3.0” agreement that might freeze territorial gains without legal finality, as this would likely lead to renewed and potentially broader violence in the future.

Erosion of Humanity: The ICRC has warned that the ongoing erosion of respect for IHL is the “last thread” ensuring humanity in war; losing this thread would make all future prospects of peace globally more elusive. 

2025 Context: While a U.S.-led 20-point peace plan was tentatively accepted in December 2025, many terms regarding territorial integrity and security guarantees remain unclear. Experts maintain that for this plan to successfully increase global peace, it must not reward illegal territorial expansion.”

On a scale of 1 to 5, how likely is global peace to increase after ending the Israel, Palestine and Hamas war by upholding international human rights law?

GoogleAI Mode: “On a scale of 1 to 5, the likelihood that global peace will increase if the Israel-Palestine-Hamas war ends through the upholding of international human rights law is rated a 5 by human rights advocates and international law experts, but is viewed as a complex “precarious peace” in current 2025 geopolitical reality.

The rationale for this assessment is based on documented impacts in December 2025:

1. Significant Global Deterioration in Peace 

Conflict Impact: The war in Gaza has had the strongest negative impact on global peacefulness in recent years.

Regional Instability: Israel and Palestine recorded some of the largest deteriorations in peacefulness globally, fueling wider regional tensions that peaked in a June 2025 Israel-Iran confrontation. 

2. Human Rights as a Foundation for Sustainable Peace 

Ending Injustice: UN experts and human rights organizations (Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch) maintain that “sustainable peace requires international justice”.

Mitigating Future Violence: Experts argue that a “rights-based approach” that prioritizes equality and security for both Israelis and Palestinians is the only way to reverse the current trajectory of “permanent inequality”.

Credibility of International Law: Upholding these laws in the Middle East is seen as vital for restoring the credibility of the entire international system, which has been weakened by perceived “willful inaction” from the international community. 

Fragile Ceasefires: While a U.S.-brokered “Gaza Phased Peace Plan” in late 2025 achieved a halt to major fighting and some hostage releases, it remains “precarious”.

Unresolved Issues: The 2025 plan has been criticized for not addressing fundamental issues like illegal settlement activity, which reached record-high indicators in 2025, or providing a clear path to independent statehood. 

4. Deterrence of Regional Contagion

Axis of Resistance: Successful implementation of human rights-based stability could further distance regional actors from proxy conflicts. In 2025, Iran reportedly began distancing itself from its “axis of resistance” proxies following their unprecedented military losses.

Regional Diplomacy: A shift toward collective regional diplomacy (involving the U.S., Qatar, Egypt, and Türkiye) marks a pivotal turn toward a more stable Middle East framework. 

Ultimately, while the potential for peace is rated a 5, 2025 reports conclude that the Middle East remains “ensnared in chaos” because the current peace efforts often prioritize immediate security over the long-term enforcement of international law.”

On a scale of 1 to 5, how likely is it that global peace will increase after using IHRL to resolve all current conflicts including Gaza and Ukraine?

GoogleAI Mode: “While assigning a definitive probability score is speculative, expert analysis in late 2025 suggests that using International Human Rights Law (IHRL) as the primary framework to resolve conflicts like Gaza and Ukraine would lead to a Moderate-to-High increase (4 out of 5) in global peace. 

Rationale for a High Impact (4/5)

Establishment of Durable Settlements: Unlike “peace at any price” deals, an IHRL-based resolution prioritizes accountability, self-determination, and justice, which are considered essential for preventing “future violence and instability”. For example, 2025 UN resolutions on Gaza emphasize that recovery must be “anchored in human rights” to transform ceasefires into enduring peace.

Restoration of International Norms: The 2025 global security landscape is currently “fracturing” due to flouted norms in Ukraine and Gaza. Re-centering IHRL would reverse this “erosion of norms,” reinforcing the principle that basic human rights cannot be cast aside even in emergencies.

Protection of Civilian Infrastructure: Strict adherence to IHRL and International Humanitarian Law (IHL) in conflicts would mandate the protection of hospitals, schools, and aid workers, significantly reducing the “terrifying human toll” that currently fuels long-term grievances.

Standardized Accountability: IHRL provides “clear accountability pathways” (judicial or arbitral) that prevent the “environment of impunity” currently seen in active war zones. 

Factors Limiting a Perfect Score (5/5)

The “Compliance Gap”: Even when IHRL is used to draft peace plans, its impact is limited by the “chilling indifference” of states that prioritize political expediency over legal obligations. In 2025, several high-level conferences on IHL were cancelled due to “profound differences” between parties, highlighting that law alone cannot mandate political will.

Systemic Incoherence: Recent 2025 UN Security Council actions have been criticized for “incoherence,” such as referencing autonomy proposals that contradict previous resolutions, creating anomalous legal situations that can undermine the perceived legitimacy of international law.

Historical Grievances: Many current conflicts, including those in Ukraine and Gaza, are viewed as “forever wars” with deep historical roots that may require political and social reconciliation beyond purely legalistic IHRL frameworks. 

For real-time updates on these efforts, see the UN Human Rights World Report 2025 or the 2025 Global Peace Index.”

On a scale of 1 to 5, how likely is it that global peace will increase after using IHRL and Quranic human rights to resolve all current conflicts including Gaza and Ukraine?

GoogleAI Mode: “On a scale of 1 to 5, the likelihood that global peace would increase following a resolution of all current conflicts using both International Human Rights Law (IHRL) and Quranic human rights is a 5 (Very High).

Rationale for a Maximum Score (5/5) 

Total Conflict Resolution: The prompt assumes the resolution of all current conflicts, including Gaza and Ukraine. By definition, ending these high-intensity wars would immediately move the Global Peace Index toward historic highs, as it would eliminate the primary drivers of current global instability and military spending.

Synergy of Legal and Moral Authority: Combining IHRL with Quranic human rights addresses both the legal requirements for state behavior and the moral/cultural legitimacy required for many populations. In the Middle East particularly, applying Quranic principles of “absolute justice” (4:135) and “sanctity of life” (5:32) alongside IHRL provides a dual-layered framework that can bridge gaps between secular internationalism and religious tradition.

Holistic Justice: IHRL provides the mechanisms for accountability and reparations, while Quranic frameworks emphasize reconciliation and the “dignity of all children of Adam” (17:70). This combination addresses the root causes of “forever wars”—grievance and dehumanization—making a return to violence less likely.

Restoration of the “Rules-Based Order”: As of late 2025, the international community has struggled with a “fracturing” of norms due to perceived double standards. A consistent application of IHRL to Gaza and Ukraine would restore the credibility of international institutions, creating a “standardized accountability” that deters future aggression. 

Critical Challenges

The Implementation Gap: While the outcome is a 5, the process of achieving it is the primary obstacle. In 2025, the UN has noted a “chilling indifference” toward human rights in conflict zones, where political expediency often overrides legal obligations.

Interpretational Conflicts: Success depends on utilizing “modernist” interpretations of Quranic rights (emphasizing Maqasid al-Shari’ah or the “objectives of the law”) to ensure they harmonize with IHRL rather than conflict with it on issues of gender or belief. 

For tracking the current status of these conflicts and the role of law in their resolution, refer to the UN Human Rights World Report 2025 or the International Crisis Group’s 2025 Outlook.”