As global tensions simmer in hotspots from South Asia to Eastern Europe, a new wave of anxiety is sweeping through diplomatic circles and the public alike. In a recent analysis published by Politico on August 29, 2025, U.S. intelligence data and expert opinions converge on a sobering assessment: five major conflicts around the world could erupt in the next five years, and disturbingly, each carries the potential to turn nuclear. The prospect of multiple flashpoints igniting simultaneously has left many wondering—are we truly on the edge of catastrophe, or is there more resilience in the international system than meets the eye?
At the heart of these concerns is the enduring rivalry between India and Pakistan. Both countries possess formidable nuclear arsenals, and, as Politico notes, Pakistan’s military doctrine enshrines a low threshold for nuclear weapon use. This, experts agree, makes South Asia the most likely epicenter for a nuclear escalation. The world watched with bated breath earlier this year when hostilities between the two neighbors flared dangerously, raising fears of a war that could devastate the region and beyond.
In Washington, the drama played out on a different stage. U.S. President Donald Trump, speaking at a White House cabinet meeting on August 27, 2025, claimed he played a direct role in preventing a potential nuclear clash between India and Pakistan. Trump recounted, “I’m talking to a very terrific man, Modi of India. I said, what’s going on with you and Pakistan? Then I spoke to Pakistan about trade. I said, what’s going on with you and India? This has been going on for a hell of a long time, sometimes under different names for hundreds of years.”
Trump went further, describing his intervention in stark terms: “I said, I don’t want to make a trade deal…. I said, no, no, I don’t want to make a trade deal with you. You’re going to have a nuclear war. You guys are going to end up in a nuclear war. And that was very important to them. I said, call me back tomorrow, but we’re not going to do any deals with you, or we’re going to put tariffs on you that are so high. I don’t give a damn. Your head’s going to spin. You’re not going to end up in a war. Within about five hours, it was done. It was done. Now maybe it starts again, I don’t know. I don’t think so. But I’ll stop it if it does. We can’t let these things happen.”
The President also claimed that during the hostilities, “seven jets were shot down. I said, ‘That’s not good.’ That’s a lot of jets. You know, USD 150 million planes were shot down. A lot of them. Seven, maybe more than that. They didn’t even report the real number.” Trump asserted that his use of trade pressure was decisive: “I used trade and whatever I had to use…”
His remarks were echoed by the White House, which credited his foreign policy with helping secure a ceasefire between India and Pakistan after Operation Sindoor, a strike on terror camps in Pakistan and Pakistan-Occupied Jammu and Kashmir on May 7, 2025. White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt stated that Trump’s intervention had contributed to de-escalation. Yet, the story is more complicated on the ground. Indian officials have consistently denied any third-party involvement in the ceasefire, insisting that Pakistan’s Director General of Military Operations (DGMO) reached out to his Indian counterpart directly on May 10, resulting in a bilateral agreement to halt hostilities.
The roots of the recent crisis trace back to the Pahalgam terror attack on April 22, 2025, which claimed 26 lives. The Resistance Front (TRF), a proxy of Lashkar-e-Tayyiba, took responsibility. In response, the U.S. designated TRF as a Foreign Terrorist Organisation and Specially Designated Global Terrorist on June 17, 2025. U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio underscored the gravity of the attack, stating, “The organisation claimed responsibility for the April 22 Pahalgam terror attack in Jammu and Kashmir, which claimed the lives of 26 civilians.” India’s External Affairs Minister S Jaishankar welcomed the U.S. move, calling it “a strong affirmation of India–US counter-terrorism cooperation.”
But India and Pakistan are far from the only flashpoints causing sleepless nights for policymakers. Politico’s report also highlights the confrontation between mainland China and Taiwan, which could upend the balance of power in Asia. The U.S. has traditionally supported Taiwan, but uncertainty looms over how firmly Donald Trump would maintain that stance if returned to office. Meanwhile, the specter of a possible Russian invasion of the Baltic countries hangs over NATO, with any such move set to test the alliance’s resolve and unity.
High tension remains along the India–China border, where, as Politico points out, effective mechanisms for crisis prevention are still lacking. The Korean Peninsula is another perennial worry. Kim Jong Un’s regime, armed with nuclear weapons and prone to unpredictable moves, remains a wildcard—any internal power struggle could quickly escalate beyond control.
Yet, how likely is it that all these conflicts could ignite at once, plunging the world into a Third World War—or worse, a nuclear conflagration? Anatoliy Pinchuk, Head of the Board at the Kyiv-based Eastern Europe Security Institute, offered a measured assessment to Caliber.Az on August 29: “According to assessments by experts from the CFR [Council on Foreign Relations] and the Atlantic Council, it is less than 5%. Especially considering that these conflicts have different causes and lines of confrontation. The greatest risks are posed by the India-Pakistan standoff. But even there, I believe prudence will prevail.”
Pinchuk also highlighted the interconnectedness of global crises. “China–Taiwan and Russia–the Baltic countries — all of this directly depends on developments in Ukraine. If Russia’s actual accountability for the war against Ukraine increases, and its overall losses from the war grow, the likelihood of these conflicts approaches zero. In the case of the Baltics, this is obvious, and China does not like sudden moves and always considers the consequences. If Russia faces severe negative outcomes, this will be a serious deterrent for China.”
Independent Azerbaijani analyst Rashad Rzaguliyev, speaking to Caliber.Az, painted a more ominous picture: “The world is on the eve of a great global war, where the law of power completely overrides not only the rusty and outdated structure of international law, but also the idea—albeit partially—of a just peaceful coexistence among modern states. We are all witnesses and participants in a civilizational ‘chaos’ that precedes the New World Order and the formation of so-called pan-regionalism.” Rzaguliyev warned of the “low threshold for nuclear catastrophe—not to mention other negative consequences for the human population.”
Despite these dire warnings, Pinchuk remains convinced that a full-scale Third World War, especially a nuclear one, is unlikely. “Accordingly, the probability of a full-scale Third World War, and even more so a nuclear one, is minimal. A hybrid world war, however, has long been underway,” he said.
As the world lurches from crisis to crisis, the question remains: will prudence and diplomacy continue to hold, or are we closer to the brink than we dare admit? The answer, for now, lies in the choices of leaders, the vigilance of institutions, and the unpredictable tides of history.
