After the Cold War ended, the world hoped for an era of peace. But things turned out differently. Now, 30 years after the historic fall of the Berlin Wall that shifted power balances, wars are more complex than ever.
The 20th century was dominated by wars. An estimated 80 million people died in two world wars. Then there was the Cold War: an arms race between the USA and Russia. In Europe and large parts of the world, two hostile sides faced each other. In Asia, the Middle East, Africa and South America, the global powers financed bloody proxy wars.
Peaceful revolutions finally brought down the Iron Curtain in 1989. The Cold War was declared over. "We hoped that after the end of the cold war, there would be an era of peace," says Sarah Brockmeier, UN peacekeeping expert at the Global Public Policy Institute, a Berlin-based think tank.
Are there fewer wars today than before?
However, this hope soon proved to be unfounded. There are still many conflicts around the world. Since the mid-2000s, their number has increased again. According to Brockmeier: "We’ve seen more conflict, more violence, and — especially since the start of the Syrian war — more conflict deaths."
This is mainly due to the intrastate conflicts of the 1990s, which nobody had seen coming after the fall of the Berlin Wall, says Brockmeier. Among them are the Yugoslav wars and the conflicts in Sierra Leone and the Democratic Republic of the Congo. The war in Mali from 2012 and the continuing war in Syria, which began in 2011, seem to continue the trend.
In the last ten years alone, researchers from the Department of Peace and Conflict Research at Uppsala University have counted 23 wars and 162 minor conflicts with fewer than 100 deaths per year.
According to Brockmeier, we have become better at recognizing the warning signs of conflicts. Still, we are often unable to prevent them. "We have not learned the lessons of mobilizing the political will early to already intervene before armed violence breaks out."
Who are the major players in northern Syria?
The US withdrawal of troops from Kurdish-controlled northeast Syria and the launch of the Turkish offensive have created a complicated web of actors, from Russia to Syrian government troops.
Image: picture-alliance/ZUMAPRESS/Staff Sgt. A. Goedl
US: Troop pullback
Over the past years, US troops have supported Kurdish fighters as they battled radical "Islamic State" (IS) militants to take back control of large areas of northern Syria. In what was seen as a surprising turnaround, US President Donald Trump announced in early October that he was withdrawing US troops from the region's border with Turkey. This pullback left a vacuum for others to act and react.
Image: picture-alliance/ZUMAPRESS/Staff Sgt. A. Goedl
Turkey: Anti-Kurdish offensive
Trump's troop withdrawal was a de-facto go-ahead for Turkey to launch an offensive into northeast Syria. The region is home to a largely autonomous Kurdish population and Kurdish militants known as the YPG, who are tied to an outlawed Kurdish party in Turkey. Turkey, who has faced a Kurdish insurgency, sees the Syrian Kurds as a threat to its security, hence the military action.
Image: picture-alliance/AA/M. Akif Parlak
Kurdish YPG: Fighting Turkish forces
The YPG was one of the US' main allies in the fight to drive out IS from north Syria, but since October it has been fighting the Turkish forces that crossed into Syria. The YPG lacks strong air capabilities and defenses, putting it at a decided disadvantage in comparison to the Turkish army.
Image: Getty Images/AFP/G. Souleiman
SDF: Betrayed by the US
The YPG is the largest component of the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF), which also includes Arab and Christian militias. The SDF, which fought IS, controls northeastern Syria and feels betrayed by the US pullback. It is now fighting Turkish troops and their allies. It has warned that the Turkish offensive could distract from making sure IS fighters do not renew their strength in Syria.
Image: Getty Images/AFP/D. Souleiman
Syrian government army: Deal made
The relationship between Syrian President Bashar Assad's troops and the SDF is a tricky one that shifts between cooperation, live-and-let-live and skirmishes, depending on the current situation. After Turkey launched its offensive, the Kurds struck a deal with the government that saw Syrian troops mobilized to fight the Turkish forces, allowing them to enter a region they had ceded to the SDF.
Image: picture-alliance/Photoshot
Russia: Stepping up, stepping in
Russia has consistently backed the government of Syrian President Assad (L, with Putin in 2018) and assisted its forces. After US troops pulled out of the Kurdish areas, Russia moved its troops in to act as a buffer for Syrian government forces advancing towards the Turkish army. Moscow wants Syria to remain united and has accused the US of creating parallel structures in the Kurdish region.
Image: picture-alliance/AP Photo/M. Klimentyev
SNA: Turkey's Syrian allies
Turkey also has allies among Syrian fighters. The Syrian National Army (SNA), also known as the Free Syrian Army, is a Syrian rebel group that has fought against the SDF and Assad's government. Backed by Turkey, SNA fighters took part in previous Turkish offensives against Kurdish militias inside Syria. Currently, thousands of SNA fighters are fighting the YPG alongside Turkish forces.
Image: picture-alliance/AA/B. Kasim
IS: A renewed role?
One possible future actor is IS. While it was essentially defeated in March 2019, tens of thousands of its fighters and their families remain in prisons or guarded camps in the Kurdish area of the country. Nearly a thousand alone have already escaped from a camp that was caught in the fighting between Kurdish militias and Turkish forces. Should the situation grow more unstable, IS could regroup.
Image: picture-alliance/AP Photo/M. Alleruzzo
8 images1 | 8
Conflicts becoming more complex and international
With increasing globalization, wars have become more complex since the fall of the Berlin Wall. In addition to the model of bilateral conflict with two opposing sides, there are often other parties involved as well who may, for example send troops or supply weapons, expertise or training. Until the beginning of the 2000s, only two or three external parties, on average, participated in any given conflict. In the following years, that average rose to between four and five.
The main reason for this is the complex conflicts in the Middle East: In 2009, 46 external parties were involved in the fight against the Taliban in Afghanistan. These include the countries in international alliances such as NATO, which, in Afghanistan's case, headed the International Security Assistance Force. The war in Syria today is similarly complex: Bloomberg, for example, counted ten different main participants alone in the constantly changing network of interests at the beginning of October 2019.
Global military spending is decreasing
In 2017, countries around the world invested a combined €1.8 trillion ($1.98 trillion) into their militaries. That adds up to around two percent of the world's gross domestic product, marking a record low. Relative global military spending has in fact declined steadily over the past decades
