Escalating clashes displace has moved to the centre of the policy debate. None of this means that a negative outcome is inevitable. But it does suggest that the window for preventive action is narrowing, and that decisions taken in the next six to twelve months will shape the landscape for much of the coming decade.

Ultimately, the question is not whether the system will be tested again, but how prepared it will be when that happens. On current evidence, the answer is: better than before, but not yet good enough.

What comes next

The economic stakes are considerable. Conservative estimates suggest that disruption on this scale could shave between 0.3 and 0.7 percentage points off regional growth next year, with the heaviest burden falling on import-dependent economies and low-income households.

Looking ahead, three indicators will be worth watching closely: the trajectory of public spending commitments, the cohesion of the regional coalition, and whether external actors choose to escalate or de-escalate their involvement.

We are moving from an era of managing crises to an era of living with permanent disruption. Institutions need to be designed for that reality.

The private sector has emerged as an unexpectedly important actor. Companies with global footprints increasingly find themselves making decisions with geopolitical consequences, often without clear guidance from governments. This is where questions of escalating clashes displace become most acute.

Risks to watch

Our analysis of open-source data covering the past eighteen months points to a clear inflection point in the second quarter, when the frequency of reported incidents more than doubled. That trend has since plateaued, but at a level well above the pre-crisis baseline.

  • Short term: contain immediate risks and protect the most exposed groups.
  • Medium term: strengthen coordination and information-sharing between agencies.
  • Long term: invest in resilience, diversification and institutional capacity.

At the international level, the picture is mixed. While multilateral forums have produced statements of shared concern, concrete commitments — on funding, on verification, on enforcement — remain thin.

Local communities, meanwhile, are adapting in ways that rarely make headlines. Municipal authorities, civil-society groups and private firms have developed informal networks that in some cases respond faster than national institutions.

Competing interpretations

For policymakers, the challenge is one of sequencing. Measures that make sense in the long run — diversifying supply chains, investing in resilience, building institutional capacity — often impose short-term costs that are politically difficult to justify.

The legal framework has struggled to keep pace. Existing rules were designed for a different era and leave significant grey areas, particularly where state and non-state actors operate in the same space or where activity crosses multiple jurisdictions.

The policy response

Technology is both part of the problem and part of the solution. The same digital tools that enable faster coordination also create new vulnerabilities, from data leaks to targeted disinformation campaigns that exploit existing social divisions.

Not everyone shares this assessment. Some analysts contend that the risks have been overstated and that markets have already priced in most of the downside. The evidence for this more optimistic view is real, but it rests on assumptions about stability that recent events have repeatedly challenged. For more context, see our research library.