Are today’s global conflicts merging into a single, interconnected crisis?
Once-isolated crises — war, energy, trade, and political instability — now feel increasingly connected. That leads me to a question that may sound strange.
Are we seeing a new kind of world war, one defined by interconnected global struggles rather than by conventional battlefields?
Not a world war in the old-fashioned sense, with one clear beginning, obvious sides, and everyone drawn into the same fight. I mean something less straightforward than that, but no less serious: a global struggle over trade, resources, territory, power, and survival.
The more history I read, the more justified that fear feels.
Beyond the Usual Story of Colonialism
Colonialism is discussed constantly in academia and is often treated as the great moral sin of our time. Western democracies appear as the colonial villains and developing countries as the innocent victims, as though colonialism began with Europe in the seventeenth century.
But history is far older and more complicated than that.
Long before the rise of the European empires, powerful rulers were already conquering vast territories and ruling over other peoples. Alexander the Great, the Roman Empire, Islamic empires, and the Mongols all expanded through force. Only later do we see the rise of Spain, Holland, France, and England, the so-called colonial powers.
The pattern is familiar: powers with superior military or technological advantage take what they want, and weaker peoples pay the price. And more often than not, the struggle is not only about territory. It is also about economic dominance.
That may sound cynical, but history gives us plenty of reason to think so.
The Opium Wars as a Lesson
The Opium Wars are one of the clearest examples.
Recently, historian Zvi Ben-Dor Benite presented a compelling series of talks on the Opium Wars at Lockdown University, in which I participated.
Before the Opium Wars began, Britain faced a problem. For years, it had been importing Chinese goods such as tea, silk, porcelain, and chinoiserie, all luxury items in great demand among European elites, but China showed little interest in British goods in return. China also kept its borders and ports tightly closed to foreigners. Britain sent repeated diplomatic delegations, but to no avail.
So Britain looked for another way in.
It found one in opium.
The British knew that opium was already used medicinally in China, and they devised a plan. Controlling agricultural plantations in India, they expanded poppy cultivation on a grand scale. They then built factories to process the poppies into opium, in the form of “yellow cake,” and shipped it from India to China in steam-powered vessels moving up and down the Chinese coast.
And the Chinese were buying. Addiction spread. It is said that close to 50 percent of the population became addicted to smoking opium in dens designed for that purpose, while China lost huge amounts of silver. In 1835, when the Chinese government finally tried to stop the trade, Britain went to war in what became known as the Opium Wars and won decisively. China surrendered and was even forced to pay reparations to Britain for the cost of the war.
Britain gained hegemony over many port cities and access to the hinterland, and other colonial powers soon followed its example.
How a Commodity Can Break a Country
What makes the Opium Wars so disturbing is that they were not just about one country forcing open another country’s markets. They showed how a commodity can weaken a society from within, especially when that society is already vulnerable.
History shows that outside pressure is most effective against countries that are already divided, weakened, or unstable. Internal fragility makes external pressure even more destructive.
After the Opium Wars, China entered what later became known as the “century of humiliation.” Several coastal port cities came under foreign control. Europeans lived under their own national laws. China lost control over tariffs and key parts of its economy. Hong Kong went to Britain. Taiwan later fell under Japanese rule. Little by little, China was losing control of its own country.
China suffered not only a military defeat but also the loss of full control over its own affairs.
This history is more than a lesson. It is a warning about how economic and social vulnerability can endanger a society from within.
Some have suggested that Hamas chose October 7 because it saw the fierce, year-long demonstrations over Israel’s Supreme Court and concluded that the country was divided and weak. What it failed to understand was that a democratic society can draw strength from public engagement, even in times of internal conflict. That strength was visible in the immediate mobilization of Israelis within hours of the attack, and in the unity shown by Israeli citizens and world Jewry in defending the State of Israel, the national home of the Jewish people.
One of the mottos of the current war in Israel is:
“Yahad Nenatzeach” — “Together we will be victorious.”
History also shows, again and again, that grassroots solidarity can become a source of strength in the face of violence and authoritarian power.
Why This Matters Now
Today, I see a different commodity at the center of global conflict, but a very familiar kind of struggle.
That commodity is energy.
Oil, gas, coal, electricity, shipping routes, pipelines, and critical minerals shape power, create dependency, and help explain how countries behave.
Viewed this way, tensions among the United States, China, Russia, and the Middle East do not look like separate crises. They look deeply connected.
The questions are not abstract:
Who controls supply?
Who controls transport?
Who can survive disruption?
Who can pressure others economically without firing a shot?
Who can turn dependence into power?
These are among the biggest questions shaping the world right now.
Maybe We Still Picture War the Old Way
Perhaps one reason we hesitate to use the term world war is that we are still picturing the twentieth century. We think of trench lines, invading armies, uniforms, and maps with arrows moving across continents.
But maybe war no longer looks like that.
What if world war now means sanctions, proxy wars, cyberattacks, economic coercion, and struggles over energy and supply chains?
That feels closer to the reality of the world we are living in.
What unsettles me most is the possibility that our language and our thinking lag behind a new kind of global conflict that is already unfolding.
The Thought I Keep Coming Back To
I am not saying history repeats itself exactly; it never does. But history reveals patterns, and those patterns matter.
What the Opium Wars demonstrate is that war does not always begin with armies. Sometimes it begins with trade, pressure, and dependence. A commodity can be used to weaken a country from within. By the time military force arrives, the damage may already be well underway.
That was true then, and we cannot afford to pretend it is not true now.
Today’s global struggles, with energy at the center, cross borders and reshape the world around us. The more I observe, the more unmistakable the pattern seems.
Not the kind our grandparents knew.
Not one with a clear beginning or a universally agreed-upon name.
But a global struggle all the same.
The real danger may be our failure to recognize this kind of world war simply because it no longer fits our old expectations.
- Tzvi Ben-Dor Benite, “China: The Road to Opium War,” Lockdown University, lecture 3028, www.lockdownuniversity.org/lectures/3028-china-the-road-to-opium-war




















































































































































