"Lords of War" is a term used in the nineties in connection with civil wars in Liberia, Afghanistan and Somalia. It referred to the main actors who waged those wars in order to achieve their own interests and at the same time accepted the disintegration of state structures. In the “Status Report surprise for the year 2026" is about the return of such actors in the 21st century, it says DW.
Are Putin, Trump and Netanyahu warlords?
"The new warlords are undermining the international order," says Konrad Schetter of the Bonn International Center for Conflict Studies (bicc), which presented the report in Berlin this Monday, along with three other institutes. The researcher of the conflict also listed several names - among them the Russian president Vladimir Putin, American president Donald Trump and the Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
He basically blames them and others for the same thing: "The use of military force is their favorite means of achieving their interests. At the same time, they don't care about international law," says Sheter.
His colleague Ursula Schröder from the Institute for Peace Research and Security Policy at the University of Hamburg (IFSH) adds: "We don't want to equate them all, but we see the same patterns," says Schröder, referring to the Putin-Trump-Netanyahu trio and other rulers.
Violence as a "normal means of politics"?
According to the authors of the "Peace Report", the key pattern is the repeated use of violence as a "normal means of politics". This, they believe, is an attempt to limit the "political sovereignty of other states". In the background are the interests of profit and expansion of power.
According to the study, this also applies to several Gulf monarchies: Saudi Arabia, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates. "They are involved in numerous civil wars - from Libya to Somalia," says Sheter. And they, he believes, primarily aim to achieve geopolitical, strategic or economic interests.
Less development cooperation and humanitarian aid
That is why the title of the study talks about "lords of war". They encourage the disintegration of the international order, warns Nicole Dietelhoff of the Leibniz Institute for Peace and Conflict Research in Frankfurt am Main. She especially thinks of the United Nations.
He expects greater engagement from Germany and Europe in order to stop that trend. "We warn that they must find partners to preserve the rules of the international order."
Financial reductions in the field of development cooperation and humanitarian aid are considered by Dietelhoff and other experts to be the wrong way. Withdrawal of funds further intensifies crisis dynamics, according to their joint statement.
More hunger, disease and crime
The consequences are numerous, the report continues. There are more crises with food shortages causing hunger, but also the spread of potentially deadly infectious diseases such as the current Ebola virus. There is also an increase in crime and armed conflicts.
"The reduction in aid goes hand in hand with a drastic increase in crime and armed conflict - for example in Haiti, Congo or South Sudan," the report said.
Conflict researchers are demanding that Germany end cuts in development cooperation and allocate more funds. This, they believe, could represent a counterbalance to the arbitrariness of the new "war lords". Their appeal is accompanied by a warning: "Where development cooperation serves only to deter migration or secure raw materials, it loses its peace and political meaning."
Has Germany lost confidence in the world?
The four institutes in the report recommend a different approach to development cooperation: the focus should be on inclusiveness, human rights and peacebuilding – in short, on cooperative politics. "Its added value is strengthening trust in partnerships and the international order."
According to the interpretation of the "Report on the State of Peace", Germany has largely squandered that trust. Her failed candidacy for a two-year seat in the UN Security Council as a non-permanent member is symptomatic for Dietelhof: "It is certainly connected to the fact that in recent years Germany has often backed away when international law had to be defended."
What does the chancellor mean by international law?
With this, Nicole Dietelhoff alludes to the fact that Chancellor Friedrich Mertz, unlike the prime ministers of numerous other countries, did not clearly mark the kidnapping of Venezuelan leader Nicolás Maduro by US forces as a violation of international law. Instead he said: "The legal assessment of the US operation is complex."
Even after the US-Israeli attack on Iran, Mertz did not give unequivocal support to international law: "Now is not the time to teach our partners and allies lessons," the chancellor said. When both countries bombed Iran's nuclear program in 2025, Mertz justified the move by saying the Israelis were doing "the dirty work - and for all of us."
A new attempt at stronger arms control?
For Dietelhoff, it is clear what lesson Germany should learn from the failure to be elected to the UN Security Council: "It should be taken seriously and think about how to rebuild its own profile."
The report also offers suggestions on how to achieve this: at a time of growing arms races, it is necessary to create the foundations for reliable arms control agreements. "Such agreements, as a confidence-building measure, are a key prerequisite for creating peace."
Source: DW
Real journalism costs money, and we will not be bought by tycoons and corporations. Support us with a one-time or monthly donation. The time for it is now!
