Geopolitical Rivals

3. Factors That Make Conflict Intractable

This introductory article was written by ChatGPT at the direction of Heidi Burgess, who reviewed, edited, and approved the final content.
For more information

June 30, 2026

Geopolitical rivals are another important category of bad-faith actor. In this case, the actors are not usually individuals or domestic groups, but foreign governments and the agencies, contractors, criminal networks, and proxy organizations that serve them. All states pursue their own interests, and not every act of geopolitical competition is illegitimate. The problem arises when governments deliberately try to weaken rival societies by inflaming internal tensions, undermining public trust, stealing sensitive information, or attacking the infrastructure on which ordinary life depends. The 2026 Annual Threat Assessment of the U.S. Intelligence Community treats cyber operations, foreign influence, and state competition as central national security concerns, not as marginal or speculative risks.

This competition now occurs both above and below the threshold of open war. Kinetic war remains a grave danger, as the wars involving Russia and Ukraine, Israel and Iran, and other regional conflicts make clear. But much of today’s conflict is hybrid warfare. It combines cyberattacks, sabotage, espionage, disinformation, economic coercion, proxy violence, and political manipulation. The European Council’s page on Russia’s hybrid threats describes a pattern that includes cyberattacks, disinformation, interference in elections, and disruption of critical infrastructure. CISA’s collection of Russian state-sponsored cyber threat advisories shows how seriously U.S. agencies now treat these operations.

One reason hybrid warfare is so dangerous is that it exploits democracy’s openness. Free societies depend on open debate, independent media, competitive elections, decentralized institutions, and public disagreement. Those are strengths when citizens and leaders use them in good faith. They become vulnerabilities when hostile states try to turn disagreement into hatred, uncertainty into paranoia, and political competition into a belief that the whole system is illegitimate. Foreign actors do not have to create all of a society’s divisions. They can study existing grievances, amplify the most inflammatory voices, and make it harder for citizens to distinguish authentic domestic conflict from externally manipulated conflict. This is why foreign interference is not only a national security problem. It is also a constructive conflict problem.

Cyber operations add another layer of risk. Microsoft’s 2025 Digital Defense Report describes increasingly sophisticated nation-state cyber and influence operations. CISA has also warned that Iranian-affiliated cyber actors have exploited programmable logic controllers across U.S. critical infrastructure, including industrial systems used in sectors such as water and energy. Israel has faced heavy cyber pressure as well. Reuters reported in June 2026 that Israel’s cyber chief said Iranian cyberattacks on Israel had surged during the broader conflict. North Korea presents a different but related challenge, using cyber theft to generate funds; Chainalysis reported that North Korean hackers stole at least $2.02 billion in cryptocurrency in 2025.

The danger is not just that foreign governments may steal secrets or disrupt services. It is that their actions can make collaborative democratic problem solving much harder. If citizens come to believe that elections cannot be trusted, that opponents are traitors, that information is unknowable, or that democratic institutions are helpless, then geopolitical rivals have achieved one of their main goals. They have weakened power-with democracy without necessarily firing a shot. This is why resilience has to be broader than military preparedness. It includes competent cyber defense, independent journalism, election security, public education about manipulation, and stronger civic relationships. Democracies also need enough social trust to argue fiercely about real disagreements without becoming easy targets for outside actors who profit from turning those disagreements into national breakdown.

—————————

This page was created by ChatGPT in response to this prompt. It was then reviewed, edited, supplemented and approved by Heidi Burgess. More information about how and why we are using AI in this way, and about the growing number of ways in which Beyond Intractability is using ChatGPT, Claude and other AI systems to generate content and build out the BI system, is available on our BI/AI Overview Page.