When Russia launched its full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, most analysts expected the conflict to end within days or, at most, a few weeks. Few imagined that it would enter its fifth year and evolve into one of the defining geopolitical confrontations of the 21st century.
With the benefit of hindsight, it has become increasingly clear that the war is no longer solely about Ukraine or even about the Donbas. It has developed into a broader contest between two competing geopolitical blocs. On one side stands the United States and its Western allies. On the other are Russia and Iran, whose strategic partnership has deepened as the conflict has expanded.
What initially appeared to be a regional war has gradually transformed into a global competition for influence. Its consequences are now visible far beyond Eastern Europe, stretching from Mali to Armenia, from Venezuela to Pakistan. Countries that were once considered peripheral to the conflict are increasingly becoming part of a wider geopolitical struggle.
Ironically, although the confrontation began largely on terms favorable to Moscow, the strategic momentum today appears to be shifting in the opposite direction.
Meanwhile, Russia entered the war with ambitious political and military objectives. The initial expectation in Moscow was that Kyiv would fall quickly, allowing Ukraine to be brought back into Russia’s sphere of influence. Instead, the campaign evolved into a prolonged war of attrition.
Within months, Russian forces withdrew from northern Ukraine and abandoned their attempt to seize the Ukrainian capital. Moscow subsequently concentrated its military resources on consolidating positions in southern and eastern Ukraine, later formalizing control over occupied territories through annexation.
Whether described as a ‘sign of goodwill’ or a necessary military recalibration, the shift reflected a significant change in Russia’s original objectives. The conflict, in the meantime, gradually expanded beyond the battlefield itself.
While front lines in Ukraine often remained relatively static for extended periods, Russia’s broader geopolitical position faced mounting pressure elsewhere. Syria’s long-standing Assad government collapsed after years of Russian military support. Hezbollah-long regarded as one of Iran’s and Russia’s most important regional partners-suffered devastating setbacks. Armenia accelerated efforts to reduce its dependence on Moscow and diversify its foreign policy toward Western institutions.
These developments suggest that the real contest increasingly extends beyond the trenches of eastern Ukraine.
Nevertheless, Donald Trump’s return to the White House marked another turning point. Before his inauguration, many observers predicted that Washington and Moscow would pursue a geopolitical accommodation. Russian state media actively promoted this narrative, portraying Trump as a leader willing to normalize relations with the Kremlin.
Rather than reducing pressure on Russia, Washington adopted initiatives aimed at reshaping geopolitical competition across several regions simultaneously.
Rather than relying exclusively on military confrontation, the United States increasingly focused on weakening Russian influence through infrastructure projects, diplomatic engagement, economic partnerships and strategic realignment.
The expansion of connectivity initiatives across the South Caucasus and the Caspian region reflects this broader strategy. Likewise, developments in Latin America-including the removal of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro from power and his subsequent transfer to the United States to face criminal prosecution-demonstrated Washington’s willingness to challenge governments traditionally viewed as part of Moscow’s sphere of influence.
At the same time, pressure on Cuba and renewed American engagement across the Western Hemisphere signalled that geopolitical competition was no longer confined to Europe.
As regards Tehran, if Russia has experienced growing pressure on its western flank, Iran increasingly finds itself under pressure from multiple directions.
The 2026 war involving Iran, Israel and the United States fundamentally altered the regional balance of power. The death of Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei during Israeli strikes marked an unprecedented moment in the history of the Islamic Republic. Repeated attacks on military facilities, critical infrastructure and strategic assets exposed vulnerabilities that few observers believed possible only a few years earlier.
Among all of Washington’s recent geopolitical successes, its approach toward Iran may ultimately prove to be the most consequential. Some observers continue to argue that the United States has failed in its confrontation with Tehran. However, from the very first days of the 2026 conflict, AzerNEWS outlined three possible scenarios for Iran’s future in an earlier analysis.
The first scenario envisioned a short war in which both sides would quickly declare victory and seek to avoid prolonged escalation. The second anticipated a descent into civil war, leading to the “Syrianization” of Iran through state fragmentation and internal conflict. Today, neither of those scenarios appears to reflect the direction events are taking.
Instead, developments on the ground increasingly resemble what we described as the third scenario: the gradual “Iraqization” of Iran.
In detail, Iran’s demographic weight, vast territory, mountainous geography and strategic depth make a conventional military occupation extraordinarily difficult and politically costly. A more realistic strategy is to steadily weaken the country’s military capabilities, economic resilience and regional influence over an extended period.
Iraq experienced a remarkably similar trajectory after the 1991 Gulf War. For more than a decade, Baghdad was subjected to sanctions, repeated military strikes, restrictions on its military capabilities and constant international pressure before the 2003 invasion. The objective was not an immediate victory but a long-term erosion of the state’s ability to project power.
Current developments suggest that Iran may be entering a comparable phase. Military strikes have become periodic rather than exceptional. Pressure on Tehran rises, temporarily subsides, and then intensifies again. At the same time, Iran faces growing economic constraints, continued attacks on strategic infrastructure and increasing pressure on its regional network of allies. Maritime pressure and disruptions to Iranian logistical routes further reinforce this pattern of sustained strategic attrition rather than decisive confrontation.
Next phase of new cold war
Another defining feature of this emerging confrontation is the transformation of Western defense policy.
For decades, many European NATO members relied heavily on American military guarantees while maintaining comparatively modest defense spending.
The Trump administration challenged this model by demanding that allies increase defense expenditures to around five percent of GDP. Although initially controversial, the proposal has gradually gained momentum across much of Europe.
The long-term implications are potentially enormous.
Combined, the economies of the United States, NATO members and the European Union generate roughly $55-60 trillion in annual GDP. If defense spending approaches five percent across much of this bloc, annual military expenditures could eventually exceed $2 trillion-an amount comparable to Russia’s entire gross domestic product.
Military competition is ultimately sustained by economic capacity. History repeatedly demonstrates that prolonged strategic rivalries are often decided less by battlefield victories than by the ability to finance them over time.
From this perspective, the New Cold War is entering a new phase.
The conflict is no longer defined solely by events in Ukraine. It increasingly encompasses the South Caucasus, the Middle East, Latin America and other regions where competing powers seek to reshape alliances, transport corridors and spheres of influence.
The map of global competition is expanding. The battle is no longer over a single country. It is over the geopolitical architecture that will define the international order for decades to come.