Experts warn of a "perfect storm" for the number of conflicts to grow

BarcelonaPeacekeeping missions are facing an unprecedented crisis. The number of international personnel deployed has fallen to 78,633, the lowest figure since 2000 and a 49% decrease from 2016. This is the main conclusion of a report by the prestigious Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI), which warns that the viability of multilateral peacekeeping is at risk. While the number of deployed personnel has been decreasing throughout the decade, 2025 saw the steepest year-on-year drop (17%), coinciding with the start of Donald Trump's second term in the United States. Last year, there were a total of 58 active operations in 34 countries, three fewer than in 2024.

The report's authors attribute this "dramatic weakening of multilateral management" to a "perfect storm": geopolitical tensions, political pressure, and a major UN funding crisis. The result? "There will probably be more conflicts, and these conflicts are likely to have even more serious impacts on the civilian population as states abandon long-established norms," warns Dr. Jaïr van der Lijn, director of SIPRI's Program on Peace Operations and Conflict Management. Jordi Calvo, a researcher at the Delàs Centre, agrees with him, highlighting to ARA the confluence of a "politicocultural shift" with the trend of redirecting resources previously allocated to multilateralism towards military spending and rearmament.

The truth is that the United Nations have long warned that they are in a critical funding situation because the main contributors (such as the United States) are reluctant to pay their dues. In July 2025, UN peacekeeping operations had a deficit of 2 billion dollars, a figure representing more than 35% of their total budget. This lack of funding has directly impacted peacekeeping missions and has forced the organization to make cuts of up to 25% in military and police personnel in some missions. Calvo emphasizes another factor: there has been a drastic drop in financial support from Europe in areas where it had historical influence. The clearest example is the European Peace Facility, whose resources have been redirected almost entirely to Ukraine due to the proximity of the conflict.

Beyond materializing in an increase in wars, geopolitical tensions have also paralyzed the UN Security Council, the core where decisions are made on whether to approve new peacekeeping missions or renew existing ones. And, with increasing frequency, states prioritize their interests over international consensus, spurred on by the example of impunity from the United States. One of the most current examples is the UN's international mission in Lebanon, called UNFIL for its English acronym. Despite numerous ceasefire violations – and repeated attacks by Israel against the mission itself, which have left three soldiers dead – the United States, acting as a mouthpiece for Israel's interests, has managed to force a definitive expiry date for the mission, which will culminate on December 31, 2026.

The case of Lebanon precisely serves to illustrate the limitations of these peacekeeping missions. Calvo believes that the international presence there is among the most necessary in the world to try to deter the use of force. But their non-intervention has led them to gain a certain disrepute because "they do not intervene when we think they should intervene, when people are suffering".

Other "military missions"

All this results in a deadlock that the report illustrates with another devastating piece of data: no new UN-led mission has been approved since 2014. The consequence is that responses to crises have been shifting towards other coalitions and regional organizations, with agreements guided by short-term interests. These new models, such as the Gang Suppression Force (GSF) in Haiti or the AUSSOM mission in Somalia established in 2025, are often more militarized and lack the dialogue tools that have historically characterized the UN. "To say they are peacekeeping missions does not reflect their nature," clarifies Calvo, who prefers to call them military missions. "They aim to achieve certain objectives, including peace, but there's more to it," he clarifies, giving the example of coalitions like those formed for Iraq or Afghanistan.

The report warns that these models are not "viable alternatives to UN-led conflict management," as they "lack key capacities for integrated and successful peacebuilding, and at the same time they are also affected by funding deficits and the inability to reach agreements, like the UN," in the words of Dr. Claudia Pfeifer Cruz, senior researcher at SIPRI's Peace Operations and Conflict Management Program.

The Global South, who bears the brunt

Another conclusion that emerges from the document is that Global South countries are the ones that sustain the bulk of peacekeeping missions on the ground. The top ten contributors of military personnel worldwide come, in this order, from Uganda, Nepal, Bangladesh, India, and Rwanda. The rest of the top 10 are in sub-Saharan Africa (Ethiopia, Burundi, and Kenya) or in Asia and Oceania (Pakistan and Indonesia). Regarding deployment areas, sub-Saharan Africa is also its epicenter: despite cuts, it hosts 70% of all multilateral peace personnel and the four largest missions in the world (Central African Republic, South Sudan, Somalia, and the Democratic Republic of Congo).