Pursuing peace in an era of great power politics

Key points

• CMI – Martti Ahtisaari Peace Foundation is warning that rising great power rivalry is reshaping the conditions for resolving conflicts worldwide.
• A new CMI analysis argues that war has become more politically acceptable, with states more willing to use force and tolerate violence by allies.
• The paper links this shift to fragmented multilateralism, weakened UN Security Council consensus and growing competition among major and middle powers.
• Mediation and peacemaking are increasingly drawn into geopolitical contests, with platforms such as the US-initiated Board of Peace and China’s International Organization for Mediation cited as examples.
• CMI says the erosion of international norms, including prohibitions on genocide and territorial conquest, is visible in conflicts such as Sudan, Ukraine and Gaza.
• The organisation calls for new approaches that connect high-level diplomacy with inclusive societal dialogue, and that take economic statecraft and new technologies into account.
• Recommendations include closer engagement with middle powers, better use of economic tools, investment in rapid reaction capabilities, and safeguarding local ownership and social cohesion in peace processes.

Peacemaking under pressure as power politics returns

An analysis by CMI – Martti Ahtisaari Peace Foundation argues that the resurgence of great power politics and open warfare is fundamentally changing how peace can be pursued and sustained in today’s conflicts. The organisation warns that mediation is being pulled deeper into geopolitical competition at the same time as international institutions struggle to set and enforce rules for conflict resolution.

A more violent and fragmented international landscape

In its February 2026 insight paper, CMI describes a marked increase in the use of military force as a tool of policy, with armed conflicts proliferating, coups spreading and interstate confrontation on the rise. The report states that war has become “more politically acceptable” and that violence is being normalised as an instrument of statecraft.

According to the analysis, major powers have shown greater willingness to use force directly and to accept violence carried out by partners, while some middle powers have seized opportunities to pursue strategic interests through military means, including via proxies. Rapid technological developments are said to have opened up new ways of waging war, compounding the complexity of the security environment.

Mediation drawn back into geopolitics

CMI notes that peacemaking, once largely associated with fragile states and intra-state conflicts, is now closely bound up with state‑to‑state rivalry and internationalised civil wars. It cites Libya, Syria, Yemen and Sudan, alongside Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine, as cases in which mediation has been pushed into highly contested geopolitical arenas.

The paper highlights what it describes as the “geopolitical significance of mediation”, pointing to the establishment of two competing international platforms: the US‑initiated Board of Peace and the China‑launched International Organization for Mediation based in Hong Kong. CMI says one model is more political and flexible, the other more legalistic and technocratic, but argues that both serve to project the founding powers’ preferred methods of dispute settlement and their wider worldviews.

According to the analysis, peace mediation has increasingly become a competitive diplomatic battleground in which traditional powers, rising middle powers and smaller states all seek influence, strategic advantage and legitimacy. Processes that were previously led by UN special representatives in relatively closed settings are now more often driven by heads of state and government under intense public scrutiny, a shift that CMI says has tended to empower states with highly centralised political systems.

Strains on the UN and regional organisations

The paper argues that geopolitical fragmentation has reduced space for collective action, weakening multilateral bodies and affecting their role in peace efforts. CMI points in particular to the UN Security Council’s difficulties in agreeing new comprehensive resolutions on major conflicts, which in the past set key political parameters for mediation.

According to the analysis, the absence of broad Security Council consensus has eroded the leverage of UN envoys and complicated efforts to define shared frameworks for resolving crises. Regional organisations such as the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe, the African Union and the Association of Southeast Asian Nations are described as facing parallel challenges in setting “rules of the game” and endorsing common positions.

On Sudan, CMI notes that cooperation between regional and multilateral bodies has been inconsistent, although it identifies the Sudan Quintet – comprising the African Union, the UN, the European Union, the League of Arab States and the Intergovernmental Authority on Development – as a potential platform for more coordinated mediation if internal differences can be overcome. This information could not be independently verified.

At the same time, the report suggests that the lack of new Security Council resolutions could, under some circumstances, create greater room for the UN Secretary‑General to operate more independently in conflict settings, echoing patterns seen in the 1950s and 1960s. It stresses, however, that any such role would depend on the ability to work with active middle powers and to draw on the UN’s operational capabilities in humanitarian assistance, peacekeeping and human rights monitoring.

Eroding norms and a “new interdependence”

CMI’s analysis points to what it sees as weakening international norms, including the prohibition of genocide and the principle that territory cannot be acquired by force. It says these norms are being openly violated in contexts such as Sudan, Ukraine and Gaza, and that responses from states have often been limited or inconsistent.

The paper argues that, instead of agreed rules, peacemaking is increasingly shaped by economic interdependence, which can give external actors a privileged position in conflict settings. Economic tools – ranging from sanctions and access to raw materials to investment opportunities and technology cooperation – are described as being used both to encourage restraint and to generate benefits for outside actors involved in mediation.

As an example, CMI cites the “Trump Route for International Peace and Prosperity” (TRIPP), a connectivity initiative designed to facilitate overland transport links between mainland Azerbaijan and Nakhchivan in the South Caucasus, which it says placed US interests at the centre of the arrangement. The report also refers to investment‑linked deals in the South Caucasus and between the Democratic Republic of the Congo and Rwanda, and raises questions about their transparency and long‑term sustainability.

According to the analysis, there is a risk that such packages could become vehicles for redistributing gains among small circles of decision‑makers if they are not embedded in broader frameworks and linked to accountable governance and inclusive economic development. It suggests that in Europe, the concept of interdependence has been “tainted” by Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, which has prompted a shift towards greater defence autonomy, even as proposals involving economic interdependence continue to feature in discussions about ending that war.

Adapting strategies: CMI’s recommendations

In response to these trends, CMI calls for changes in how peacemaking is designed and implemented. It identifies three main areas of work: strengthening geopolitical awareness and connectivity; integrating economic statecraft more fully into mediation; and protecting inclusive political dialogue from resource cuts.

On geopolitics, the paper argues that mediators need a sharper understanding of the roles played by middle powers, regional “coalitions of the willing” and mini‑lateral platforms, which increasingly shape agendas, broker access and mobilise resources. CMI recommends developing methods – including the use of technology – to connect formal diplomacy with informal dialogue tracks, and to engage small and middle powers that have no immediate security or economic stake but may serve as bridges between different levels of talks.

On economics, the organisation says mediation actors must deepen their grasp of economic drivers across all phases of peace processes. It notes that sanctions, investment, access to resources and technological partnerships can all influence conflict dynamics and outlines a need for closer engagement with business and other economic actors.

CMI suggests that, under certain conditions, business activity can support confidence‑building and reconstruction if it reinforces local ownership, accountable institutions and inclusive job creation. It cites potential future reconstruction in Gaza as an example of where such an approach could be relevant, while emphasising the importance of scrutinising how economic interdependencies are used both to coerce and to create incentives for stability.

Inclusive dialogue and the role of smaller actors

The paper cautions against cutting resources for inclusive political dialogues at a time when there is, in its view, a widening gap between elite‑driven peace deals and broader societies. It states that Track 2 and Track 1.5 processes – involving civil society, political parties and non‑state actors – remain important sources of ideas, legitimacy and societal perspectives for formal negotiations.

CMI argues that small and agile mediation organisations can be particularly well placed to operate in fragmented conflicts if they have strong local networks, analytical capacity and sufficient resources to respond rapidly. It stresses that maintaining local support and building trust over time are essential for ensuring that dialogue channels reach those with real decision‑making authority.

The analysis also underlines the value of supporting social cohesion even in the absence of formal peace talks. It notes that efforts to strengthen relationships, trust and shared norms within societies – including through the use of digital tools for more inclusive engagement – can help communities manage tensions and lay foundations for more durable peace.

CMI’s place in the evolving mediation landscape

CMI describes itself as an independent Finnish organisation working to prevent and resolve conflicts through dialogue and mediation, founded in 2000 by former Finnish president and Nobel Peace laureate Martti Ahtisaari. The foundation says it has grown into a leading actor in international peacemaking, operating in more than 20 countries and seeking to improve peace processes, peacemakers and practices.

According to a separate mid‑term evaluation of CMI’s “Missing Peace” programme for 2022–2025, the organisation has been delivering on objectives related to the quality of processes, the agency of key stakeholders and the development of mediation practices. That evaluation characterises CMI as one of the few mediation actors able to work “discreetly and effectively” across different regions.

The new insight paper frames the current period as a “defining moment” for the wider peacemaking community and calls for collaboration, shared analysis and adaptive practice to avoid fragmentation. It reiterates CMI’s view that peacemaking must remain grounded in principles such as inclusivity and local ownership if agreements are to be sustainable.

What happens next

CMI’s analysis indicates that it intends to deepen work on connecting high‑level diplomacy with societal dialogue, including through the use of technology and closer engagement with middle powers and economic actors. The organisation also signals that it will continue to advocate for more coordinated multilateral responses to conflicts and for renewed attention to international norms it considers under strain.

The paper suggests that, in the near term, mediation actors may focus on building rapid reaction capabilities, strengthening partnerships with regional platforms and supporting social cohesion in contexts such as Sudan, Ukraine, Gaza, Moldova and Yemen. It frames these efforts as part of a broader attempt to adapt peace initiatives to an environment in which great power politics and economic interdependence are likely to remain central features of global conflict and diplomacy.