Our Global Risk Map highlights regions where instability is most likely to disrupt operations and travel, drawing on indicators such as political stability, civil unrest, crime, and infrastructure stress. This analysis reviews the key regions of significance shaping the global risk landscape in 2026.
|
September 25, 2024 INSIDE THIS ARTICLE, YOU'LL FIND:
|
Global Guardian’s 2026 Global Risk Map highlights country-specific security risk ratings based on a series of indicators, including crime, health, natural disasters, infrastructure, political stability, civil unrest, and terrorism.
The first half of 2025 brought unprecedented disruption. Global supply chains faced a “perfect storm” of shocks from geopolitical conflicts, trade wars, natural disasters, and strikes. Artificial intelligence began reshaping labor markets, altering energy distribution, and expanding cybercriminal capabilities. Rising geopolitical tensions and growing middle-power assertiveness further reconfigured the global order as several regional conflicts arose amid unpredictable policy shifts in Washington. As the world adjusts to a multipolar era, volatility is set to intensify across all domains.
Geopolitical Shifts to Watch
South Asia: THe aftermath of Operation Sindoor
The 22 April 2025 Pahalgam attack, a coordinated assault in northern India that killed dozens of Hindu tourists, triggered the most acute India-Pakistan crisis in years. In its aftermath, India suspended the Indus Waters Treaty, which governs Pakistan’s access to 80 percent of its irrigation water and 30 percent of its electricity capacity. On 07 May, New Delhi launched “Operation Sindoor,” a series of missile and loitering munition strikes against nine Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT) sites in Punjab and Pakistan-administered Kashmir, penetrating deeper than India’s cross-border operations in 2016 and 2019. Pakistan retaliated and hostilities along the Line of Control escalated sharply. The crisis peaked on 10 May when India struck three Pakistani airbases—including Nur Khan near Islamabad, close to Pakistan’s nuclear command infrastructure—before intensive mediation helped secure a ceasefire. President Trump announced the agreement following direct military dialogue between India and Pakistan.
Analysis
Since the 2008 Mumbai attacks, Indian leaders have faced public pressure to respond militarily to Pakistani-linked terror attacks. With Operation Sindoor, New Delhi attempted to change the rules of the game with Islamabad. Terror attacks on Indian controlled territory should now be expected to draw military responses against Pakistan beyond Kashmir. Prime Minister Modi underscored this shift by announcing a new military doctrine just prior to the May strikes.
Pakistan’s security establishment, long reliant on militant proxies to maintain strategic depth, legitimizes its de facto rule by framing itself as the sole defender against existential threats from India. Years of political turmoil, floods, and economic collapse had eroded its credibility; confronting India allowed the Pakistani military to reassert legitimacy.
Yet Islamabad’s enduring ties to groups like LeT mean another major attack in India is only a matter of time. Looking ahead, three factors increase the risk of uncontrolled escalation: India’s sensationalist media environment that muddies the information space while pressing leaders to make quick decisions, earlier mobilization and faster escalation from after its air defenses and command systems were effectively targeted in May, and the possibility that strained United States (U.S.)-India relations could leave future crises without an effective mediator.
Eurasia: The War in Ukraine Approaches
its Fourth Year
The war in Ukraine is well into its third year. Both Russia and Ukraine face weighty systemic constraints, and neither is capable of achieving its strategic objectives barring its
opponents' collapse. Ukraine’s NATO allies continue to provide Ukraine with billions of Euros in both military and economic aid that has proven critical to Kyiv’s war effort. For its part, Russia has received more than 10,000 North Korean soldiers in addition to hundreds of thousands of artillery shells. Russia’s grinding offensive has consistently taken ground, but at great cost of men and equipment. Combined with slowing dividends from the war economy and its economic isolation, Russia’s financial situation is unsustainable in the long term. Ukraine, for its part, faces a fragile domestic political situation marred by high-level corruption scandals, continued manpower shortages, and remains dependent on Western military and economic aid. Two insights can be drawn from the current situation: the European security paradigm has changed, and Washington will largely determine a settlement.
Shifting European Security Architecture
The war has laid bare that Europe lacks agency concerning its security. NATO’s European members have collectively committed to spending five percent of GDP on defense, a
historic shift that underscores the recognition that American foreign policy can no longer be relied upon as a constant. This spending may prove critical if European nations sign on to guarantee Ukraine’s security following a possible peace deal. While Europe has accelerated military production and coordination, its militaries remain constrained—at least in the short term—by continued reliance on American supply chains in critical areas. Europe faces a crossroads: it can either reform and become capable of projecting force and defending its interests, or it will continue to fragment into smaller, dynamic blocs with bonds that depend on domestic politics and the shared threats of the day.
Is Peace Possible?
Both parties are approaching exhaustion, and momentum for international mediation is building. The next year may prove decisive as the current status quo is unlikely to last. Absent a material battlefield breakthrough, American policy will likely prove decisive. If Washington substantially increases aid, Kyiv could compel Moscow into negotiations – although these would likely involve territorial concessions. But President Trump’s inconsistent messaging raises the risk of premature concessions to Russia. In the short term, U.S. leverage—not battlefield momentum—will determine whether the conflict drags on or moves toward settlement.
Americas: The “Mano Dura” Security Model
Latin America’s long-standing crisis of public insecurity has intensified political upheaval across the region. Voters frustrated with entrenched violence have ousted traditional parties in favor of leaders such as El Salvador’s Nayib Bukele who promise “mano dura” (heavy handed) approaches. Several nations are now following the Salvadoran model: declaring extended states of emergency, classifying criminal groups as terrorist organizations, deploying militaries into the streets, and constructing mega prisons to detain thousands.
In 2024, Patricia Bullrich, the security minister of Argentina, visited the CECOT, El Salvador’s mega prison, and met with Salvadoran security forces to learn from their model. Similarly, Daniel Noboa, President of Ecuador, has closely modeled his security policy after Bukele’s, building mega prisons and using states of emergency to deploy the military to the streets. Costa Rica’s President Rodrigo Chavez, while unable to enact the policies at home due to political constraints, even awarded his nation’s highest diplomatic honor to Bukele. Perhaps the most drastic of all examples is seen in Haiti, where the failure of historical UN and foreign-led security efforts to control violence has led the Haitian government to resort to hiring American private security contractors to regain portions of the country from gang control.
The success of this new security model will vary in each nation, depending on factors including the level of criminal capability and the existing state power. In smaller states like El Salvador with relatively unsophisticated criminal threats, heavy-handed security campaigns have yielded results. Yet in larger countries such as Mexico, crackdowns risk splintering powerful cartels into more fragmented and violent factions.
How Businesses Should Prepare
The 2026 Global Risk Map can help risk management identify gaps and vulnerabilities to make more informed decisions to keep personnel, assets, interests, and bottom lines safe.
Organizations and their established vendors should use these resources in conjunction with tabletop exercises to ensure business continuity plans are in place and responsive to these risks. Navigating this landscape requires more than reactive planning. Enterprises must proactively assess their exposure to geopolitical risks, crime, unrest, terrorism, and natural disasters to understand how these dynamics converge, and to stay aware of global hotspots.
Bellicosity and its consequences are no longer the domains of states but of all enterprises that rely on stability in everything from sourcing, operations, and market access. It is incumbent on corporate decision-makers to walk through the “what-if” and explore various scenarios that could arise from the current threat landscape to promote resiliency and business continuity.
.jpg?width=5000&height=815&name=Risk_Map_Analysis_Banner%20(2).jpg)
Global Guardian's annual Risk Map displays country-specific security risk levels based on a series of indicators including crime, health, natural disasters, infrastructure, political stability, civil unrest, and terrorism.
This year's addition, the Global Guardian Terror Index (GGTI), is a visual tool that measures a location’s current propensity for terrorism and its trajectory. The GGTI provides a snapshot of the terror threat environment to help decision makers better assess the 2026 security landscape.
To download your copy, complete the form below.
