The world resembles a badly maintained engine where multiple components fail simultaneously, yet the operators continue adding fuel while ignoring the smoke. Paolo Falconio’s astute analysis in The Entropy of War captures this phenomenon through what he terms the “entropy of war” —a concept that deserves serious attention from anyone attempting to understand why conflicts now seem to generate their own momentum, regardless of political interventions.
Multiple theaters, single momentum
Israel’s recent strike against Iran exemplifies how geopolitical entropy operates in practice. Rather than existing as an isolated incident, this action threatens to drag unwilling participants into a widening conflict. The United States finds itself in the uncomfortable position of potentially entering a war it neither chose nor fully controls, particularly if Iran deploys its complete ballistic arsenal.
Meanwhile, China and Russia watch their carefully constructed economic arrangements with Iran—including the newly inaugurated China–Iran Silk Road railway—face potential disruption. These economic ties matter because they represent alternative power structures that challenge Western dominance in global trade routes and energy markets.
The Ukraine conflict demonstrates how geopolitical entropy transforms limited operations into full-scale wars. Since 2024, when Putin’s peace overtures met Ukrainian rejection, the conflict evolved beyond its original parameters. What began as a “special operation” now resembles a conventional war with escalating characteristics that will likely intensify in coming months.
The quad of resistance
Four nations—Iran, Russia, China, and North Kore—share a common perception: the United States represents an existential threat. Three possess nuclear arsenals, while the fourth pursues them aggressively. This alignment creates dangerous dynamics because these states coordinate responses to Western pressure while maintaining independent strategic objectives.
North Korea’s recent narrative change proves particularly telling. South Koreans are no longer described as separated brothers but as fundamentally different people. This rhetorical transformation indicates a permanent strategic realignment that eliminates diplomatic flexibility and increases the likelihood of military confrontation.
China’s peaceful rhetoric masks unchanged global ambitions, with Taiwan representing just one component of broader strategic goals. The U.S. Secretary of Defense’s acknowledgment that confrontation appears inevitable suggests that both sides recognize the fundamental incompatibility of their strategic visions.
American constraints and Israeli leverage
Trump’s presidency faces severe limitations in managing these multiple crises. Despite genuine desires for peace, he cannot order comprehensive disengagement—such as evacuating American personnel from Ukraine—without facing domestic political consequences. The geopolitical entropy has created situations where presidential authority meets practical constraints.
Israel presents a particularly complex challenge. Netanyahu commands more Congressional votes than Trump himself, which creates an extraordinary situation where a foreign leader exercises greater influence over American foreign policy than the American president. This dynamic explains why American Middle East policy often appears disconnected from broader strategic objectives.
European strategic chaos
European military capabilities reveal the absurdity of current defense postures. Britain maintains only twelve deep artillery pieces while its submarine-launched ballistic missile tests have failed consistently for a decade. Yet British strategic documents claim parity with Russia in potential conflicts—a assessment that borders on fantasy.
Germany’s situation appears even more problematic. While sending Taurus missiles to Ukraine, Berlin protects itself with a single anti-aircraft battery, leaving military production facilities completely vulnerable to retaliation. This approach to rearmament prioritizes symbolism over substance, creating vulnerabilities that adversaries will certainly exploit.
Individual European initiatives occur outside Article 5 protections, meaning that retaliation for these actions cannot automatically trigger American involvement. NATO’s unified command structure remains American-dominated, but the United States faces competing priorities that limit its commitment to European adventures.
The European Union’s leadership structure compounds these problems. Representatives from small states make decisions for major powers, while those major powers lack the political cohesion necessary for effective action. France’s Macron recently admitted that Europe has nothing left to provide Ukraine—a remarkable confession that reveals the gap between European rhetoric and reality.
The Russian resurgence
Russia has demonstrated unexpected resilience and organizational capability. Its military-industrial complex operates continuously, new weapons systems advance internally, and nuclear deterrence remains credible against any existing missile defense system. This combination creates a formidable adversary that Europe must eventually engage diplomatically.
The concerning reality involves Europe’s complete lack of diplomatic channels with Russia. Multiple friction points exist from the Mediterranean to the Baltic, yet no mechanism exists for managing these tensions. Traditional European diplomatic grandiloquence proves useless when backed by inadequate military capabilities.
Major American analysts including Friedman, Mearsheimer, MacGregor, Ritter, and Kellogg agree that Russia lacks intentions to invade Europe. However, by consistently portraying Russia as a mortal enemy, European leaders risk creating the very threat they claim to fear.
The maritime dimension
Geopolitical entropy affects maritime security through multiple mechanisms. Critical shipping routes face disruption from various sources, while naval forces struggle to maintain presence across expanding areas of tension. The interconnected nature of global supply chains means that conflicts in one region rapidly affect maritime commerce worldwide.
American industrial and logistical constraints become particularly evident in maritime contexts. Major troop transport operations by sea or air face increasing threats, while the infrastructure necessary for sustained maritime operations requires advance preparation that current policies ignore.
The entropy trap
The most disturbing aspect of current geopolitical entropy involves its self-reinforcing nature. Conflicts generate momentum independent of political control, while diplomatic solutions become increasingly difficult as positions harden. European policies exemplify this dynamic—constant warnings about imminent war combined with programs requiring five to ten years for completion.
This approach risks creating the worst possible outcome: political defeat for both the EU and NATO without military engagement. Such defeats prove fatal for international institutions because they demonstrate fundamental irrelevance when tested by real challenges.
The United States might eventually conclude that divergent American and European foreign policies create unacceptable risks to American cities. Geography favors America, which enjoys oceanic separation from potential threats, while Europeans lack such natural protection.
European governments demonstrate remarkable fragility when facing actual threats. Weak political formations would likely collapse at the first conventional missile strike, eliminating the need for extensive military campaigns. Germany’s current paralysis over internal coalition disputes provides a preview of European responses to external pressure.
The brutal reality requires acknowledgment: changing narratives, strengthening diplomacy, and rebuilding credible military deterrence offer the only alternatives to continued deterioration. This approach demands peace rhetoric supported by genuine capability rather than empty threats backed by inadequate resources.
Even with fundamental policy changes, no guarantees exist that geopolitical entropy will cease its destructive momentum. The forces now in motion may prove impossible to control, regardless of political wisdom or diplomatic skill. This uncertainty makes immediate action essential while options still exist.