NPR84%

Conflicts are on the rise globally, at the highest level since WWII, data shows 42%

By Kate Bartlett0%

6/9/2026, 7:00:00 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 26 faulty reasoning types, including Recency Bias, Overconfidence Bias, and Confirmation Bias, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 23.7% saturation with 218 hits. Analysis detected 1,456 faulty-reasoning hits from 919 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 46.2% and a BS Rank of 42% (12,338 of 21,180 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 58.30% of the article peer group.

Global conflicts hit record level since WWII, data shows 
Global conflicts surged to the highest number tallied by Uppsala Conflict Data Program. 
Fatalities were the highest on record since 1994, with approximately 244,600 people killed in conflict in 2025. 
JOHANNESBURG  If you've been thinking it seems like there are more wars raging in the world these days, it turns out you're right and the data proves it. 
A new study by researchers at a university in Sweden recorded the highest number of conflicts between states in 2025 since World War II, and the highest number of fatalities recorded since the Rwandan genocide. 
There were 65 active conflicts in 2025, according to researchers at the Uppsala Conflict Data Program (UCDP) at Uppsala University, regarded as a leading source of information on violence worldwide. 
Out of that total, the number of direct conflicts between individual states doubled from the previous year to eight in 2025  the highest number of such conflicts since UCDP began collecting data in 1946. 
They included the wars between Russia and Ukraine and between Iran and Israel, as well as conflicts between India and Pakistan, Thailand and Cambodia, and Israel's conflicts in Syria and Yemen. 
The final two are: the border conflict between Afghanistan and Pakistan, and the conflict in the Red Sea and Gulf of Aden between the U.S. and U.K. against Yemen's Houthis. 
"We are seeing a clear increase in conflicts between states. 
For a long time, interstate wars were relatively rare, but developments in recent years point to growing international tensions and a changing global security order," said Shawn Davies, a senior analyst at UCDP. 
The rest of the 65 were all intrastate conflicts  government forces fighting rebel groups within the country. 
Most conflict deaths since Rwanda 
Fatalities were the highest on record since 1994, with approximately 244,600 people killed in conflict in 2025, the data shows. 
That's up from 187,000 deaths in 2024. 
"It is not only a story of more conflicts, but also of extremely high levels of lethal violence. 
Most notably, we see a dramatic increase in violence directed against civilians, particularly in Sudan," said Therése Pettersson, senior analyst and project manager at UCDP. 
The researchers break down the data into several categories. 
One is "state-based violence," which includes both internal, civil wars and "interstate wars," meaning wars between nations. 
Either way this grouping means one or both parties to a conflict are a government: for example Ukraine, Sudan and Gaza. 
Then there is "non-state violence," which encompasses clashes between two groups, neither of which is a state: for example sectarian fighting in Pakistan or cartel violence in Mexico. 
A third category is "one-sided violence," which targets civilians, for example last year's government crackdowns on protests in Tanzania or rebel group attacks on civilians in the Democratic Republic of Congo. 
Of last year's 65 conflicts, 13 of them rose to the level of war  as defined by over 1,000 battlefield deaths a year. 
Russia-Ukraine was deadliest war of 2025 
The Russia-Ukraine war was the deadliest interstate conflict, accounting for 62% of all battle-related deaths, with 77,700 from the Russian side killed in 2025 and 14,000 from the Ukrainian side. 
While the warring sides do not regularly release casualty figures, the Uppsala researchers use a variety of open sources, including social media to come up with the tallies. 
"Russian battlefield losses have increased and Ukraine losses have remained relatively stable," the researchers noted. 
The Israel-Hamas war was the second-deadliest conflict, with 14,400 fatalities, though that was still a decrease compared to the previous year due to ceasefire agreements. 
And, the third deadliest state-based conflict was Sudan with 12,200 deaths. 
But those figures only account for fighting between government forces and the paramilitary Rapid Support Forces (RSF). 
Sudan dominates in terms of violence against civilians. 
Tens of thousands of Sudanese civilians were killed by the RSF in massacres after the capture of the Sudanese city of El Fasher alone last year. 
Part of the reason the researchers gave for the rise in conflicts globally over the past decade was a shift in the international order as led by the U.S. since World War II. 
"Now the United States is is turning against the world order it built, as expressed in its 2025 National Security Strategy," the study said. 
"The extremely high number of conflicts and wars recorded in 2025, particularly the record number of interstate conflicts lends credence to the growing number of voices arguing that we are witnessing the end of Pax Americana and the liberal world order." 
Asked if that meant wars had become worse under the Trump administration, co-author Petterssen said: "Our data does not allow us to establish a direct causal link between specific U.S. policy changes and the increase in conflicts recorded in 2025." 
"What the data shows is that interstate conflicts have increased sharply over the past decade and reached their highest level since World War II. 
This trend predates the current U.S. administration and cannot be explained by any single policy decision or political leader," she added. 
"The discussion in the article concerns a broader debate in international relations about whether we are witnessing changes in the post-Cold War international order." 
Whatever the causes, 2026 doesn't look like it will be any more peaceful than last year, the researchers warn. 
Data this year so far shows the rise in conflicts globally is a trend that's likely to continue. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 11.8%Kate Bartlett: 4.0%Goats and Soda (NPR): 3.4%Confirmation Bias11.8%This article: 3.8%Kate Bartlett: 2.2%Goats and Soda (NPR): 1.6%Anchoring Bias3.8%This article: 9.9%Kate Bartlett: 2.1%Goats and Soda (NPR): 3.8%Availability Heuristic9.9%This article: 3.0%Kate Bartlett: 0.9%Goats and Soda (NPR): 1.2%Representativeness Heuristic3.0%This article: 0.0%Kate Bartlett: 0.3%Goats and Soda (NPR): 0.8%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 11.9%Kate Bartlett: 3.3%Goats and Soda (NPR): 2.4%Overconfidence Bias11.9%This article: 7.9%Kate Bartlett: 8.0%Goats and Soda (NPR): 11.1%Framing Effect7.9%This article: 0.0%Kate Bartlett: 0.0%Goats and Soda (NPR): 1.2%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 3.6%Kate Bartlett: 1.8%Goats and Soda (NPR): 1.1%Status Quo Bias3.6%This article: 0.0%Kate Bartlett: 0.0%Goats and Soda (NPR): 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 2.0%Kate Bartlett: 5.2%Goats and Soda (NPR): 3.4%Optimism Bias2.0%This article: 5.2%Kate Bartlett: 2.1%Goats and Soda (NPR): 2.3%Pessimism Bias5.2%This article: 23.7%Kate Bartlett: 16.2%Goats and Soda (NPR): 11.3%Negativity Bias23.7%This article: 0.0%Kate Bartlett: 0.0%Goats and Soda (NPR): 2.3%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 2.6%Kate Bartlett: 1.9%Goats and Soda (NPR): 1.1%Fundamental Attribution Error2.6%This article: 0.0%Kate Bartlett: 0.0%Goats and Soda (NPR): 0.3%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Kate Bartlett: 8.4%Goats and Soda (NPR): 2.3%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Kate Bartlett: 1.6%Goats and Soda (NPR): 1.2%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Kate Bartlett: 7.2%Goats and Soda (NPR): 2.8%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Kate Bartlett: 0.0%Goats and Soda (NPR): 0.3%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Kate Bartlett: 0.0%Goats and Soda (NPR): 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 14.9%Kate Bartlett: 5.7%Goats and Soda (NPR): 1.7%Recency Bias14.9%This article: 0.0%Kate Bartlett: 0.9%Goats and Soda (NPR): 0.5%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Kate Bartlett: 0.0%Goats and Soda (NPR): 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Kate Bartlett: 3.2%Goats and Soda (NPR): 1.2%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Kate Bartlett: 0.0%Goats and Soda (NPR): 0.3%Straw Man0.0%This article: 3.3%Kate Bartlett: 7.2%Goats and Soda (NPR): 6.1%Appeal to Authority3.3%This article: 2.3%Kate Bartlett: 0.6%Goats and Soda (NPR): 1.5%False Dilemma2.3%This article: 2.0%Kate Bartlett: 0.3%Goats and Soda (NPR): 1.3%Slippery Slope2.0%This article: 0.0%Kate Bartlett: 0.0%Goats and Soda (NPR): 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 2.1%Kate Bartlett: 6.0%Goats and Soda (NPR): 4.4%Hasty Generalization2.1%This article: 0.0%Kate Bartlett: 0.0%Goats and Soda (NPR): 0.3%Red Herring0.0%This article: 4.5%Kate Bartlett: 1.6%Goats and Soda (NPR): 0.7%Bandwagon4.5%This article: 2.6%Kate Bartlett: 9.4%Goats and Soda (NPR): 6.6%Appeal to Emotion2.6%This article: 0.0%Kate Bartlett: 0.2%Goats and Soda (NPR): 0.9%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 6.3%Kate Bartlett: 2.9%Goats and Soda (NPR): 2.8%Post Hoc (False Cause)6.3%This article: 0.0%Kate Bartlett: 0.0%Goats and Soda (NPR): 0.2%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 7.4%Kate Bartlett: 1.3%Goats and Soda (NPR): 0.4%Burden of Proof7.4%This article: 0.0%Kate Bartlett: 0.0%Goats and Soda (NPR): 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 3.4%Kate Bartlett: 0.6%Goats and Soda (NPR): 0.2%Composition/Division3.4%This article: 6.2%Kate Bartlett: 6.4%Goats and Soda (NPR): 2.8%Anecdotal6.2%This article: 0.0%Kate Bartlett: 0.0%Goats and Soda (NPR): 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 2.3%Kate Bartlett: 0.4%Goats and Soda (NPR): 1.5%Ambiguity (Equivocation)2.3%This article: 0.0%Kate Bartlett: 0.0%Goats and Soda (NPR): 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Kate Bartlett: 0.6%Goats and Soda (NPR): 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Kate Bartlett: 0.0%Goats and Soda (NPR): 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Kate Bartlett: 0.0%Goats and Soda (NPR): 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Kate Bartlett: 1.3%Goats and Soda (NPR): 0.5%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 4.1%Kate Bartlett: 0.7%Goats and Soda (NPR): 1.3%Unattributed Quote4.1%This article: 2.6%Kate Bartlett: 1.7%Goats and Soda (NPR): 0.9%Quote-first Misdirection2.6%This article: 9.1%Kate Bartlett: 2.2%Goats and Soda (NPR): 3.1%Biased Writer Voice9.1%This article: 0.0%Kate Bartlett: 0.0%Goats and Soda (NPR): 1.0%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Kate Bartlett: 0.0%Goats and Soda (NPR): 1.1%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Kate Bartlett: 0.0%Goats and Soda (NPR): 0.3%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Kate Bartlett: 0.0%Goats and Soda (NPR): 0.3%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

919 words analyzed.

Speakers

2speakers21%attributed speech724writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 14 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 29 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 35 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 30 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 35 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 31 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 30 words • 0.0% coverageShawn Davies • 10 words • 100.0% coverageShawn Davies • 33 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageTherése Pettersson • 18 words • 0.0% coverageTherése Pettersson • 25 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 28 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 31 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 30 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 28 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 33 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 41 words • 100.0% coverageTherése Pettersson • 40 words • 0.0% coverageTherése Pettersson • 24 words • 100.0% coverageTherése Pettersson • 21 words • 0.0% coverageTherése Pettersson • 24 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Shawn Davies

100%flagged-word coverage
43 attributed words22% of attributed speech80% writer coverage
0%12.5%25.0%Unattributed Quote+19.4 ptsWriter: 3.9%Shawn Davies: 23.3%23.3%Biased Writer Voice-11.6 ptsWriter: 11.6%Shawn Davies: 0.0%0.0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.