Clionadh’s Monthly ACLED Data & Analysis Outlook
Dear readers,
Many of us won’t be devastated that 2024 is ending. It has been an extraordinarily vicious year: Conflict has increased by 25% and, as detailed in our new Conflict Index, conflict rates have doubled in the past five years.
So…season’s greetings? Bring on 2025.
Reflecting on 2024 in ACLED’s Conflict Index
This year’s findings from the ACLED Conflict Index are stark. Global conflict levels have surged dramatically, with nearly 200,000 political violence events recorded in 2024 alone. Palestine ranks as the most dangerous place in the world, with civilians exposed to daily bombings and incursions that resulted in over 35,000 fatalities in the past 12 months. Meanwhile, Ukraine remains the deadliest conflict globally, and Myanmar grapples with the most fragmented non-state armed conflict, averaging 170 active groups per week.
One of the most striking trends of the year is the shifting nature of violence. Bombings now account for over 90,000 incidents — nearly double the number of armed clashes. This trend underscores a growing reliance on remote and indiscriminate tactics in warfare, with devastating consequences for civilian populations. One in eight people globally were exposed to conflict, signaling the pervasive reach of these crises and how they are becoming more concentrated in the places they are active.
While the patterns of violence varied significantly — ranging from mob violence in India to cartel wars in Mexico, and from jihadist insurgencies in the Sahel to inter-state conflict in Ukraine — the underlying drivers remained consistent: contested elite power, geopolitical rivalries, and contests over authority, people, and territory.
What lies ahead in 2025?
As we look to 2025, ACLED’s Conflict Watchlist offers a glimpse into the crises likely to define the coming year. Long-running conflicts, such as those in Syria, the Great Lakes region, and the Sahel, show no signs of resolution. In some cases, they are worsening, fueled by shifting alliances, proxy dynamics, and opportunities created by geopolitical upheavals. New challenges, including the ramifications of Donald Trump’s re-election in the United States and its potential impact on Ukraine, add layers of uncertainty.
One thing I am sure of is that it will feel chaotic because it is chaos. At least with Trump, chaos is the point: There is too much about his ‘love of a deal’ and less about how he loves chaos and making people act like dancing monkeys to please whatever whims he has. This is as relevant for his appointees as it is for world leaders. But for the other decision-makers, I think it can be safely said that everyone is in reaction mode because — for most conflicts at the moment — how things turn out in 2025 is as much determined by whether a local rebel leader sees an opportunity for some trouble, whether the arms shipment was delayed, or whether a cogent argument has been made in diplomatic talks.
What does that mean for us? I think we need to be reliable narrators. Most analysts want to show ‘this matters here for these reasons’ using evidence. Yet, we all have pet causes and perhaps — in reaction to less money and attention to specific conflicts or presumed factors— there could be more thumbs on the scales in 2025. This could manifest as ‘I want this cause to get more attention’ or ‘I want this conflict to be viewed through this lens’ rather than the evidence showing us a pattern. I don’t think analysts should be activists — it both reduces the quality of the analysis and leads to mistrust with audiences. And I will promise in 2025 that ACLED will continue to not broach that line.
So, Syria!
Removing the Assad regime is a high point for 2024 and a clear, damning sign for Iran. Dictatorships are fragile and are held up by violence, fear, rotten internal politics, and outside support. When even one of those breaks, the system is fatally wounded. While no one foresaw Assad falling in December, it also was not a surprise. Political prisoners reuniting with their families is reason enough to welcome what has happened.
The excellent Syria team at ACLED generated a phenomenal mapping of who fought whom leading up to Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS) assuming control, which armed groups are left and where. Reports of a surge in violence in Syria’s rural areas as HTS controls urban areas remind us that the end of one conflict changes a set of problems, but creates new (possibly non-violent) sets, and alters (rather than ends) all other violence problems. This same pattern is evident in Colombia and Ethiopia. We will discuss the lot in a webinar on the Conflict Index and Watchlist in January — please sign up here.
Et tu, Elizabeth Warren?
In the latest entry to ‘Americans seem to be almost wishing for a violent hellscape,’ I feel like I need to revive my calm down rhetoric to counter the vibe that ‘political violence is lit.’ This is what I have seen so far: Someone with a popular view that US health insurance practices are terrible took it upon themselves to assassinate the CEO of a profit-making health insurance company. In response, society showed itself to be made up of some awful people who sought to ‘justify’ the killings. Would a less photogenic murderer get this consideration? Would a less wealthy victim be more sympathetic? What a uniquely American situation! Again (and I think this will continue for the following few years), no, we are not entering a time of random assassinations in US politics (let’s not forget that there is already an enormous ‘regular murders’ problem in the US). Many— if not most — of those with radical sentiments on X or Bluesky or wherever, are extremely reluctant and just regular levels of angry in private, as discussed at length here.
What I do worry about is that those on the right and supporters of incoming President Trump, will find that the realities of running a country continue to be difficult and full of compromises and dead ends. An alternative to showing progress or governing well is the very (very!) popular practice of finding an enemy and blaming everything on them. Blaming ‘antifa’ or the ‘radical left’ for the problems of the US will happen — and perhaps people should not make it so easy.
Notes and notions
Thinking of Christmas, I have a strong and perfect idyll that is yet to materialize. In reality, it is less coziness and fires, and more panicked thoughts of ‘what are we going to get the children’s coaches?’ But, I live in hope. If you are going to have some quieter moments, I happily suggest some books and watching that I really enjoyed/will enjoy this year, including ‘Ludwig’ (on BBC), which is a brilliant mash of actual puzzle logic plus cozy murders! Over Christmas, the ‘Strike’ series will continue (BBC), and every part of the Galbraith/Rowling books and programs are fantastic! Earlier this year, I watched and loved a truly filthy, Australian uncozy murder series called ‘Deadloch’ which, along with Fisk (Netflix) are marking Australian programs as perfecting the hilarious and bizarre-banal (a style where you can totally explain how you ended up in a ridiculous situation). I will make myself (and others) watch ‘Crá’, which on the plus side is in Gaelic, but on the minus side, is as far from ‘Rivals’ as you can get.
Over Christmas, I will finish Gerald Seymour’s ‘Harry’s Game’ (1975), which is original and challenging. I am not a huge fan of ‘Belfast’ books, or Belfast for that matter, but give it a go! I am getting through ‘Karla’s Choice,’ by Le Carre’s son Nick Harkaway, but just like all of Le Carre’s books, I don’t actually like it (similar to Belfast, but for opposite reasons). Does anyone actually like Le Carre’s books? Or do they feel like they are supposed to deeply appreciate the endless mental meanderings of lonely, middle-aged, secretive, British civil servants who went to boarding school?
I have been enjoying ‘The Hollow Crown’ by Eliot Cohen — ‘Shakespeare on how leaders rise, rule and fall.’ In general, I have sought out Cohen’s pieces in The Atlantic this year on the crisis in the Middle East. His pieces on Israel especially embody how those in power are determined to not let this crisis go to waste in their quest to reshape the Middle East. Hard to stomach and to watch, but it is fair to say that those in power in Israel couldn’t care less about how their actions are interpreted, because they won’t be stopped.
