World became freerer, world became safer.

[ikalugin]

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-rzvD0lZvzo4/VbWwSQk6T0I/AAAAAAAAnbA/_6c3PT3FxHw/s640/Proliferation%2Bof%2Bconflict%2Bin%2BMiddle%2BEast %2B%2BNorth%2BAfrica%2Bover%2Bthe%2Blast%2B5%2Byea rs%2B1.png
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-QLprJDbnkq4/VbWwMFUs7-I/AAAAAAAAna4/qfknKeEKcUs/s640/Proliferation%2Bof%2Bconflict%2Bin%2BMiddle%2BEast %2B%2BNorth%2BAfrica%2Bover%2Bthe%2Blast%2B5%2Byea rs%2B2.png
My Russian invasion sense tells me that a big war is.comming.

P.s. Crimea should be white.

[Betonov]

It's just ISIS agitating the region.
They have spin doctors and propaganda wise guys that would make Goebels blush.

A worrying trend, but not a clash of supeprowers situation.

[Oberon]

Arab Spring, began the end of 2010 and that explains most of those hot spots, couple that with the rise of Daesh and the likes of Boko Haram and Al Shabab, and that's the whole shebang.

[ikalugin]

It does certainly, however one may have to ask - what if IS actually works out as a revolutionary power the same way USSR did?

And if this instability (caused by the unstable global security system) would lead to a crash of global security system?

[Stealhead]

Doubtful. Even if the United States and Russia don't see eye to eye IS if it became strong would be an equal threat to both. Even Iran willingly fights IS which shows the stability threat IS poses currently.

Also some of the regions shown for example Azerbaijan has had an on again of again civil war since the early 90's. So certain things on the map peaked above the previous data but it doesn't have anything to do with IS. I some what disagree with the lowest scale you don't even show up if there are less than 10k or more dead that means a region that has 9,000 deaths doesn't even show up. For example the Kashmir region I bet there are easily 500 or more conflict related deaths there per year.

[Oberon]

I don't think that Daesh has a leader strong enough to unite the Arab lands without at least a hundred years of civil war. I mean, they want to be a new Caliphate but they lack a Caliph who would be able to unify the lands they've conquered, and in this interconnected world as soon as a leader did present himself then they would receive a Hellfire missile for breakfast.

It's very hard to be certain what direction Daesh will take, and if in the long term they are actually the major story in the Middle East or just an offshoot of the changing power balance between Saudi Arabia and Iran and the waxing and waning tide of Western power in the Middle East over the past century.

In regards to the 'global security system' which sounds like something from Command And Conquer, I'm guessing that you mean something like NATO? I can't see NATO or the US/Western Europe alliance splintering any time within the next fifty years, although I can see a lot of disagreements brewing about how Palestine and Israel should be treated, and whether Iran should be trusted, etc. Turkey as well is going to be a big question mark for the western powers, whether its strategic importance is worth the trouble that it's causing the west.

However, since Russia is once again perceived as a threat, China (despite its economic problems and indeed perhaps because) is also perceived as an ongoing concern, and Daesh and its radical Muslim allies treat all westerners as fair game, the western nations aren't going to split apart when they are all potential targets.

[ikalugin]

The problem I see in the ISIS is how they have created a chimera of networked system from Al-caida (and earlier revolutionary movements), radical ideology (again was seen in earlier revolutionary movements) with local autocrats (ex Saddam's people) and integrated instruments of violence.

While this chimera may not have a true global claim, it could (and probably would) both create a viable local/regional state (arguably it already did) as well as subvert islamic populations globaly, especially if a new wave of international crisis hits.

Global security system is a system for conflict resolution. In the cold war it was based on the MAD between two super powers, post cold war it became based on the perceived universal values and complete US dominance. We know that former is simply false and later is vaning.
More could be seen in this video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z5TMi82LmIo
(it is a bit long but totally worth it)

Hence the problem is that, should this unstable system collapse, things would happen.

[Stealhead]

He's right about the Ukrainian military very sub par allowing your enemy a 100km line to pass through is well stupid. Its like the classic Ceaser move encircle the enemy force that has encircled your force.

[ikalugin]

Operation Cobra was commonly used as a closer example.

[Stealhead]

Indeed in modern manoeuvre warfare it is an excellent example. That man is pretty knowledge no slouch would be allowed to teach officers at Ft. Leavenworth that's a school for professional officers many are majors when they attend.

[Schroeder]

I some what disagree with the lowest scale you don't even show up if there are less than 10k or more dead that means a region that has 9,000 deaths doesn't even show up. For example the Kashmir region I bet there are easily 500 or more conflict related deaths there per year.
The scale goes all the way down to just 10+ people being killed. Not 10+k people.:hmm2: