Global Conflict: Democracy vs Autocracy in 2026

The current geopolitical landscape is defined by a war between democracy and autocracy. Many observers feel we are living through a moment similar to the 1930s, and for good reason. History tends to repeat itself, though never in exactly the same way; it simply wears different masks.

In the 1930s, the frontline of this war was Spain. For three years, the Spanish Republic fought against the forces of fascism. Today, the frontline has shifted to Ukraine. The struggle is viewed as a continuation of the same historical battle for freedom against tyranny.

Despite the geographical shift, the core conflict remains identical. It is a struggle for the future of governance and individual liberty. The parallels are stark enough that analysts suggest we are witnessing a reenactment of the century's most dangerous era.

The defense of Ukraine against Russian invasion is framed as a defense for everyone. Just as Republicans who fought against Franco did not necessarily believe in the 'exiguous' democracy of Spain, many Ukrainians fighting Putin may have doubts about their own political system. However, they are defending the principle of democracy itself.

A critical difference between the 1930s and today is the response of the international community. In the 1930s, Western democracies abandoned the Spanish Republic. That abandonment paved the way for a long dictatorship and global conflict. In the current conflict, Western democracies have not abandoned Ukraine. While the level of support varies, the abandonment seen in the past has been avoided.

This support is described as 'something is something'—a recognition that while the aid may not be perfect, it is a significant departure from the isolationism of the 1930s. The stakes are viewed as equally high, with the defense of Ukraine serving as a proxy for the defense of Western democratic values.

In the 1930s, the spearhead of authoritarianism was Hitler, whose intentions were clear from the beginning. Today, the spearhead is Vladimir Putin. His intentions have also been clear for years, as warned by those who know him best.

Warnings regarding Russia's trajectory have been issued for nearly a decade. In 2015, Svetlana Alexiévich, a Nobel laureate and author of a book on the fall of the Unión Soviética, made stark predictions. She described Russia as a threat to the entire civilized world.

Alexiévich characterized the prevailing philosophy in Russia as more dangerous than that of the Soviet era. She noted a readiness to enter any armed conflict and to solve problems through war. Her specific list of potential targets included:

• Chechenia
• Georgia
• Siria
• Crimea
• Ucrania

She explicitly asked who would be the next country Putin would send his army to. Based on current analysis, the answer may be the European Union itself.

While the immediate conflict is in Ukraine, the long-term threat appears to be directed toward Europe. The analysis suggests that the ultimate goal of the current Russian aggression is not limited to Ukraine. The expansionist philosophy described by experts points to a broader ambition.

The European Union is identified as a likely future target. This represents a direct threat to the stability of the West. The realization that Russia views the 'civilized world' as an adversary suggests that the conflict will not remain contained to the current borders.

If the warnings from years past are accurate, the conflict in Ukraine is merely the opening act. The failure to fully contain Russian aggression could lead to a much wider confrontation, fulfilling the historical parallels to the 1930s where regional conflicts eventually engulfed the entire continent.