March 31, 2026
By Jumel Gabilan Estrañero
A conflict that is not resolved in small scale will be a full-blown asymmetric disaster and in time, a warfare that will be exploited by different actors (state and non-state). In just a span of one month, short-term increases in oil income linked to the Iran conflict have eased fiscal pressures, but ongoing inflation, higher import expenses, and deep structural issues still weaken Russia’s economic outlook. Across the country, failing infrastructure and recurring heating disruptions are fueling public frustration. At the same time, tighter digital restrictions are sparking localized protests and increasing social strain.
Case in point in Russia, with legislative elections approaching, it is adjusting expectations for voter turnout and revising its political approach, signaling concern over participation levels and overall regime stability. What complicated more is the detention of former Deputy Defense Minister Ruslan Tsalikov highlighting the widening divisions within Russia’s elite, revealing growing insecurity even among senior leadership. At the backdrop of this, although Russia may gain from periods of global instability, mounting economic pressures, governance issues, and internal elite conflicts could drive meaningful systemic change in the near term.
On the other hand, the US is contending this week that the war will end in two to four weeks, we must look at the end of the tunnel; or at least the middle of the tunnel how the war has already affected the biology of life in the ground. The Middle East is one of the most biologically stressed regions on Earth.
When it comes to biological stress as a driver of conflict, water scarcity, desertification, and population pressures are not just environmental issues, they are geopolitical triggers. Water scarcity affects major river systems like the Tigris River and Euphrates River, creating tensions among Turkey, Syria, and Iraq. Its direct effect is declining agricultural productivity leads to food insecurity, which historically contributed to unrest (e.g., pre-conflict rural collapse in Syria). Its biological takeaway stems out from resource scarcity rooted in ecology translates directly into political instability and conflict escalation.
Next, the vacuum of strategic power and climate science. Climate science plays a central role in reshaping regional alliances and vulnerabilities. One of which is the rising temperatures and droughts intensify migration flows across Middle East and into Europe followed by countries with advanced desalination and agricultural biotech—like Israel—gain strategic resilience and influence. And of course, climate stress amplifies dependence on external powers for food and water security. So how this scientifically implicates? Technological adaptation to biological limits becomes a new axis of geopolitical power.
Further, we have the third risk – the biosecurity and warfare. Modern conflict increasingly includes biological dimensions such as risks of disease outbreaks in war zones (e.g., cholera, COVID-like disruptions) destabilize already fragile states like Yemen; weak healthcare systems increase vulnerability to pandemics, making biology a national security issue; and concerns over biological weapons, while regulated under the Biological Weapons Convention, remain part of strategic calculations. Note that in the bio-security parlance, biology is no longer just health, it is embedded in military and national defense frameworks.
Meanwhile, there will always be an intersection of leverage among energy, science, and economy. The Middle East crisis intersects with global energy systems, where science and biology indirectly shape outcomes. Fossil fuels (biological in origin) remain central to economies in Iran and Saudi Arabia. Conflict disruptions affect global oil prices, benefiting actors like Russia as reflected in your key takeaway on temporary revenue gains. Scientific advances in renewable energy threaten long-term fossil fuel dominance, reshaping geopolitical influence. In other words, the control over biologically-derived energy resources remains a core geopolitical lever—but is increasingly challenged by scientific innovation.
What about the demographic implication of war? The human biology is centrally affected by the protracted wars across the region of Middle East. Population dynamics rooted in biology are central to ‘political outcomes’. This connoted that youth-heavy populations in countries like Iraq and Egypt create pressure for jobs, governance reform, and stability. There is urban overcrowding and health stress increase susceptibility to unrest and migration patterns reshape regional and global political landscapes. Now, human biology progression can also be paralyzed (population growth reproduction, age structure, assisted health and medical / surgical technology if disrupted) directly influences state regime stability, conflict risk , and health risk of the affected populace that may also look into migration in a safer space nation (Switzerland, New Zealand, and other extremely peaceful state), as expressed by Dr. Krista Marie
I. Pacifico[1], MD, FPOGS, FPSRM.
In the context of Russia and the war-torn area where spillover is prominent, our observations about Russia connect strongly to this biological-scientific framework. We have to take note that oil revenue gains is tied to ‘biologically derived fossil fuels and Middle East instability’. To simply put: Inflation & import costs → exacerbated by climate-driven supply chain disruptions (food, energy)
Infrastructure failures → worsened by environmental stress (extreme cold, resource strain)
Political anxiety & elite fractures → intensified by economic volatility rooted in global scientific/biological systems
This shows a critical point in assessing the effects across biospheres of politics and life sciences while the war is still not contained; far from over at this point. Middle East crises are not regionally contained, they trigger systemic effects across global biological, economic, and political networks. Biology and science are not peripheral; they are foundational to modern geopolitics in the Middle East but in what sense?
Biology (water, food, population) → drives internal instability
Science (climate tech, energy, healthcare) → determines resilience and power
Conflict feedback loops → amplify global economic and political consequences
The Middle East crisis should be understood as a bio-geopolitical system, where ecological limits, scientific capability, and political power interact. States that can manage biological stress through scientific innovation will shape the next phase of regional and global order while those that cannot risk collapse or prolonged instability. Meanwhile, strategies are moving from wide-array of spheres while the world is busy looking at the Middle East.
In fact, China and Russia adopt fundamentally different strategies in some regions like in Africa (power institutionalization) and ASEAN (oil allocation); reflecting contrasting views on how power should be projected. China focuses on embedding its influence through institutions, emphasizing stability, governance partnerships, infrastructure expansion, professional military engagement, and long-term information investments that outlast leadership changes or short-term crises. In contrast, Russia prioritizes immediate outcomes over system-building, relying on regime support, security services, political disruption, and information campaigns to secure rapid influence, though often without creating lasting institutional ties.
These divergent approaches reveal two competing geopolitical models. China’s strategy is structural and future-oriented, aiming to reshape political and economic ecosystems in ways that ensure enduring alignment. Its investments in infrastructure and governance capacity are designed to anchor influence within the state itself, making it more resilient over time. Russia’s approach, however, is tactical and opportunistic, thriving in unstable environments where quick intervention often through security or political means can yield immediate strategic gains without requiring deep institutional integration.
The implications are significant. States with relatively stable governance structures are more likely to align with China’s long-term development model, while politically fragile states may gravitate toward Russia’s security-driven engagements. This creates a dual-track geopolitical landscape across the continent, where influence is divided not just by geography, but by levels of internal stability.
Ultimately, the competition between China and Russia in power bio-genesis reflects a broader global contest between institutional power and transactional influence. The durability of China’s model versus the immediacy of Russia’s approach will shape not only one region’s political trajectory (i.e. Baltic, Balkan, East Asia, and Southeast Asia) but also the evolving architecture of global power in the coming decades.
*Ideas and/or views expressed here are entirely independent and not in any form represent author’s organization and affiliation.
Endnotes:Filipino physician working in the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology of various hospitals (St. Luke’s, VMC-DOH, JC Delgado MH, etc.). She specializes in OB-GYN Reproductive Endocrinology and Infertility which focuses on endocrine and reproductive health disorders such as polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS), menopause, endometriosis, adenomyosis, In-Vitro Fertilization (IVF), social egg freezing, and other sexual problems. The subspecialty also focuses on diagnosing and treating infertility and providing options for fertility preservation.
Jumel Gabilan Estrañero
Jumel Gabilan Estrañero is a defense, security, & political analyst and a university lecturer in the Philippines. He has completed the Executive Course in National Security at the National Defense College of the Philippines and has participated in NADI Track II discussions in Singapore (an ASEAN-led security forum on terrorism). His articles have appeared in Global Security Review, Geopolitical Monitor, Global Village Space, Philippine Daily Inquirer, Philippine Star, Manila Times, Malaya Business Insights, Asia Maritime Review, The Nation (Thailand), Southeast Asian Times, and Global Politics and Social Science Research Network. He worked in the Armed Forces of the Philippines, Office of Civil Defense, National Security Council-Office of the President, and currently in the Department of the National Defense. He is currently teaching lectures in De La Salle University Philippines while in the government and formerly taught at Lyceum of the Philippines as part-time lecturer. He is the co-author of the books titled: Disruptive Innovations, Transnational Organized Crime and Terrorism: A Philippine Terrorism Handbook, and Global Security Studies Journal (Springer Link, United States). He is an alumnus of ASEAN Law Academy Advanced Program in Center for International Law, National University Singapore and Geneva Centre for Security Policy, Switzerland. He is also a Juris Doctor student.
No comments:
Post a Comment