Charting a Path Forward

Charting a Path Forward: Transitioning from the Conflict-Ridden World of 2024 to the Prospects of Peace and Stability in 2025

Interview with Jeffrey Grieco by Bibiana Rais

If you’ve attended an ISOA event in the past 15 years, chances are you’ve seen Jeffrey Grieco at the forefront—either as a featured speaker or a dynamic panel moderator. As 2024 draws to a close, the stability operations industry finds itself at a crossroads, shaped by an unprecedented surge in global conflicts. From humanitarian crises and mass displacement to escalating violence and regime changes, instability has left an indelible mark across numerous regions.

Over the past decade, PTS has established itself as a trusted partner to stability operations industry and government contractors, delivering exceptional talent to drive critical diplomatic, defense, global health, and international development missions. Building upon this legacy, PTS engaged Jeffrey Grieco, a distinguished expert in stability operations and conflict zones with deep experience in Afghanistan, Ukraine, and other regions. In this interview conducted by Bibiana Rais, Grieco shares his insights regarding the challenges of 2024 and his outlook for the evolving landscape of stability operations in 2025.

“It’s not enough to recognize the challenges ahead; we must take bold, coordinated action to address them. 2025 offers a unique opportunity to make a tangible difference in stabilizing the world.” — Jeff Grieco

Q1: The world has faced immense challenges in 2024. Can you briefly summarize the state of global conflict and instability this year?

Jeff Grieco: Indeed, 2024 has been a tumultuous year. The world has seen unprecedented levels of conflict and humanitarian need. According to the UN Humanitarian Overview, 305 million people worldwide require urgent humanitarian assistance, and 123 million have been forcibly displaced by violence. Acute hunger is affecting over 280 million people daily, exacerbated by conflict disrupting food production. Tragically, one in five children—around 400 million—are living in or fleeing conflict zones. These statistics speak to the broader trend: the world is more unstable than ever. Conflicts are becoming more protracted and internationalized, and the overall peace index has reached concerning lows. Yet, as difficult as it is to process, looking at how we can turn this around is crucial.

Q2: Why are conflicts increasing now? What can we learn from the 2024 experience? How can we better address conflict and improve stabilization and economic resilience in 2025?

Jeff Grieco: Several factors contribute to the increasing number of conflicts. First, we’re seeing an explosion in the use of advanced military technologies by state and non-state actors, such as AI, drones, and cyber warfare. These technologies have changed the way conflicts are fought, making them more widespread and harder to resolve. Secondly, geopolitical dynamics have shifted significantly. The world is becoming more multipolar, with emerging powers like China and Russia challenging Western influence and complicating conflict resolution efforts. Finally, economic instability due to conflict is playing an increasingly critical role. The cost of violence has surged to $19.1 trillion, and the economic toll is felt not only by the countries in conflict but also by the global community, which impacts stabilization efforts. The Global Peace Index (GPI), which measures the level of peace across countries, reflects these growing tensions. The 2024 GPI highlighted that many of the conditions that precede major conflicts are higher than they’ve been since World War II. There are 56 active conflicts, and the number of conflicts that end in decisive victories has dramatically decreased. Moreover, the internationalization of conflict is at an all-time high, with 92 countries now engaged in conflicts beyond their borders. This global interconnectivity of conflict makes diplomatic solutions much harder to achieve.

From the 2024 experience, we must learn that conflicts are no longer just localized; they are deeply interconnected with global geopolitical trends and technological advances. To better address conflict in 2025, we need to prioritize three actions: increased funding for humanitarian assistance, innovative technological solutions to protect civilians, and focused efforts to build economic resilience in conflict-affected countries. The stability operations industry must adapt to these changing realities, leveraging new technologies and partnerships to scale up our response.

Q3: The Global Peace Index (GPI) introduced a new measure of global military capability in 2024, which incorporates military sophistication, technology, and battle readiness into a single measure. How does this new indicator impact our understanding of global conflict, and what implications does it have for stabilization efforts?

Jeff Grieco: The introduction of this new measure in the 2024 GPI adds a crucial layer of understanding to global conflict dynamics. Military capability is no longer just about the size of a nation’s military or its defense spending. The sophistication of military technology, including AI, drones, and cyber warfare capabilities, plays a critical role in determining the potential for conflict and escalation. This new indicator gives us a clearer picture of a nation’s ability to project power and engage in conventional and unconventional warfare, which directly impacts stabilization efforts. For example, we can better assess the potential for conflict escalation, as more advanced military technologies are being used by state, non-state, and insurgents. This complicates peacekeeping and stabilization operations because the tools needed to mitigate such conflicts are also evolving at a rapid pace. Moreover, the global military readiness of major powers, such as the U.S., China, and Russia, impacts regional conflicts and global stability. These powers’ military posturing can deter or provoke conflicts affecting neighboring regions and even the global economy. In terms of stabilization, this new measure underscores the need for a greater focus on technological innovations and advanced capabilities in our operations. To improve stabilization efforts, we must ensure that our response strategies are adaptable and capable of addressing the challenges posed by these rapidly advancing military capabilities. The international stabilization community must work hand-in-hand with governments and private partners to develop cutting-edge tools and technologies to neutralize these growing threats.

Q4: You mentioned the importance of scaling programs for resilience, particularly in conflict zones like Ukraine. How can we improve these efforts?

Jeff Grieco: Scaling these programs will be one of the most challenging tasks of 2025. We’ve seen some success in Ukraine with agricultural sustainment programs, but the key is expanding them quickly and efficiently. We need innovative approaches that can adapt to the scale of the problem. Partnerships between governments, NGOs, and private-sector organizations are essential for making these programs sustainable and effective. By focusing on strengthening local agricultural economies, we can help countries like Ukraine build resilience, reduce dependency on external aid, and stabilize their economies.

Q5: What role should the United States play in supporting Ukraine moving forward?

Jeff Grieco: The late decision of the Biden Administration in November 2024 to allow a small group of U.S. defense contractors to conduct repair and maintenance operations inside Ukraine (instead of trucking everything to Poland or elsewhere) is a welcome one according to U.S. and Ukraine military officers — but this decision was 2 years too late. This assistance would have led to much better prosecution of the war by Ukraine since they are utilizing over 200 individual weapon and defense systems donated by the U.S., Japan, Europe, and others. Yet Ukraine has proven its resilience both militarily and economically in the face of Russia’s onslaught. Significant donor cash or direct “on-budget” cash contributions will not likely occur into 2025 and more assistance is likely to be in the form of loans to the Government of Ukraine. The Trump Administration recently appointed General Keith Kellogg (Ret.) as their Presidential and Special Envoy for Ukraine & Russia, and he will move quickly to attempt a cease-fire on both sides. The President-elect has said this war is a high priority and has committed his time diplomatically to stop the conflict. For the contracting community, especially those already working in Ukraine or planning to work there in 2025, I expect some emergency reconstruction and infrastructural support services to be implemented—especially within the energy, electrical transmission, and transportation sectors. In addition, I expect large-scale demining operations to be ramped up in 2025, and continued U.S. assistance programs in agriculture, anti-corruption, public financial management, health care, and other procurement reforms will be continued. Unfortunately, the Biden Administration had given the European Governments and European private sector the “lead” on much of the Ukraine contracting –especially concerning the pending reconstruction of Ukraine. I anticipate the Trump Administration to reverse these decisions quickly and help U.S. businesses compete in open, competitive procurements issued by the Government of Ukraine (GOU), the U.S. government, the World Bank, and other IFIs like the EBRD, where the United States is a significant shareholder.

Q6: More than 45 years of conflict in Afghanistan have gradually worn down the coping mechanisms and resilience of millions — and that was before August 2021, when the Taliban re-gained control. Given your intimate involvement in Afghanistan over the past decades, can you paint a picture of the current situation and what we can expect in 2025?

Jeff Grieco: I’ve seen the country evolve through tremendous challenges and 2024 is no different. While there have been tangible improvements in stability, economic recovery, and security—especially in terms of returnees and a recovering private sector—these gains are clouded by the severe ongoing human rights violations, particularly the Taliban’s continued oppression of women and girls. The situation remains dire, with widespread restrictions on women’s education, employment, and basic freedoms. This has alienated international donors and investors who might otherwise contribute to Afghanistan’s recovery and development.

The infighting between the Kandahar-based Taliban, including the Emir, and the Kabul-based Taliban is another complicating factor. This internal power struggle, especially over issues like the treatment of women and girls, creates significant instability within the Taliban’s leadership. The Doha Agreement, which was initially negotiated by the Kabul-based Taliban, is being increasingly challenged by the Kandahar faction, leading to further division. These tensions have made it difficult for stabilization and development efforts to proceed smoothly, especially when it comes to securing international support. On the international front, the warming relations with Russia, China, and Iran might lead to formal recognition of the Taliban Interim Administration (TIA), but this is unlikely to change the situation for women and girls. This will remain a significant point of contention, particularly with the U.S. and other Western nations.

Looking ahead to 2025, there is hope for increased support for women’s and girls’ programs in agriculture and livelihoods, with organizations like the World Bank, ADB, and USAID likely to expand their programming in these areas. However, without a shift in the Taliban’s stance on human rights, particularly the treatment of women, Afghanistan’s recovery will remain stunted. We can expect continued donor caution, and the lack of sufficient international recognition and cash transfers will place additional pressure on the economy. The economic stability of Afghanistan will largely depend on how quickly the country can secure both internal reconciliation and external support. In 2025, we’ll likely see incremental improvements, but the human rights challenges will continue to be a major obstacle to Afghanistan’s full integration into the international community.

Q7: In 2025, what can be done to reverse the increasing global conflict and instability trend? What gives you hope for the future of global peace and stability?

Jeff Grieco: Turning the tide will require significant investments and strategic actions. First, we need to advocate for increased funding for life-saving stabilization programs. Our industry, especially organizations like the International Stability Operations Association (ISOA), can play a pivotal role in mitigating conflict, but funding must be prioritized. Second, we must strengthen our defense against violent non-state actors. Innovative solutions, such as advanced demining technology, have already shown tremendous potential, especially in Ukraine. Finally, reducing the economic impact of conflict is vital. This includes developing resilience in critical sectors.

I remain cautiously optimistic. The tools and strategies available to us in the stability operations sector have never been more advanced. We have the technology, expertise, and international collaboration necessary to make significant strides in mitigating conflict. More importantly, I believe in the collective resolve of governments, multilateral organizations, and civil society to focus on long-term peace and stability. The urgency is clear, and we all must commit to making 2025 a year of action.

About Jeffrey Grieco 

Jeffrey Grieco is a distinguished leader in international stability operations, foreign policy, and humanitarian initiatives. As President & CEO of the Afghan-American Chamber of Commerce (A-ACC), he plays a pivotal role in fostering economic development and advocating for stability in conflict-affected regions. A seasoned advisor, Grieco serves on the Advisory Council of the International Stability Operations Association (ISOA) and chairs ISOA’s Ukraine and Afghanistan Working Groups. His work spans over 25 countries, where he has provided strategic counsel to multinational corporations and governments on foreign policy, national security, and international assistance programming. His extensive career includes senior leadership roles in the U.S. government, international business, and nonprofit sectors. As the Assistant Administrator for Legislative and Public Affairs at USAID, he directed global communications and public relations during critical post-9/11 years, contributing to landmark initiatives like the Millennium Challenge Corporation and PEPFAR. Grieco holds a Master’s degree from Georgetown University’s Edmund A. Walsh School of Foreign Service and pursued a fellowship in comparative international management at Oxford University. He also earned a Special Honors undergraduate degree from George Washington University’s Elliott School of International Affairs.