THE TYRRELL PERSPECTIVE
Strategy, intelligence and the view from Britain

Commentary

Commodore Patrick Tyrrell OBE RN (Ret.)
SAGE International Associate

The laws of thermodynamics describe how heat spreads and disorder grows. Patrick Tyrrell asks whether they can also help explain a world of spreading wars, shifting alliances and mounting geopolitical uncertainty.

23 September 2026

Everyone who has ever studied physics or chemistry will have been exposed to the laws of thermodynamics and their implications in science and engineering.

Put simply, heat flows spontaneously from a hotter body to a cooler one, while the total entropy of an isolated system tends to increase.

Entropy is often described as disorder, though the scientific meaning is more precise.

This explains why we can keep warm by snuggling up to a heat source or boil water in a kettle. A fan can help us feel cooler in a heatwave by moving air across our skin.

The notion of disorder offers a homely analogy: as a two-year-old, it takes much longer to build a tower of toy bricks than to knock it down. As a teenager, it might explain why boys’ rooms are always such a mess and the lengths mothers go to in tidying them up.

So, the laws of thermodynamics describe how heat and entropy operate in the physical world. They govern much of the universe in which we exist. Can we use them as an analogy for the geopolitical world we inhabit? Does pressure flow from the “hotter” to the “cooler”, and does disorder always tend to increase?

As I look at the geopolitical landscape from the depths of Cornwall, I cannot help but think that the world seems more chaotic and unpredictable than at any point in my life.

The Kremlin has floated a possible meeting between Donald Trump, Xi Jinping and Vladimir Putin: three leaders of impeccable credentials! We have hot wars in the Middle East, in Europe and in Africa; the global financial situation looks somewhat precarious; US forces are stretched across several theatres; and the North Koreans are as bellicose as ever.

I am a warrior of the Cold War, and, in hindsight, we knew who our putative protagonists might be; today potential enemies seem to spring up everywhere, while long-standing allies can appear more attuned to the whims of our adversaries than to supporting one another.

Compared with the relative predictability of the geostrategic environment during the latter half of the twentieth century, we are living through an era of chaos, confusion and unpredictability: the entropy of our geopolitical world seems to be increasing rapidly.

The nineteenth century was renowned for grand diplomacy, until it all fell apart in the summer of 1914. Europe, in particular, enjoyed a century of relative peace following the Napoleonic Wars, in part because skilled diplomats had an innate understanding of the world in which they lived. They prized predictability and rationality. Chaos was something to be avoided at all costs.

In today’s world, wall-to-wall social media, newsfeeds that offer more commentary than hard facts, and the rise of populism have all contributed to the information churn against which diplomacy works.

Those who have the skills to manage social media have a distinct advantage: they can exploit chaos, innuendo and misinformation. They can influence not only what is said but who receives it.

In Russia, for example, truth is what the Kremlin decides, and failure to adhere to its vision can be punished severely. Meanwhile, Donald Trump Jr.’s wedding celebrations were partly funded by a Russian businessman with close ties to Putin and links to an organisation sanctioned by Ukraine over its alleged role in removing Ukrainian children from occupied territory.

Wars are never straightforward, and both political and military leaders should be prepared for surprises and setbacks.

Wars also have a tendency to spread and can be difficult to constrain to a limited area.

Some outcomes, however, are foreseeable: Iran’s disruption of shipping through the Strait of Hormuz was one such event, though its scale and duration were uncertain.

The actions of the Houthis, on the other hand, were less predictable. Their rapid advance along Yemen’s Red Sea coast and seizure of islands near the vital Bab el-Mandeb Strait threaten shipping and oil supplies. The operation caught their opponents by surprise.

During the advance, the Houthis demonstrated their ability to combine ground operations with drones and ballistic missiles. Saudi Arabia also reported an attempted drone attack on Mecca, the holiest city in Islam; the Houthis denied the allegation. Had such an attack succeeded, it might have set the whole region alight.

Entropy is a measure of how energy is dispersed, rather than the fuel that powers a chemical reaction.

As an analogy for international affairs, it might help us think about changes in alliances and international structures.

In 1904, the UK and France signed the Entente Cordiale, fundamentally changing their relationship after centuries of rivalry and outright warfare.

It is interesting that in 2026 China is deepening relations with Egypt, a long-standing US partner. At the same time, Washington has declined to intervene directly against the Houthis on Saudi Arabia’s behalf and is questioning its relationship with many long-term allies!

Full-scale warfare might be thought of as a particularly violent form of geopolitical disorder.

It is instructive that in Russia the present war with Ukraine is referred to as a “special military operation”, even though the invasion itself is full-scale. Moscow has sought to avoid declaring a total war and ordering another general mobilisation. Whether President Putin can keep the lid on this conflict remains to be seen but despite bellicose statements implying that nuclear war might be an option, he has so far resisted that escalation.

This may be the way some future conflicts are conducted: below the level of total war.

Russia has spent more than 12 years trying to subjugate Ukraine, a smaller power, and has paid an enormous price for the territory it has taken since the full-scale invasion in 2022. To think that Russia would necessarily launch a full-scale attack on NATO may miss the more immediate threat: a series of “incidents” across the Alliance designed to cause harm without triggering a formal state of war. Coupled with misinformation, political chicanery and cyberattacks on infrastructure, the Russian state can claim to be innocent of malicious intent. The implications would be serious enough and, in time, evidence of Russia’s malign influence might emerge. But would it be too late?

In looking at conflict with NATO, we must examine what Russia’s endgame may be. A full-scale invasion and annexation of NATO territory would demand troops on the ground to control the local population: not something Russian forces have shown much ability to do!

Looking back at our initial premise, it is easier to start a war than to finish one.

The current conflict in the Middle East will not be settled by an exchange of missiles but by meaningful negotiation and compromise, both of which seem unlikely now. Meanwhile, US forces remain deployed at sea for extended periods and will have to be rotated at some stage. Other participants may be drawn in, and the conflict could spread.

That is the danger behind the analogy: no physical law dictates the course of international affairs, but leaders can still fail to contain a chain reaction.

Editorial note: The Tyrrell Perspective presents Patrick Tyrrell’s analysis and opinions. They do not necessarily represent the views of SAGE International.