A miscalculation leading to accidental war between states is becoming even more of a threat than it was during the Cold War. The uneasy stability of the bipolar world between 1945 and 1989 has been replaced by a highly volatile international system. The world is out of balance.

In North Korea, a rogue dictator is hurtling towards the construction of a deliverable nuclear weapon undeterred by the United Nations, or by the disapproval of some of the most powerful nations on earth.

Kim Jong Un’s campaign for a bomb has two consequences. First, this attempt by a dictator to disrupt the world order is going largely unchallenged. Secondly, there is a growing risk of China and the United States stumbling into a conflict over the South China Sea.

Yet China refuses to apply more pressure on North Korea, fearful that the collapse of the North Korean State would lead quickly to unification with the South and the creation of a close American ally on Chinese borders.

Closer to home, the Middle East is in turmoil. It is impossible to make progress there before the many Arab wars are stopped. Libya and Syria show no signs of abating. Daesh (so-called Islamic State) and Al Qaeda continue to threaten the West. The cold war between Saudi Arabia and Iran could easily turn hot over some incident. The area will remain a maelstrom of instability for the foreseeable future.

Meanwhile, the Ukraine conflict continues to simmer, its potential for sparking an East-West showdown not extinguished.

Along the Turkish-Syrian border there is a fear that Turkey will turn a humanitarian crisis into an outright confrontation between Nato and Russia. The United States finds it is fast losing its ability to restrain or influence its allies. That increases the chances of a slip-up, with devastating consequences.

Seven months ago, Turkey shot down a Russian aircraft that it said had intruded on its airspace. The clash did not escalate into a wider military conflict, but there has been a great deal of diplomatic friction since and Russia has stepped up support for militant Kurdish groups in Turkey.

For President Erdogan of Turkey, it seems that Russia is really on the brink of an undeclared war not just with Daesh, but with Turkey itself. Any fresh incident on the northern Syrian border, planned or unplanned, could thus draw the Turks, who are key Nato allies (and now crucial to the EU’s efforts to tackle mass migration), into open conflict with Russia.

These are fundamental fault lines that stretch from the South China Sea to Europe and the southern Turkish border. They are danger zones that demand a special sensitivity by politicians on all sides. If accidental war is to be avoided, today’s leaders need to find more sophisticated ways of reducing tensions. Statesmen must seek rational outcomes that minimise risk in times of uncertainty and peril, even when some leaders are irrational.

We are fortunate to live in Malta, an apparent haven of peace and prosperity – except for the internecine tribal warfare which is the hallmark of Maltese politics

But where are today’s leaders to be found? The President of Russia, Vladimir Putin, flexed his muscles again on May Day in Moscow, celebrating its victory over Nazi Germany with a forceful display of military power. The Red Square parade was a crude celebration of Putin’s policy of using armed force to project the Kremlin’s power abroad.

But national pride cannot be based solely on flaunting the latest missile launchers and tanks. It has to be derived from good governance, economic achievement and a respect for the views of those in Russia who disagree with his policies. Military expeditions in Syria, the Crimea and Ukraine and the threat to the Baltic States boost Putin’s popularity, but are undermining further Russia’s faltering economy.

Putin has survived 16 years in power because he has a nose for how far he can stretch popular patience. He has built a security state. But if Russia is to alleviate economic hardship at home, he must change direction.

Worse, with the departure in seven months’ time from the White House of President Obama, we could be faced with a Trump presidency. This is no longer such a fanciful possibility. An American Berlusconi, or as one commentator called him “a tyrant in the making”, planning to build a wall with Mexico, scrapping American trade deals, banning Muslims from entering the US, imposing an across-the-board tariff on Chinese imports, and generally introducing an anti-globalisation programme is a recipe for increased global destabilisation.

But even more frighteningly, Trump’s thinly veiled contempt for Nato chimes in with his admiration for Putin. His foreign policy would simultaneously break up the trans-Atlantic alliance, which has kept the peace in Europe for seventy years, and sour Sino-American relationships.

Europe stands largely on the sidelines. It is wracked by an immigration crisis which it finds itself unable to overcome and which is encouraging a right-wing backlash throughout the continent. The EU has a sclerotic economy and, with eurozone finance ministers failing to paper over growing cracks concerning a third Greek bail-out, the strong possibility of another eurozone crisis is looming.

There are fears that a fresh crisis in the currency bloc could tip Britain into voting to leave the European Union in four weeks’ time. Last summer, the European Union showed that it did not have the stomach for a Grexit. With the possibility of the referendum on June 23 leading to a vote by the United Kingdom to leave, the stakes could not be higher.

The possible departure of the world’s fifth largest economy from the EU would be a body blow to the global economy. The last thing that world trade, Europe and the United Kingdom need now is the inevitable Sterling crisis that Brexit would precipitate.

The future of Europe without Britain would be one of escalating instability – from which the British people themselves would not be immune. It would lead to Britain relinquishing all influence over the terms of its future relationship with its main trading partners and jeopardise London’s future as a financial centre. Most importantly, it would undermine the security and stability of Europe itself.

This is a dangerous time in world history. The impact of a major fracture within Europe is impossible to calculate. Britain’s exit would rock the West to its foundations – not just Europe and the Americas, but Japan and Australia too.

Britain’s breakaway would carry profound implications for more than the balance of power in the world. It would also affect the battle of ideas and values, a battle which is turning critical in the face of the jihadist threat and a revanchist Russia.

Without Britain the future of the EU looks fragile. EU disintegration could well occur. Populist parties urging their countries to leave the EU or the eurozone, or both, have multiplied. With Britain’s great weight removed, the centre of gravity of the whole would shift and could topple the whole structure.

We are fortunate to live in Malta, an apparent haven of peace and prosperity – except for the internecine tribal warfare which is the hallmark of Maltese politics. But consideration of the many flashpoints from east to west threatening global stability should remind us how fragile our peace and prosperity are. And how vulnerable economically we are to what is going on around us.

Sign up to our free newsletters

Get the best updates straight to your inbox:
Please select at least one mailing list.

You can unsubscribe at any time by clicking the link in the footer of our emails. We use Mailchimp as our marketing platform. By subscribing, you acknowledge that your information will be transferred to Mailchimp for processing.