Alex shares the outline of his new book - Geopolitics with Alex Stubb

In this episode, Alex Stubb shares the outline of his upcoming book about geopolitics and “order in a world of disorder”. Like always, your feedback is very welcome.
If you like this series, don’t forget to subscribe to this channel!
We train current and future leaders in governance beyond the state.
The School of Transnational Governance was established in 2017 as part of the European University Institute in Florence. In the cradle of the Renaissance, we teach, train and learn by providing a platform where transnational policy actors across politics, business, civil society, media and academia meet. We are here for anyone with an open and independent mind, for thinkers and for doers. We bring together some of the best teachers, trainers and policy-makers from around the world. We believe the goal of public policy is to bring out the best in people. Follow us on social media to stay up to date:
Follow us on social media to stay up to date:
▶ Website: www.eui.eu/stg
▶ LinkedIn: / schoo. .
▶ Twitter : / stgeui
▶ Instagram : / stgeui

[@murrayeldred3563]

Alex= always clear and concise when he presents!!!!

[@sumiland6445]

Anyone who hasn't watched all of his video series, I highly encourage going back and watching them in order. Invaluable! 😀

[@andyreznick]

Firmly agree. Whether one agrees with Prof Stubbs or not (perhaps especially if one does not), we can learn new things and new ways to think about the world around us. He is basically giving away a free Master's Class. Why not take advantage of it?

[@andreijuangmail]

Awesome, please let us know when it's available (preferably on Audible) 👍 One suggestion would be to conclude with a call to action that tells me what I could and maybe should do, as a random reader and citizen of tomorrow's multipolar world, about what I've just read. Looking forward to your book, thanks for writing it! 🙂

[@PiscatorLager]

Audible, read by Alex

[@Terra-YT]

Wow Alex this might be my favourite video of yours yet. You're a total inspiration and actually because of seeing your success I've decided to start making videos too! Keep grinding, your hard work clearly pays off!

[@sumiland6445]

This video would not make near as much sense if Stubbs hadn't laid the groundwork over the past 10 months. 😃

[@Terra-YT]

@@sumiland6445 He's a talented guy

[@thomasromanelli2561]

I would like to see an exploration of various scenarios regarding thesis #2: 1] the strategic competitor dynamic between China and the US does not result in conflict; 2] there are a number of low-intensity "encounters" between them (e.g. cyber-warfare, voting interference, disruption of current foreign relationships with previously aligned states) and 3] open, non-nuclear warfare, most likely involving the repatriation of Taiwan and the implications for Pacific regional security relationships. I look forward to reading this book from Professor Stubb.

[@floripaolo]

I like your concise and analytic approach to such complex themes. Can't wait reading your book.

[@alexanderthegreat5519]

Great video! A must watch.!! Thank you Alex.

[@philb2628]

Thanks for this and all your previous lectures which I have listened to with interest. I am a bit surprised at your level of optimism, given the twin catastrophes of climate change and environmental meltdown which we are facing. I was also surprised there was no mention of the fallout from the Russia-Ukraine war.

[@andyreznick]

Good luck with your book. I will be looking forward to it. What you describe in the multipolar third chapter finds me thinking, in some ways, about the various properties of chemical compounds and how they are formed - whether by accident of nature or intelligent design. Distinct properties arise with each new combination, even though most of, or even all the same elements are present in each new form. Changes in pressure, temperature, prevalence or lack of certain elements or molecules can create unexpected reactions or new materials; sometimes even if the changes are very slight. The end result may be strong, weak, explosive, stable, conductive, resistant, poisonous, nourishing; some well-understood, some not, all complex and often surprising. Of course, to point out in just one way it comes up short as a metaphor (or is it a simile?), is that those compounds and their bonding/repelling mechanisms have no agency. We like to think people do. Your third chapter description also makes me wonder if it's all basically just one continuous simian shoving match. I hate the idea while recognizing the resemblance, hoping that falling angel meets rising ape somewhere along the way. As always, I find your content thought-provoking. Thanks, Professor. P.S. I would like to officially apply for the Run-on Sentence Award in the comments section of this video. Old guys, right?

[@timelston4260]

The content of your channel is constructive and refreshing, compared to what we get through the news media channels. You are inspiring and almost give cause for hope. Thank you for putting your thoughts out there for average people like me to contemplate. (BTW, Finland was my first trip abroad when I was in my early 20s, and it has remained my first love ever since. Kiitos!)

[@aynalemtadesse2684]

This is incredible as much as possible, illuminating. Precise, both detailed and brief. Your scenario is in vegetation at STG-EUI❤❤❤❤

[@ellen3138]

Alex ...You are a great teacher....i learned a lot

[@ellen3138]

Thank you

[@jasperdoornbos8989]

Sounds very interesting. I am definitely going to buy and read this book. I am looking forward to it!

[@JMM33RanMA]

Thanks for another very interesting video Professor Stubb That sounds like a book that I would very much have wished to read when writing my major thesis in international studies. It was on regional powers in the international system. I found it a few years ago and tried to read it, but it was too densely written and more than three decades out of relevance, so I couldn't understand it. It was written shortly before I changed my major, and doing that in graduate school meant having to go through major relearning. What I remember, informed by my new major is that if you take someone who only speaks Finnish, another who only speaks Chinese, another who only speaks Hindi and another who only speaks American English, and expect them to come up with a standard for international behavior WITHOUT access to translation services, you will not get much. On a deeper level. speaking the same language doesn't mean that all concepts will be fully understood, even with perfect translation, because of cultural differences, and even though the word may be known the supresegnental or underlying sense may not be entirely the same. I had problems speaking German in Germany because I learned German in an American cultural context, and was occasionally confounded by words that appeared to be the same in translation but were substantially different in affect and effect.

[@chozumi]

Looking forward to reading your timely book.

[@Hans-qi3wq]

PLEASE make this book available through Audible too. Some of us travel too much to accumulate printed copies.

[@urmajesty]

love it!

[@FanMusicIndian]

Would love to hear your take on recent Markel interview - how Minsk agreement was never meant to be implemented, rather to buy time for Ukraine to prepare.

[@Letsdoitbuddy]

Great content as usual 👍

[@nickysagan]

Looking forward to reading the E-book!

[@banesovilj]

Thank you for sharing the great news Professor Stubb. I look forward to buying and reading your book having in mind the alluring content and structure you have announced. I do not consider myself as a competent person to give any feedback which could be useful enough, but I would like to make one general and one side statement that hopefully might contribute to some extent. My general remark is otherwise related to the frequent tendency in social sciences to "predict" the future of social reality (in this very case - the entire global society, which implies the ambitious idea of totality) through formulations of "what will/won't happen" or "what will/won't be the case" bearing in mind that we will have to wait for the exact proof for an unspecified period of time, which also may lower the value of the "scientific" substrate in such statements. This brave step, however, might be justified marketing-wise. Additionally, risking but also wanting to be an EU-utopian whatever it may mean, I will put more emphasis on the following specific EU-centric idea that might be relevant to the content: the soft, hard and smart power of the EU will lag significantly behind the powers of the US and China (and to my greatest regret, because, as a huge EU enthusiast, I have been desperately waiting for more than 20 years to see my country actually joining the EU too, hoping it will really happen before I die). Far be it from me to claim that the EU should collide with the US, on the contrary, I believe that this relationship must be stronger, although this is only possible if the EU is reconstituted on a firmer foundation. The EU-US relationship is not always viewed and evaluated unambiguously from various aspects. Firstly, neither China nor the US consider the EU as a peer competitor and they will do everything they need to drive it out of the game when necessary, save the situations where they need to sacrifice or weaken the EU to fulfil their own goals. This is unfortunately the consequence of the traditional European nation-state concept. The example of the American and Chinese concepts of the nation is the proof that both democracy and autocracy can be stable in a multi-ethnic and multicultural society. We want to make sure that democratic EU will become a significantly more powerful player in the future. Should EU strengthen its global influence, the first step would have to be a thorough, effective and rapid reform and stabilization of the EU itself, from within, raising the "how" and "when" questions. Put differently, perhaps it would be more expedient to consider every possibility of achieving a stronger and more coherent Europe, rather than relying on the unproven fact that EU would really possess such a power in the near future. I suggest a rapid enlargement of the EU, further liberalization of fundamental freedoms, promotion of ideas about European nationality, and essentially greater flow of ideas through the pan-European education system open to everyone. Secondly, what can China and the US may or already have been doing to diminish the EU's potential for the future? As a pacifist, I suggest that the EU should "trade off" its hard power for the soft and smart power. Any pretension of the EU to rule the seas and oceans would necessarily lead to a conflict with the US, which is in nobody's interest. The key question is: what is taking power away from Europe right now, irrespective of the type of the power? Finally, if we really wish to see a better future for the whole world, we can only achieve it through a stronger EU. Thank you.

[@knokgroda]

I will certainly read your book! And I love that you keep to your usual outline of threes. My only disappointment so far is that you say it will be a short book, but I think it is smart, because more people will read it, and especially people who might not usually read about geopolitics. I am an avid reader, but was not very interested in geopolitics before I watched your series. So thank you for that.

[@vincentfickweiler4590]

I would like you to include your vision on Africa as well. What if they somehow get their act together, unite more.. they could become a force to recon with. Young population, loads of natural resources (that China want, EU want, US want..): they could get more bargaining power and rake in a lot of money.

[@car-or-ock616]

Such a great question. I suggest Latin America and the Silk Road nations present similar opportunities. Really, the tropics in general. And serve as a marker of where private corporate actions have trumped idealistic formulations like the UN.

[@AJBonnema]

I am very impressed with this video. The contents is logical and really shows a possible future in which a global community can thrive, despite the differences between philosophies and basic premisses. While arguing Mr Stubb also formulates some conditions for this to happen. I feel this subject of not satisfying these conditions is almost as important as it grants insight into what happens if we, globally, cannot satisfy one or more of these conditions. What are the consequences? Of the 4 main issues climate change comes to mind with pretty forceful consequences if we cannot find a global solution. The other one is of course the balance of powers: local, regional and higher level powers. I am really looking forward to this book and I hope the negative side of the equation gets some attention as well. Thank you for the video presentation!

[@resrussia]

The book sounds like an interesting read. I look forward to reading your views on the current trends.

[@r.s.4672]

I think the book sounds intriguing. I can't speak to the content (not my field), but I can offer some practical feedback on the publishing aspect, since publishing is one of my fields of employment, the other being law. First, world events are moving so quickly that you may want to discuss as many different scenarios as you can in the book, or it might be out of date by the time it's published. Also, it takes a long time from contract signing to book release if you go the big NY publisher route - further compounding the problem. One way to make sure the book would come out in a more timely manner would be to publish it through your institute, using contract editors etc. to assist. I don't know if you've published papers or books before, but this could be the start of a new publishing side of the institute as well. Good luck with the book!

[@thepepp92]

"And what if you fail?". I think it's important to discuss the definition of failiure in variuos fields (eg. peaceful transfer of power failed in the US in Jan 6 or "this is not a problematic virus" failed with 1000 cases of COVID in a country) so to be prepared to deal with a crisys when it comes. I see so often that the recognition of the crysis situation comes late as people are still discussing wheter what happened is to be taken seriuosly or not. Inevitably, indecision is then politicized. I have no idea what "failiure" would exactly mean in geopolitics, but I hope you could investigate failiures and symptoms of failiure in your book. Can't wait to read it!

[@paulstewart1557]

Congratulations on your book. I agree with much of what you have outlined but I suspect that the US element could be characterised as Imperialist, Europe as post-imperalist and China as autocratic ... but I am still a little surprised that India is not introduced as a potential significant emerging element

[@TheGreatWhiteScout]

I realize I completely misunderstood a word you used - hilariously so such that it might as well stay in my mind as a tongue-in-cheek reference I'll use in the future. You stated the 'dystopia/utopia' divide for future outlooks and introduced 'eutopia' as a third option - the optimal solution. But I wasn't reading the word, only listening to this commentary. What I thought you had referred to was 'EU-topia' or 'An unrealistic Utopian ideal as seen only from the European Union perspective'. I have to admit, I laughed out loud at that only to look on my device and see that there wasn't a glimpse of humor in your delivery. But I will file that one away as a terrific pun for future discussions/commentary.

[@mapleleafspring3187]

As always very thoughtful and thought provoking ideas, I look forward to reading your book. As a human culture we have a long road ahead to order. In our current rule based system of disorder we are missing consequence for breaking the rules. Whether we end with a single polar UN with the power to enforce human decency or a multipolar 1984 society is yet to be seen. I think we are actually seeing the convergence of autocracy and democracy. Polarized countries are loosing their grip on power. We have a rising middle class in the East and sheeple in the West swept up in populism. Will bad choices shape democracy or will people rise up and demand a better life from autocracy? Don’t forget about CANZUK in your multi polar society.

[@tenderrelianceonmercy]

mapleleafspring, I completely agree with your assessment of our "rule based system of disorder." It is to irrational to assert that we have a rules based global order if we have no governing body with the authority to enforce consequences if those rules are broken.

[@guciochris5297]

Great synthesis. I wish to know more about your view on how religion - mostly Islamic states, but not only - will ever be able to become part of the multipolar world since EG Iran, Saudi Arabia or Afghanistan and Pakistan are clearly have extreme visions of the place of the religion in the statehood. Another question - conflict within? - eg Turkey - Greece- both are part of NATO yet openly hostile towards each other on more than one front- how is that going to play out since the artificial unity EG NATO is balanced out by cultural, religious and historical differences.

[@car-or-ock616]

In my view, Marx had it right but failed to provide a full explanation. Like the birthrate, it would seem that religious fervour cools down with growth in GDP and measurable improvements in the population as a whole. In my comment to Alex I put religion as another example of the 'false narratives' that so far shape our understanding of history. We need to turn a page.

[@sumiland6445]

Alex, have you read John Nash's disertation on Economics? I was telling a very simplied version of Nash's equation of economic agreements that equally benefit everyone involved to someone and they said, "Why doesn't everyone do that?" Which quite surprised me 😄 pleasantly. I have hope!

[@maysarasultan5580]

In my opinion, I have paid attention to the expected political forces and the extent of their impact on the economy from various theories and different economic alliances, but will the shape of the countries remain as they are, or are there also differences that may appear.

[@m.walther6434]

Thank You again Mr. Stubb for your videos about foreign politics. Regarding your fothcoming book I dare question the concept of value based foreign politics. First what kind of values are we talking about? Human Rights, Democracy, Rule of Law? I believe that in most cases alluding to values is a smokscreen to hide ulterior motives, money, power, influence.

[@car-or-ock616]

While there are non-capitalistic values like Humanism, I fear you are right. Value-talk usually devolves to money and religion.

[@niklashisinger9543]

As a fellow Finn living in Italy, I hope to get a chance to buy the book with a wet signature and a proper handshake 👍

[@RichardXDahl]

I would be very interested in reading about your take on Finnland's role in a multi polar world as part of the book. Also: I think your book could be a wonderful topic for a discussion on Sam Harris' Making Sense Podcast.

[@AmukaAkuma]

Sam Harris, the "Even if Hunter Biden has dead children in his basement, I will still vote for Biden", Sam Harris? I don't think Alex should associate with him at this moment.

[@charleswilliams4059]

Interesting theoretical options .There will always remain a natural predilection towards entropy, fuelled by the global struggle for economic dominance.

[@kamilziemian995]

If this book will be published in Poland, I will try to buy it.

[@nunyabusiness863]

A book "grounded in both academic theory and in political practice." Subtly, nuance, and understanding of your counterpart are things that are galvanized by experience. This is where the our celebrated pure academic professors can learn something. Would you rather the financial advisor or surgeon with experience, or the career student?

[@dahlialuxemburg751]

There is no alternative to democracy! I look forward to the book's publication.

[@car-or-ock616]

Yes. However, there are different types of democracy and they are not all interchangeable. The value of Alex's book depends to a great extend in making clear those differences.

[@elnamarran6477]

Super

[@phoeniximperator]

Good luck with your book.

[@car-or-ock616]

I came across your video researching methods for organizing the book I'm writing: Death and Life of the Vancouver Urbanism. Where I discuss 30 years of hyper-inflation in the property markets triggered by globalization, on the one hand, and the flows of off-shore capital originating in the trade imbalance created between the West and China. With that as background, I find five key points of difference (A - E) with the thesis you outline here, which is very good. And I join your view in what may lead to a resolution in (F). A. What happens if… China implodes? To answer the question, what if it breaks down in 5 to 10 regional states, the size of Macao or Hong Kong, and some much larger but with lower GDPs, each centered on one to three Mega-cities? Erase the borders and look at how urban footprints have clustered in Europe and the Americas to get a feel for it. The structure is neither democratic or liberal, but rather controlled by powerful families. Perhaps a feuding cauldron like Renaissance Italy (evidence strewn around your location in Firenze); or something that may cook at a higher boil than your Thesis #1. B. (Liberal) Rules Based World Order It has always been about the money. So, the equation that needs clarifying is the nexus between power, time and money (capital). Is this too cynical a view? Well, it seems to be the realistic view. Without the surplus wealth created by using African slaves in the Americas and India, there would not have been an Industrial Revolution; without the rule of the aristocracy in Europe, the agricultural revolution would not have taken place; without the exit of Nazi technology to the US in the post WWII period, no digital technology (computers were needed to fly Apollo). So, we are still looking at an ‘economic system’, and the question shifts to (a) reform of the current system (WTO, IMF, etc.); and (b) how the ‘others’ interact, join or not join the game. C. Moving Past BRIC The theory was that Brazil, Russia, India and China (BRIC) would rise to join, productively, the power elite in the West. Without going too far into an over-simple explanation, it seems that the vision in Order|Disorder does not move further than that. A kind of explanation of what went wrong by way of trying to look past it to the next formulation.If we are discussing the ‘what went wrong’ with BRIC, then of course, a lot went wrong. Brazil-and the rest of Latin America. Europe still has not come to terms with the outcome of its expansionist policy in the 15th and 16th centuries. An EU in the Americas is still too distant for our own good. Russia-your email exchange on Day 3 of the Ukraine Invasion should lay this out (I monitored the invasion for about 14 days, until it was clear that Russia had miscalculated). Putin’s plutocracy will not endure if the West refuses to do business with them. Sometimes, lack of engagement + guarding the borders (holding expansionism in check) is the correct long term stance against an aggressor. It will work in China too (more below). India-the only news coming out of India that holds any hope is development in the digital technology. Problem is… what happens if they really get too good at it? Bangladesh appears to be as poignant a testing ground for breaking political news as India. China-I’ve already indicated how the implosion of Xi’s order seems to be underway. I really don’t see an alternative on this basis: Powerful people are being artificially|arbitrarily held back. The case of the ANT Ipo is foremost in mind. But also the outflow of capital from China landing everywhere in the form of real estate investments. Really BAD real estate projects from my perspective as a professional in urbanism. D. Pariah and Oil states. Among the pariah states we have Eritrea-Djibouti-Sumalia, and Afghanistan-Pakistan making the news. These are essentially results of proxy struggles (black swans of a different sort) spun out by the exit of the USSR and the rise of Arabian oil. These are large areas usually contained in the Tropics that neither Western power or Communist expansion have fully engaged. Call them the Foreign Aid States (FAS) that represent some of our greatest potential for a humanist push in international power politics. A festering example, for instance, of how the UN has not been effective or where it has failed. We can count in that dynamic most or all of Africa and the Silk Road nations. With the oil states we have OPEC on the one hand, and fracking and the continued use of oil. It brings into focus issues like the Canadian tar sands-which should also be present in the Ukraine, given the similarities with the wheat growing areas in both countries-and the 'right' of nations to develop their natural resources regardless of issues like pollution. E. False Narratives Consideration of the benefit of private corporations and individuals over the well-being of the mass of humanity brings into play the false narratives, and the more thorny issue of how these false narratives have gathered always gathered so much steam. Climate (which you mention); Global Warming; and Capitalist Communism (searching for a label to provide a thumbnail description of the last 30 years of China’s development)-why have these things been invented? The facts point to there being no connection between Global Warming and pollution. The whole greenhouse gas theory presents as an as of yet unproven hypothesis by the scientific community enjoined by every social science department in our well-funded universities. Some call it 'postmodernism'. If we really want to track world-scale events in climate, we should trace more carefully the major eruptions recorded throughout the history of the planet and meteorite collisions like the one that seems o have exterminated the dinosaurs. Space is the final frontier (Star Trek), and the place to be looking at with a mind to developing a climate science. Equally, there is no denying the connection between pollution and general health and well-being of the every population. Reductions in pollution, which can be effected ‘naturally’ with cap-and-trade policy, will lead to direct savings in healthcare in every industrialized country, and significant increases in the quality of life of people living in BRIC countries, and other mid-level nations. Climate is not changing more than it should. A world without climate change is probably the more ominous case to consider. Perhaps it is a measure of our development that these false narratives can have the degree of spread and influence we have seen. It almost reminds one of that other great false narrative that caught fire just as the Roman Empire was achieving maximum extension-Christianity. F. Rules Based Discussion So, I put a final point on the commentary by saying that organizations that will monitor world history, with as little bias as intellectually possible, and not media corporations ruled by moguls, may be the right place to start. It would seem as if the effort should be equally on ‘getting the story right’ as on the ‘process for gathering facts’. What we are interested in is uncovering the methodology of mining ’truth’ (proof-based or empirical data); as well as the construction of the narratives tentatively assembled from that data. Narratives that will take into account the exercise of time and capital (or as you put it ‘power’) recording their impact accurately and responsibly. Test cases? Debunking Global Warming; Nation Building 101(i.e. beyond militaristic involvement, or perhaps as an Act II); and in my book... providing affordable housing for all Canadians in perpetuity (obviously a method already in place in some places-like Denmark, perhaps Finland, I don't know-and portable to any liberal democracy). What is the agency or group with enough know-how and means to make progress on issues like these look like? That would seem to be a dignified quest.

[@robhaythorne4464]

Can't wait for your book. Very ambitious. Rather doubt that you'll be able to keep it to 200 pages. If you write as well as you speak, no one will mind (or fall asleep) if it runs to 2X+ of that.

[@tenderrelianceonmercy]

I think we can do better than the regionalization of globalization. I agree that this is the most likely outcome if we are passive and continue to view our national identities as paramount over our global citizenship. However, over the next century our world will face enormous challenges that can only be adequately addressed by full global cooperation with representation from every part of the world. We need intelligent and influential people to start discussing the benefits, drawbacks, and feasibility of global federalism or other systems of representative global governance. I look forward to reading your new book, but I also anxiously hope that you will consider writing a sequel after reviewing the ideas of another Alexander (Hamilton) and considering how the federalist principles that forged 13 distinct states into the dominant United States of America might apply to and benefit the world as a whole.

[@galactyx1]

Would welcome any insight you could bring, practically & theoretically, to conflict resolution & how it is best facilitated. This is based on 2 conflict-based ideas. 1) You cannot negotiate with a tiger while your head is in its mouth (Churchill). 2) War is ‘diplomacy by other means’. Not expecting easy answers, but any approach beyond trial & costly error would move the global conversation forward.

[@the.unknown.prophet]

I think that it is difficult to think in terms of order or disorder. an example just before Russia's invasion of Ukraine there was disorder, there were rumors of mobilization denied by the same, but after the invasion there was order. of course no order that is good but clear to relate to. likewise, the conflict will lead to more and more disorder until it collapses and falls into some form of "peace" order emerges again. but maybe I'm misunderstanding the concept of order... for me it's more important to explore the interface between spheres of power and its consequences and their interrelationships. if this sentence is at all comprehensible. otherwise, I want to thank you for your videos about Ukraine and the insight it brings me.

[@perhamnstrom7818]

First I thought that this man is a joke. I have changed my mind. This man is mad!

[@christophercole8877]

I like the “hard, soft, and smart power” categories.

[@louisgiokas2206]

Three parts. i had a friend who took a course from Henry Kissinger at Harvard. He split everything into three parts, so you are in good company. Actually, one often hears in management that one should have no more than three goals at a time.

[@car-or-ock616]

Three act plays.

[@AngloSaks666]

It seems to me that an important factor is how human perception, reaction, behaviour, etc., exists on various levels and how at the very least, but actually just to start with, because it goes even deeper and broader, we need to engage the personal level too. A quarrel with a Russian Orthodox ‘Christian’, nationalist, anti-Semite the other day threw this back into my face. He had the same view that many of ‘conservative’ and very often autocratic mindsets tend to have, which is that decent human behaviour and successful culture and society (so politics with it, and everything else) comes via an imposition of a ‘correct’ (generally often ‘traditional’) way of being, and that comes basically via some authority that knows better, and which both imposes that and restricts access to what he called ‘reformatting’ from differing models. I took this in a ‘religious’ direction, basically because he saw himself as very devout and correct, and basically told him that he has turned scripture on its head with all his ideas (basically of God selecting certain nations, and ranking others as unworthy) and that he also simply was denying the idea of the soul. Taking that to a more worldly context, I mean the following: humans have internal perception and responses that engage with what’s around them and create a subjectivity able to make sense of, and find a balanced approach to whatever context it finds itself in, including information that’s involved, to balance out the aspects and find a kind of ‘moral orientation’ to decide on a proper response, at least here and now, in the shorter term. A so-called ‘western’ or maybe ‘liberal’ approach is basically to recognise this inwardness of people, and to allow it to engage, and not only in some individuals, but in all people, as best as possible. This has various benefits; from simply ‘locally’ engaging the needs of people and being able to meet those needs as best as possible, and with as much balance with the needs of those around them as possible, to simply accessing the talents of all of those people so that they can contribute to a richer society and more successful processes. The world is always in flux, and this needs to constantly happen to maintain viable societies, life, health, fulfilment, etc., etc. It’s basically a ‘process’ approach, where the aim is always that process as the priority, and the more ‘concrete’ aims as things that stem from and blossom from it, while themselves always keeping some kind of fluidity in line with the reality of life and the changes it inevitably involves. Vital to it is also the broad inclusion of all who want to contribute. In mere materialistic terms this is bound to at least evolve to be more efficient, more innovative, and more flexible. It works not just outwardly by bringing out their ideas and needs into the world to have an effect, but by engaging and nurturing their own inner meaning and creative exploration, which makes them so much more aware of and understanding of, the world they are surrounded by. It creates a kind of model of the world and their relationship to it that is very tangible and multi-dimensional and meaningful, that allows them further to more easily understand and relate to the world around them. Though it’s true at the same time that this facilitating of individuals needs to be balanced with ‘umbrella’ vantage points and systems that even out engagement across society, and don’t allow pockets of greater success in certain pockets to lead to utilization of that success to keep down others. It’s a careful balance between freedom and engagement on the one hand, but cautious limitation on the other, with only a view to nip exploitation of dominance in the bud. It’s not to hold back success, and maybe not even ‘dominance’ in all its senses, but an unfair, counterproductive, oppressive dominance of some over others. This is where we’re maybe still far from full success, often because we don’t always see how this is happening. Again, though, this simply comes from regarding the place of individuals in the system first, which is all the same, far more the ‘western’ approach than many others. I’ve gone kind of off on a tangent there, but it’s relevant. A deeper point to the main point I’m making here is that this retains and maintains an inward, human orientation, as well as one that takes into account the complexities of a mass of humans living together, and the complexities of how that shifts over time. Any orientation to an extrinsic, imposed ‘correct’ way, via some reified model of correct behaviour, or any kind of ‘end’ that will then stay firm, or maybe a firm one we should return to, in any sense really, is to stifle this rich kind of ‘dialogue’ with the human basis of not just the activity, but the meaning that drives and supports it within each person. That internality needs always to be engaged. The feeling subject, not just the thinking and acting one, needs to be defining what is done according to what really matters, and really deeply what matters, maybe in the 'marrow of our beings' or maybe 'in our soul'. However much we abstract meaning out to big pictures, it’s only ever actually felt within each individual, and only recognised as a reality at large via noticing this collectively in others as individuals. An authoritarian point of view claims that this basically doesn’t exist, and that we are mere empty automatons that need to have a ‘correct’ way of living imprinted on us to live correctly, and that ‘correct’ exists as an external, large-scale system to which we must subject ourselves, and that giving over authority to fluid orientation to human internality and creative constant development is to let go of that ‘correct’ way. But it’s simply a shallow view. As coarse as it is to say that, I simply think it’s true. Any culture grew from the contribution of each of its individual members, and itself needed time to form and have greater and greater function to be recognised as a culture. This is true of any more kind of technical approach to anything, such as a political system, a judicial system, an economy, any broad or narrow kind of administration, any logistics or whatever processes. Once a ‘culture’ in any sense is clung to and solidified, it ceases to be a culture. It no longer develops in response to its circumstances, which is the very thing that created it, but just stays that solid for the simple sake that staying in that solid form has become a value in itself. And, because of that, it’s no longer oriented to human needs, responses, and perceptions, but people need now to submit and maybe even sacrifice themselves to it. Taking it back to the religious context, the idea that anyone’s decision about what the scripture definitively commands beyond that same idea of a kind of infinite process of inwardness and engagement and movement, is to put the solid idea of some person, or persons, above the actual full breadth of the world and the full depth and creativity of human response to it, and is to stifle that context. And as I said to this guy with his ideas of his ‘correct’ culture and the need to impose it on the people of his own country at least, and to ‘protect’ them from what he called the ‘degradation’ of other cultures, was that his thinking he could do that was to suggest that he and his fellows knew God’s intent (sacrilegious, surely), and also limited it to something that should be imposed to narrow human engagement with the world. It basically paints the big, wide world and how it’s in flux as the ‘devil’, while ‘God’ and ‘His’ commands are some kind of narrow retreat from its challenges. But I think he’s got it upside down, and told him as much. There’s a call to a ‘faith’ in openness there, and to acceptance, and to responsibility, and to human values, compassion, etc., etc. ‘God’ is within us and all around us, and we can only engage in that open process of using that to forever engage in interpretation and reinvention. Claiming that it says anything narrower than that is a denial that either the world has that richness, or that we have something inside of us that responds to it. Thus I don’t really think he’s a ‘Christian’. All his ideas are just about dominance of a model that he himself decides on. The religious angle may seem odd, but it’s something many of these people claim to operate by. But in more earthly terms, it’s simply that nothing functions once it’s become solid and an aim in itself, and stagnation and rot set in as that state hardens, with inevitable collapse. We can see it happening right now; really good examples of poorly functioning systems under the ‘authority’ of narrow and solid aims and the disconnection (deliberate, even) of the broad human engagement of what is felt and perceived and understood and realised within individuals. ...

[@AngloSaks666]

... One interesting thing is that if you were to ask a Russian homophobe whether exposure to ‘gay propaganda’ would turn him gay, he’d say that of course it wouldn’t. But the passing of such laws is to suggest that his own nation is very vulnerable to having its own sexual orientation changed in this way. It’s a bizarre and paradoxical denial of subjectivity. But they themselves think they have that subjectivity. They make up their own fantasies about how ‘foreign’ elements are ‘imposing’ destructive cultural patterns onto them, and they miss the point that very often what is being asked is that they understand that everyone has subjectivity, and that only in letting us be what we are, and develop in full engagement from our deeper selves, do we actually find a balanced way to be individually, and with others around us, and on a larger scale with the human race at large. And also that that vast majority of us at least have this faculty of subjective response in us to be able to process what we encounter without just being being 'brainwashed' by it so that therefore we need our 'betters' to tell us how to be, and that in fact if they're human too, then we're suggesting they lack that subjective core too, and thus know no better. In the end we see our own subjective faculties, so have no reason to believe they're absent in others, and the only way we can reach any understanding of anything is via engaging that in learning and interpretation and collaboration, and that that is also to get a view of and response to the whole human reality across the whole of humanity. So this implies a philosophical debate maybe, but at least ties in with things you’re saying about being ‘dignified’ in relating to each other. The key surely lies in the end in an unshiftable dedication to recognising the subjectivity of each other, and that the meaning that others have stems from that and must be respected, protected and nurtured, and that our general meaning comes from what we find in response to that in each other, and in creating a world in which that can flourish in all. The clinging to abstractions and big systems views needs to fall away, and the secondary motives of systems that work abstracted from that centre of that process of engagement of human perception and meaning need to definitely be secondary, the product, the outcome, and not something then focused on in themselves to which we need to adjust ourselves; the cart before the horse, so to speak. So there is a kind of ‘system’ that is correct, but it’s kind of an ‘anti-system’, in that it has faith in its ability to reinvent itself every moment, and to gradually keep the world in balance in the face of the movement of time in the process, and all need to have this shown to them by example of what in itself guarantees that their own subjective meaning is engaged, protected and given its due, and that that only exists if that’s guaranteed for everyone. There is truth in some ways to various extents, where western approaches have aroused an authoritarian backlash, not just because of autocrats protecting their power, but also aided by the fact that those autocrats can find easy ways to make the west look hypocritical. And there are valid arguments that we really are still far too hypocritical. The human individual, human meaning, human subjectivity, human needs in all senses of that individual, and the value that that individual can bring into the culture at large, need to be seen as the first priority in the face of all larger phenomena that might detract from and counter that, and that commitment needs to inform all larger scale systems so that they transform and keep transforming to accommodate that, and that protection needs to be seen to be radically consistent, all the way, all the time. By this example everyone gets to see how they themselves fit into it, and hopefully to notice how no fixed culture or imposition of authority can do the same, and that we can still all have our own societies and cultures, but that these are moving and living things, and function all the better for their constant building the new on top of the past, and refreshing and renewing, and casting away older forms within them that we learned from and respect but from which we have built something to replace them with, while at the same time, because we really are engaged in that process, we are not susceptible to 'reformatting' by 'foreign ideas' and 'false values' but can stay true to ourselves when considering them, or seeing them in others, and do not need to limit ourselves either personally or politically via 'authorities' that are basically small, limited interests of elites who eagerly seek power. And also there seems to maybe simply be an emotional aspect to this: people who have become used to and accepting of these kind of authoritarian ways of subjugation of their ‘spirit’ to something that doesn’t really appeal to their inner world in reality, but puts the constructions of others first, maybe those in power now, or those arising from historical forces, need somehow to feel their subjectivity validated, activated, maybe even merely aroused. This kind of approach that engages and recognises it and treats it with dignity is maybe the key, and maybe it comes with time, but sometimes I think other things, maybe things in ‘vaguer’ culture; the arts, entertainment even, and in simple human day to day interaction, can aid this. Maybe even it’s more stubborn at times, and actual therapeutic approaches are needed, or maybe that stubbornness means that only a long time will help. But people need to feel as internally free of anxiety and validated as possible. And the fact of religion, and even beyond any clear influence of religion, the fact of cultural norms and expectations, where there is a mentality that somehow what is best is actually the submission to some one person’s or one elite’s or one tradition’s dictates of what is ‘right’ or not, without being able to adequately engage oneself as an individual, seems to be the kind of ‘underlying substrate’ from which illiberal and unstable societies stem. This kind of deeper debate, about what it is to be human, what maybe even ‘the soul’ is, or what we’re supposed to have ‘faith’ in, and, maybe particularly, even if you’re religious or maybe just worship tradition, how it can be the case that some limited amount of people get to interpret, define and impose that interpretation without robust debate with all others, and why they should be taken seriously if they can’t do that, seems to be the conversation that many can’t have, or a view that isn't seen, with just the surface political structures considered and reconfigured, without actually changing the substrate itself. See Russia again as an example of change on the surface that left what was at the base of it intact, so that most change has now been cast away and that substrate has been there all the time and reinfected all levels of politics, if not of much of society in any sense. Maybe it’s too subtle for some, but maybe it’s also because it simply requires individual human responsibility from all, and really looking to ourselves, and not to elites of experts that do it all for us (a political disconnection that really defines Russia in the last 20 years too). How people have lost belief in their deeper selves, a belief in ‘the soul’, or maybe even just a strong awareness of its reality, especially in ‘traditionalist’ and ‘conservative’ societies who seem to have turned religious ideas upside down, is the big question. And how to engage and bring in a genuine belief, and feeling for, and appreciation of, and full engagement of the actual full subjectivity of people, and an awareness of that process, and of its superiority, and far more human qualities. I think western cultures themselves, in the kind of norms they’ve developed, in the way we do debate and include to a large degree, but also perhaps in the subtler ‘cultural’ things that engage our subjectivity, such as broad freedom and innovation in music, art, literature, poetry, philosophy maybe, and also in how we allow free exploration, kind of nurture this subjectivity, grow it even, enhance it, activate it, make it far more prominent in the awareness of an individual, and that this is kind of ‘atrophied’ in authoritarians (note also that dictators and authoritarian people tend to have bad taste, or even no interest in the arts, and at best see it merel as didactic). I’ll reiterate that thing about the arts too. I suspect it has a far greater power than we’re aware of, and religion, as a kind of fusion of literature, philosophy and law, and other stuff, plays a great role here too, if read well, as I suspect it isn’t, and seen not literally, but as ‘fingers that point at the moon’. But, just talking about the arts and maybe entertainment, one big hope we have, and I think there’s a lot of truth in it, is that Russian conservatism, and that of other countries perhaps, allowed a lot of that stuff to flourish freely, because it just sees it as mindless entertainment, in its literalist, unpoetic mindset, though it has clamped down on things that it can read literally with shallow interpretations; but you have a whole generation of younger people who, much like me as a westerner, grew up with punk rock and free jazz and arthouse movies and contemporary art, or even pop music and romcoms and kitten gifs, and have a whole different perception of the world. Though those ‘conservatives’ will be wanting to close all that down in the end too, favouring only that which ‘tells you how to be good’, as if there’s nothing inside you that could even hint at you about that.

[@ruralofficeworkspace4769]

I live in Very Rural northern Wisconsin. I see the same demographic tendencies that you refer to taking place here as well. The culture here is radically different than in southern Wisconsin. Southern Wisconsin has all of the population, money, jobs... all of the power. And we up here resent it. The only time that we count at all is during the election cycles when the conservative wing of our 2 Party system gives lip service to our disenfranchisement and the left pays no attention at all. The net result is the continuation of the status quo. Interestingly, the same events are happening globally as well. I, hopefully, envision a movement towards a tech driven decentralization of power. That is assuming that we disenfranchised don't drop out of politics like the Russian population did under Putin's autocracy.

[@AaronBondSU]

@Alex please start a podcast

[@janmalek]

Hi Alex, so based on the outline (and an outline is , of course, just that) it sounds too me like you get to the key issues such as demographics, climate, etc, and the fact that we live in a very complex and imperfect world, way too late (Chapter 9). My suggestion therefore would be that you, at least, surface these issues [much] earlier than the last chapter. Hope that helps, Jan

[@stefanb6539]

Trying hard to convey a thought, that may or may not have to do with your project: How much will "the West" be able to address its own internal cynicisms and power struggles, while at the same time being in a competition with external power structures? Can moral dilemmata (und thus inevitable faults of moral authority) be admitted, or will such admittance weaken the competitive standing?

[@superman9772]

well... diplomatic relations between nations/states is usually based on the persons representing those nations/states and thus personal human nature is a variable that fibulates the world into almost predictable crisis... a frighten person will gravitate to authority and strength at the cost of personal freedom and self will ... thus education and informing citizens is critical for proper decisions of leadership and government... with the world being interconnected through technology more and more governments are leaning to the "easy fix" of banning some information within their borders... how will the future world adapt to these national "truths" and "political technologies" and what is the future protocols to remedy these "easy fixes" that are applied by national authorities... technology is changing the world so much so that the older generations are almost strangers in the world and are the younger generations really aware and prepared for the dangers and pitfalls of global government ?

[@laujack24]

the first theory is pretty much the map from orwell's 1984, even the unions in there looks some what similar with some minor difference. but over all its what it will be going into the future, with the biggest difference that its the chinese being the master of russia.

[@michaelroark2019]

The book sounds like a great idea. The most difficult part to have any longevity or relevance is Part 3, the future prognosis for the global order. So, many events, eg. wars, depressions and disease can and do occur which disrupts radically any future projection. Just think that if you were writing the section in 1910 discussing the future world order. It would be very difficult to comprehend the collapse of European empires in a few decades. The British certainly didn't if you look at the monumental government buildings that they built in the time period of 1910 in India. No one would have made that kind of investment for the future if you realized that the British empire only had a few decades left in India. So, I am not saying that you should not try, but it can become very quickly a quaint statement that will not represent anything like the future.

[@bernhardszecsodi6335]

What is the book title? I hope, that the very interesting content will be translated into in german...

[@smftrsddvjiou6443]

What about future wars between Poland and Germany ?

[@user-wy1ne2fc5m]

Actually, in my opinion, United states , Uk and Japan will be the three power centers.

[@dubceksvoboda]

Clare Daly is great !!!

[@BjorckBengt]

Speed 1.5 recommended.

[@jaymacpherson8167]

My thoughts: having text showing the theses, etc. in this video would help as some folks (me) handle visual information well and auditory info not so well. Your closing comment about the coming of order 80 to 100 years out seems likely. I think it is both democracy versus autocracy AND the west versus the rest. As you point out, multiple dynamics are at work. The vast improvement of communication along with the power that businesses have acquired globally, and their relationship with governments (particularly those state-owned businesses; Chapter 5), is where the friction between democracy versus autocracy arises. In parallel, the west has dominated recent imperialism, which creates the friction of West versus the rest. While dignified foreign policy is a great goal to which we should aspire, I am unsure of its lasting strength if more Autocrats in future mirror the behavior of Vladimir Putin. When a nation ruled by an autocrat chooses to be undignified in its foreign policy, the efficacy of dignified foreign policy withers. Sadly, we are witnessing that real time. So once Russia’s invasion of Ukraine is finished at whatever endpoint, what happens when a similar scenario recurs? Such recurrence will weaken dignified foreign policy if not coupled with disciplined and rapid force by a multinational group (more than just a few Nations). Regarding global structural challenges, I find population missing from the list. The earth has a limited carrying capacity, and without some curtailment of population growth that capacity will be exceeded to all our detriment. Climate change is likely to move that carrying capacity to an earlier date with an ever growing population. Great work, may you be well .

[@masterchinese28]

Looking forward to the "tripolar" world of Europe, US and China, I see the rise of India as a wild card of sorts. They obviously have friction with China, but also are not really aligned with the West. Next year they will surpass China for population and their economic growth has been stellar. I'd love to get Dr. Alex's view.

[@car-or-ock616]

Less keen on population growth as an engine of technological advancement. what are your views on the implosion of Xi's China along Soviet lines (plutocrats)?

[@masterchinese28]

@Car-O R-ock Xi's move away from the practical to the ideological is something to watch. The 20th conference saw the moderate, economy focused leadership get moved aside. Without term limits he's emboldened to do what he wants. Obviously he's set his agenda out there about equality all whilst beating up on domestic big tech and tanking the property sector. Ambitious goals require capital so it's expected that the back and forth between industry and government will accelerate.

[@masterchinese28]

@@car-or-ock616 The trajectory of China is still up, although at a slower pace. The Soviet Union floundered for decades before it fell apart. Those expecting to see an imminent collapse of China will be disappointed.

[@donaldjmccann]

Your book sounds interesting. I recognise it is impossible to include all factors, but it seems to me that the number of women going to University is now out-pacing men in most countries. Perhaps there may be compassionate and nurturing female politicians in the future, some of whom may also control global business. It has been mostly men, or women who feel they must act like men that have screwed over the world's political situation for centuries, perhaps you see a method to change that. Also you may want to mention that future businesses cannot indulge in limitless growth Finally, China being denied access to highly sophisticated computer chips may come as a blow to their economy, not unlike the denial of oil to Japan by the US in 1941.

[@rppavlek]

book sounds amazing, my two cents would be that more complications and multiplicity of power (up to a point of course), the better. In Shock Doctrine - N. Klein wrote something along the lines that the true downfall of western values happened with the fall of SSSR, when laissez faire capitalism really took off and she would argue, frankensteined todays Russia, among others and paved the way for a new 'gilded age'. Whereas I would not agree with her analysis completely, I agree with her conclusion that the west is 'the best' when it has incentive to outshine the competition, the alternative, 'autocracy'. I'm mostly afraid of EU becoming even more americanized, especially when it comes to healthcare, education and the welfare state, democracy (I wouldn't classify U.S. as a democracy)... my hope would be that with different balance of power and various crisis, US is somehow incentivized to be more europeanized.

[@ComeCleanAmerica]

Energy has driven evolution of life and human society and is fundamental to all ecological processes on earth. Evolution of the natural environment is subject to negative feedback so that processes tend towards a dynamic equilibrium; the evolution of human processes often ignore environmental factors as externalities that are not factored into the production and consumption, and rely on the concept of growth (profit), which is positive feedback into these human endeavors. Energy structured human evolution: first, reliance on burning wood and its impact on forested areas and emergence of agriculture; second, on coal which ushered in the industrial age of steam engines; third, on oil that enabled the transformations of globalization; and, forth, nuclear (including fission) that has to possibility of providing a stable base rate of energy which supplemented by renewable energy can enable governance for sustainable and habitable planet. Governance will require dynamic accommodation to local conditions and cultures, and provide for development of resources that result in practical improvements in sustainable practices linking local communities with regional and global networks.

[@smftrsddvjiou6443]

What happens if the US loses interest in Europe, as suggested by Peter Zeihan ?

[@woohobars]

You and Peter Zeihan need to have a sit down 😂

[@alexanderraggio4065]

"Dignified foreign relations" would be a breath of fresh air. I agree that democracy cannot be effectively spread through US-initiated war. But wouldn't you concede that, regardless of the initial rationale for invading Iraq or how quickly the conventional victory slipped into insurgency, the end result is, in fact, a functional democracy?

[@alanonmain]

What about India?

[@user-wy1ne2fc5m]

Since Japan has finished the economy transformation, the United states will pull back, the UK will expand his influence in Europe

[@LegaliseFinland]

Alex the type of guy to leak DMs with Sergey Lavrov 😂 i love it 👌

[@QuizmasterLaw]

You might enjoy or review "Globalization with Chinese Characteristics" and/or "A New Cold War: Global Strategy" I don't agree with some of your premises or predictions, but at least you're not Peter Zeihan

[@gintaginta5027]

Alex, May be it is time to speek truth about the reason of different geopolitical events? Sounds your coming book is finnish versión of well known "Why the big powers fell" by the way who is finance of

[@fbkintanar]

What happens to nationalism, after Ukraine? In one sense, it is alive and well both in the (broad) West and the rest, but it is likely very different in the coming decades. Nationalism serves as a channel for collective agency, important in the face of conflicts; but what role does it take in mid-21st century competition and cooperation? It serves up a limited scope for imagined communities, what is happening with the rise of digital platforms and (de)globalizing dynamics? What happens to sovereignty in the context of subcontinental cooperation and different agendas of decoupling of global trade? And will political structures like the WHO reimagine themselves for future global challenges? Should UN agencies or conventions (e.g., IPCCC) transform into cooperative structures for "limited" world governance? Before the next pandemic, I would like to see the a WHO-like network directly managing teaching-and-training hospitals in every part of the world, funded through the polities of local beneficiaries where they are wealthy enough, but subsidized internationally (including through paid health services to global travellers). Can we (at some level and geographical scope) start to imagine how to deal with impending catastrophes of climate, biodiversity and cultural diversity (think language extinction) in the early anthropocene? "The rest" are still in the middle of a process of decolonizing hampered by entitled, corrupt and undemocratic elites, what can we learn about postcolonial alternatives in the wake of the Ukraine war?

[@tomgnyc]

The most likely scenario is not listed here. The world will be split into two axes, generally speaking the West versus the east and global South. The Western imperialist order will start to be challenged by an alliance of Eastern and global South countries who are becoming more powerful and fearing the threat of Western imperialism. You can already see it in events like the recent joint live-fire military exercises including Russia, China, India and other states.

[@hocksooncheong3165]

it's obvious, western powers are not prepared to let others to rise the destructive intentions and actions of the west is just so obvious and blatant its not even subtle the west don't even deserve a place in the moral high ground that the west seems to believe they deserve to be at

[@car-or-ock616]

Hmmm... East + Silk Road? The American hegemony was won on the basis of sugar water-Captains Coke and Pepsi. What has China to offer to counter that? Alex is writing and speaking in English, not Finish. How many individuals are going to adopt the 2,500 Chinese characters needed to read a newspaper; 20,0000 required to be educated; or the 50,000 in circulation? I see it as a far greater possibility that Chinese nationals will pick up 26-character English, than the other way around. That an expansion of consciousness will flow from a western nexus, than any Maoist line. Let's compare the arch of civilization in the East and West. The West, it seems to me, wins hands down for being far more inclusive. China built a wall against inclusivity (the Romans built one to keep out the Scotts, yet unlike their roads, cities and aqueducts, it really didn't work very well). In the first century BCE the Roman architect Vitruvius described it this way: "Roma got classicism from Greece, and the Greeks from the Egyptians." Asia Minor bypassed. That is the great arch of a Western cultural infection unmatched in the East. At the dawn of the 14th century Marco Polo, a Venetian, traveled on the Silk Road to China. Was there ever a reciprocal journey sponsored by the imperial dynasties? No. Not that I am aware-unless we are to take the Bubonic plague under consideration. At the dawn of the 16th century the West colonized America. When did the Chinese and Indians arrive? (Yes, in most likely hood, aboriginal Americans travelled on the Siberian land bridge to the Americas 12,000 years ago... but didn't even have writing by the time of Western contact). The search for Gold Mountain, as Chineses refugees called coming to the Americas, was a bid to escape oppression, and to win a life by laboring on Western capitalist ventures like building cities and railroads. I am always checking over my shoulder to look for signs of my own western bias. But I don't see it. For example, I have studied the scroll "Along the River during Qingming Festival", from the 11th-12th century. Say, 200 years before Marco Polo. Compared to the histories of Firenze, Venezia and Roma in that same period... well, there is no comparison! As another example, I don't think we fully appreciate the role of the Mare Nostrum ("Our Sea" or the Roman name for the Mediterranean) in providing a dual function: both uniting and keeping separate a vast population. It was fluid or navigable enough to allow for trade and commerce. Roma's policy of free bread to all citizens was based on the importation of wheat from the Egyptian granaries. Yet, the Mediterranean put up enough of a barrier to discourage invasions. Like the Cossacks or the Huns riding horses across the Eurasian steppes (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steppe#/media/File:Steppe_world.png). Compare the exploits of Alexander the Great on eastern territory vs. domination of lands around the Mediterranean, etc. (www.britannica.com/biography/Alexander-the-Great). The hard historical facts are that 'development' took place in the West. I don't sense the historical forces that will change that. The Covid pandemic|fiasco has exposed Communist China wearing to clothes. While everybody still wants to wear blue jeans and make movies. China has nothing to offer developing countries compared to the West. While the Ukrainian situations promises to make inroads into the remaining areas controlled by the former antagonist. How long before democracy, of the best strains, embarks on the road to Moscow? Post a Ukrainian spring? The 'Eastern Axis' has nothing to offer by comparison. Nothing to rival it. Most noticeably not in cultural terms: history; music; art; mythology; writing; freedom of expression; even capitalism and religion. Shinto shrine or gothic cathedral? Temple of Heaven or Sistine Chapel? Red Square or Piazza San Marco?

[@aaron2709]

Well reasoned and interesting. A few thoughts: - The US should stop trying to force democracy on others, pushing its weight around the world. This is a double-edged sword. Why is no one but Russia complaining the US is 'propping up' democracy in Ukraine with all the military assistance? No one wants the US to be the 'world police'... until they do. Then the complaints roll in. Why isn't America taking care of this problem? So, be careful what you wish for. You may get it. - Academically, it's bad to keep bringing up Fukuyama's stupid proclamation. He was roundly lambasted by serious philosophers and political scientists at the time. No one with sense believed his extreme naïveté.

[@kirannnnnn]

European Union is not consider as Third pole. India , China ,USA and Russia these are four countries follows Independent sovereign foreign policy based on their interests.

[@larse3076]

In your scenarios you don't mention religion, i.e. the Islamic system. In the West we are so used to regarding religion as a private issue. In Islam state and religion are the same. This will greatly affect some weak western Europe countries like Germany and Sweden. It has already started happening, how it will evolve is extremely difficult to say, but it will change politics. Finland has a very small Islamic population but Sweden for instance will change in a way that reminds of Libanon and maybe Egypt. Make it a part of your book!

[@collintrytsman3353]

ORDER IN DISORDER..............................MORE CATCHY?

[@mysterioanonymous3206]

Yeah no I'm totally on board with the outline. Very good indeed. I'll read it. Where I have an issue is this "dignified" thing. The term alone rubs me the wrong way and I think it's because I don't see that as a viable option. I don't think it's an evidence based approach but purely ideological, which is also why I'm not too impressed by the "academic" approach. It just sounds like wishful thinking more than based on reality. We have state sponsored terrorism, regimes that torture, deceive, lie, steal IP, and so on. We have regressive states like Iran or Afghanistan who once had a future but ruined it. We have a massive radicalization problem globally. And really this is happening basically everywhere outside the west. Yet you want to make "dignified" policy? No man... You have to be kidding me. Thugs only understand one thing, and that is real power. If you had spent one day in the street you'd know that. But almost none of you academics did, and it shows. You can't reason with a bully. But who am I right, what do I know? But you guys didn't see Russia/Ukraine take off and you still have that same naive stance... Not a thing changed. Frankly, that's the very reason I'm pessimistic about the EU. The outside world played along with us due to our overwhelming "power", technologically, economically, the organisational prowess, but once that gap closes, as it does, we're in for a rude awakening. It's almost like you guys never read a history book. Guess what? People are still people... And this is one massive gamble. I was against Irak and Afghanistan (almost all interventions for that matter) but in this I'm with the Americans. Power speaks for itself. And we will all pay dearly for being such a nice naive harmless bunch over here in EU.

[@davorinrusevljan6440]

dignified foreign policy, sounds like interesting and perhaps crucial to promote world cooperation and progress. Bit I do not like choice of words for the name, dignified just sound so 19 century European posh thing. Respectful, cooperative, principal, something along those lines perhaps?

[@thusspokezarathustra]

What I most disagree with under thesis 3 is the claim that the west has not listened to developing nations or worse was disinterested in developing fair and balanced ties (both politically and economic) with powers that now wish to unsettle the 'world order' set in place since WW2. To the contrary the west has gone out of its way to open their economies to both Russia and China, as well as other developmental states such as India and the collective nations within Africa. The opening up of western economies and opportunity to trade (via WTO rules) has certainly been in the Case of Russia and China NOT to the advantage of the west. In fact right now we have our largesse towards Russia and China literally throw back in our face! The rapid increase in incorporating Russia into world trade has see Russia use these links to threaten the west - with recent eruption of war instigated by Russia it has been Russia which has cut off gas and oil supplies as well as destabilised food production (cereal exports) out of Russia and Ukraine. China has become bellicose and threatening towards any nation opposing its unwarranted and disputed claims to the South China and Tiawan (which it regards as a 'province' of China). These steps taken by Russia and China are not helpful towards maintaining global political and economic stability - to the contrary both Russia and China have moved to use their economic gains trading westward to literally attempt to destabilise and usurp power globally.

[@car-or-ock616]

I like your handle way better than mine! Globalization vis-a-vis China has blown up in our face. And what I take from that is the necessity (finally) to distinguish between governments and corporations. One group answers to the electorate on a more or less regular basis; the other answers to a circumscribed set of stock holders. Which one would you have rule over your community? Well, if I can guess your answer, I would say that not only do we agree, but we have in this proposition that cure for one of the great imbalances still present on the globe today (and of course, in globalization). [Answer: Laissez-faire as failed policy. How can governments regulate the markets when they are under the control of the entities completing in said markets? Without curbing the creative will that has made (mostly Western) corporations the fertile soil for so much innovation, how do we check the imbalances?]

[@matsfrommusic]

I’m really struggling to understand why we in the west haven’t been more aggressive towards Russia, why aren’t anyone threatening them I wonder? I bet Finland wants Karelia back , Königsberg used to be German… To me it's a little strange that the terrorist gets to dictate everything. Russia knows using nuclear would absolutely guarantee their own demise, so why?

[@bigsky7599]

The Good People Of China & Iran You Should Hold the Buildings! Take One Building at a Time / HOLD STRONG . You NOW are Wide Open in The Streets. Like Sheep Asking For Mercy from the Monsters ! Be Men ... A Man Can Say .! I Would Rather Die On My Feet ... Than Live On My Knees .!

[@will2217]

You kinda seem to think the EU and US have the same future, and are equals.

[@leoflores2874]

Will your book address the reality that autocracies tend to be amoral and have no issue with deceit and lies? How is that supposed to be managed? If this is not addressed, then any treatment in this space seems to be more academic or idealist but not practical or useful.

[@johncraig4820]

Africa and South America could create their EU equivalents to create a multipolar world. Much of Africa has interests that align with the EU and would rather join it than band together with Africa.

[@pekkoh75]

I wonder whether EU can really be seen as the third power-centre? It is obvious that US and China should be included. EU at least requires comment. I.e., is it sufficiently united or distinct from India in terms of powerfulness or politically from the US for instance. Is EU more than an adjunct to the US? Or just part of the "Rest"?

[@kirannnnnn]

European Union is not consider as Third pole. India , China ,USA and Russia these are four countries follows Independent sovereign foreign policy based on their interests.

[@pekkoh75]

@@kirannnnnn Maybe the designation is more aspirational. It is perhaps more about what could be if EU gets its act together.

[@kirannnnnn]

@@pekkoh75 As Long as US military bases in EU and NATO there is no independent foreign policy for European Union , Japan , Korea , australia , Canada , saudi etc.. Even European Union as collective entity under EU commission has lot of control on foreign policy even economic policies. May be France has some independent foreign policy in Western World Every country must follow US national interest policy when it comes to keeping US as unipolar world. There are all US vassal states ,if some one croses red line trying to free from USA clutches then there are consequences. This is not a something new those who reads history and follows geopolitics closely. Only four Countries follows Independent sovereign foreign policy both economic , military and security in all aspects China Russia India ,USA to some extent FRANCE. Even IRAN they follow what they want even they it hurt's them. European Union last 75 years for security it depended on USA , Energy after 1992 on Russia , Germany many EU countries economy on CHINA. It's common sense if we see world order from 1945.

[@pekkoh75]

@@kirannnnnn Riiighht... You including France is a bit of a contradiction in terms since France is part of NATO. EU has plenty of potential for independent policy. It is just not being expressed. But independent does not have to mean diametrically opposed to the US. If that is the measure of independence then that would be the end of Western alliance. I am not sure what Stubb means exactly (maybe read his book when it comes out). I also question how independent or dependent EU can or should be. Democracies need to stick together, otherwise there will be none in the World eventually. That is a bit of a bipolar division in the World of today (US, EU, UK, Japan, Taiwan, S. Korea, Australia, + couple of other countries vs. China and Russia, Saudi Arabia, Iran and a bunch of countries). But this bipolar arrangement is also not a good fit for us, since the authoritarian side has too much oil and money on their side. So we have to keep them from working together as much. And they try to keep us apart (EU and the US). US is the only country that has true energy independence and is also more independent from China in terms of industrial capacity when you include Mexico. EU is more dependent on China (Germany in particular). And that will bite us in the end, I reckon.

[@kirannnnnn]

@@pekkoh75 Read my comment i didn't include france as fully independent actor ,i used the phrase" to some extent france is an independent player" Ultimately US wants their Rules based order but China also wants their rules based order both countries wants other countries to follow their rules ,why i need to follow China and USA? I don't buy Autocracy vs democracy , authoritarian vs rules based order these words and lines are very pleasant to hear. Finally anything that serves my people is the ultimate order ,no one country serves my interests , every country has something to offer we need to choose the countries that helps to bulid my country in a less strings attached. I don't see any future in European Union countries , their economies are stagnated from last two decades , pensioners are growing , population is old aged and displacement birth rate is very low , Debt to GDP is a very big concern , demography is changing , Wokeism and neo liberalism in universities and institutions , deep state is doing crazy thing's. Countries who offer affordable price in commodities/energy /Technology are future countries , that means EU has nothing to offer but they have money how it is used in future let's see. Russian cheap energy , China economy ,US Security for last 75 year's and last 30 year's given lot of breathing space to European Union.From Here onwards it's not easy for European Union. Who is that strong leader in European Union at present /Future? Last 40 year's by selling final finished products to Western countries china earned 3 Trillion dollars forex reserves but last 3 years US printed 12 Trillion dollars and distributed to their people for luxury life ,so china realized they are again looted not only china all are getting looted it's unfair. So dollar is Magic US try everything to keep dollar as Trade and global reserve currency ,few players trying to reduce dollar hegemony and it is happening slowly ,US is aware of everything but there is no discussion any where .. After Hundreds of years of Western imperliasm /colonisation /hegemony first time in 21st century something is happening ,deep state in West they knows it. If you push too beyond some point no one will spare you even they suffer in this process. Countries who are self reliant are super powers , china is not a super power but they are power , no one is super power in this messy world.

[@bigbadborders]

The working class in the US has no interest in free trade. Free trade killed our industries. Your access to our markets will be much more limited, if at all. Americans have no interest in protecting countries outside our own. We need secure Canada, Mexico, and the two oceans on our west and east, including Japan and the UK. This is why politicians in the US don't talk about trade or securing the world's trade routes. You are right about one thing, the old way of doing things is over. You should check out Peter Zeihan for an American perspective on Geopolitics.

[@Samson373]

That's not what China showed. China's prosperity is attributable to the following things: the CCP getting out of the way of entrepreneurs; foreign investment; Hong Kong, the free trade/rule of law oasis thru which foreign investment in China flowed; access to the American market and later European market ; American maintenance of the global free trade trade system incl. freedom of the seas; voluntary transfer of know-how and IP from the west; and IP theft from the west. The CCP initially made valuable investments in infrastructure but those projects were so obviously needed that any sensible government would've done them. There was nothing communist about those projects.

[@publicist-Loberts]

Well as I understood you presume that US and EU will still be the West in general. I suppose the core element holding the West democracy's is institutions. But lately we see some tendency of distrust in institutions what undermines the very foundation of democracy. Have you considered possibility of ame western power center suddenly stops being democratic? Ot is it to your mind unlikely. (I have several more questions, but let's stop here for now)

[@circuitdotlt]

Wait. What country has allowed a smart guy to be a prime minister?

[@toi_techno]

Authoritarianism is all about the vanity, indignation, cruelty and rage of the leader and his ruling nobles. This is the same thing that caused WW1 and WW2. This is the challenge the democratic west faces now. If China and Russia were western democratic states there would be no issue. But the likelihood of a massive war in Asia and the subcontinent is very high based on European history.

[@RobBCactive]

The most interesting suggestion I heard was don't split by democracy vs autocracy but by rules based order vs might is right. I am sure you can see the idea is not to drive nations into the autocracy camp, but try to find incentives to reward liberal respecting of rights and fair trade. Try and aim higher, but be less perfectionist which leads to hypocrisy

[@fh5926]

Asking for "dignity" from America's foreign policy??? We're freaking cowboys! 🤣

[@zeduke8261]

I’ll fully admit to being immensely influenced by Peter Zeihan in this analysis, but generally I would say tri-polar isn’t a good fit, china and the EU have awful demographic issues that will constrain their ability to project outward, however the US is also likely to face inwards with the energy independence of shale and restoring of industry back to America and Mexico, the issue being that the continuance of global trade as we know it depends on American willingness to keep it as such which is generally a more presidential decision but overall across the board the Americans are turning inward in a way that will leave much of the world hurting more because the current system as is gives no domestic benefit for an international system now that the Soviet Union is gone