When the world gets closer.

We help you see farther.

Sign up to our expressly international daily newsletter.

Geopolitics

Our World Is "Flat" No More: Welcome To The Era Of Pure Geopolitics

The dominance of a single narrative of globalization and liberal democracy is over.

Photo of a world map

Map of the world, focus North America

Luis Rubio

-Analysis-

MEXICO CITY — As the Bolshevik leader Lenin once observed, there are decades when nothing happens and weeks in which decades take place. The big turns in history tend to go unnoticed in their decisive moments because daily life doesn't suddenly change for most people around the world.

Stay up-to-date with the latest on the Russia-Ukraine war, with our exclusive international coverage.

Sign up to our free daily newsletter.

Yet in retrospect, certain moments become crucial. Everything suggests the invasion of Ukraine is one of those turning points, with enormous implications for the world's future.


There have been other dramatic turning points in recent history, like the end of World War II, the fall of the Soviet Union and creation of the European Union, or China's estrangement from the West, especially after the 2008 financial crisis.

Geopolitics are back

While certain elements of the "new" future were taking shape before the invasion of Ukraine — like the militarized artificial islands China has been building in the South China Sea — the direct clash of Russia and the Western block has ushered in a new phase. It is certainly the end of the notion of "holidays" from history put forward by the writer George Will. It means the end of the idea that we could all escape the logic of big-power interests and collectively play under the same rules. Geopolitics are back.

This was an outcome that has been long in the making. After the end of the Cold War, economic decisions became the priority. All nations devoted themselves to winning investments to fuel their economic growth and development. The writer Francis Fukuyama famously wrote of The End of History, which firms and governments eagerly adopted as a mantra. Capitalism had won and the world was now "flat," said the journalist Thomas Friedman.

Apparently it made no difference anymore whether you invested in Germany or in Zambia. While more cautious observers like the historian Samuel Huntington insisted on enduring cultural and political differences, the dominant idea was of the world as a market.

The rise of a series of strongman rulers in the last decade was a sign of change. Regardless of their attributes or defects, their emergence reflected new socio-political realities in countries as diverse as Brazil, the United States, Turkey, China or Mexico.

When Mexican President Andrés Manuel López Obrador, says economic decisions must be subordinate to political decision-making, the message is clear: to hell with the Davos model. For citizens and business people, this means a government much less concerned with development and more with subordination, power and control.

Photo of Mexican president Andr\u00e9s Manuel L\u00f3pez Obrador

Andrés Manuel López Obrador, President of Mexico

Andrés Manuel López Obrador/ Facebook

More than Cold War tensions

These circumstances show a clear trend, identified by Huntington, which may very well become a new geopolitical reality with the Ukrainian war. The U.S. government has always tended to take decisions that overlook its commercial commitments: its size and nature lead it to suppose that the rest of the world will simply adapt.

A recent example was subsidies for electric cars, which will remove incentives to set up plants in Mexico (and Canada), showing how economic rationalism has become subordinate to political factors. For Mexico, this is a sign of developments ahead.

The return of zones of influence will not be a repeat of what existed in the Cold War, but will change the way nations interact. The information economy and AI era are changing the nature of political and economic activity, while certain rising powers, like India, will be able to limit the weight and impact of the two or three main zones of influence likely to emerge (the U.S., Russia and China).

In historical terms, zones of influence meant the preeminence of powers able to exert a measure of control and restrictions on surrounding nations. In the digital era and with the prevalence of real power factors like Sino-American rivalry in various fields, the new setup will very likely prove more tense, unpredictable and conflict-prone than the simpler, bipolar Cold War.

Separately, a nation's greatest defense in this new reality is obvious: it must fortify its development, which is only possible with a clearly focused government and a society free of major tensions. Without these, we can expect a complicated future.

You've reached your monthly limit of free articles.
To read the full article, please subscribe.
Get unlimited access. Support Worldcrunch's unique mission:
  • Exclusive coverage from the world's top sources, in English for the first time.
  • Stories from the best international journalists.
  • Insights from the widest range of perspectives, languages and countries
Already a subscriber? Log in

When the world gets closer, we help you see farther

Sign up to our expressly international daily newsletter!
FOCUS: Russia-Ukraine War

To "Not Humiliate" Putin Is The Real Danger

French President Emmanuel Macron is making a point of keeping an open dialogue with Putin, hoping to avoid a world war at all costs. But he needs to get his historical comparisons (and world wars) in order.

A poster in protest of Russian President Vladimir Putin. French President Emmanuel Macron has previously called for the need to not humiliate Putin, but some are calling it the wrong move.

Dominique Moïsi

-Analysis-

PARIS — “I know Putin well. We should not be hoping for him to leave: whoever is likely to succeed him will be much worse.”

Stay up-to-date with the latest on the Russia-Ukraine war, with our exclusive international coverage.

Sign up to our free daily newsletter.

This is what former U.S. Secretary of State Henry Kissinger said to me in 2017, while we were in New York. He was trying to moderate my growing hostility towards the Kremlin’s leader. In fact, in the same sentence, he wanted to also reassure me about the United States President Donald Trump, who had just come into the room: “He may be unpredictable, but he is not an ideologue.”

Keep reading...Show less

When the world gets closer, we help you see farther

Sign up to our expressly international daily newsletter!
You've reached your monthly limit of free articles.
To read the full article, please subscribe.
Get unlimited access. Support Worldcrunch's unique mission:
  • Exclusive coverage from the world's top sources, in English for the first time.
  • Stories from the best international journalists.
  • Insights from the widest range of perspectives, languages and countries
Already a subscriber? Log in
THE LATEST
FOCUS
TRENDING TOPICS

Central to the tragic absurdity of this war is the question of language. Vladimir Putin has repeated that protecting ethnic Russians and the Russian-speaking populations of Ukraine was a driving motivation for his invasion.

Yet one month on, a quick look at the map shows that many of the worst-hit cities are those where Russian is the predominant language: Kharkiv, Odesa, Kherson.

Watch VideoShow less
MOST READ